Preservationists Alarmed By Proposed Changes To Federal Bylaw

The Trump administration is considering changes that would sharply limit a federal historic preservation bylaw governing some projects on Nantucket. While Nantucket has robust local historic preservation rules, certain projects are exempt, and the changes would reduce the town’s ability to constrain these proposals, even if historic preservation advocates say they might impact the island’s status as a national historic landmark.

Last July, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted to advance a proposal to rewrite the implementing language of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which mandates that all federal or federally-assisted projects that have implications for a historic property undergo a review intended to ensure that historic impacts are properly understood and accounted for.

Under the new implementation rules, review would only need to consider the direct physical changes associated with proposed projects, not indirect consequences like visual impacts. The new rules would also exclude many projects currently under the jurisdiction of Section 106 that receive minimal federal funding or are overseen by state and local agencies.

The proposed rewrite would also centralize control of the review process at the federal level, giving the federal government more power to determine if a proposed project has historic impacts and how to address those impacts while reducing the role of local agencies and tribes. Preservation organizations and concerned members of the public would no longer be considered consulting parties under the rewrite, and local governments would lose their entitlement to consult on projects.

Some of the projects governed by Section 106 are subject to review by Nantucket’s Historic District Commission, but others are not.

Nantucket Preservation Trust executive director Rita Carr gave a few examples of projects that do not need HDC approval, including roadway redesigns, like proposed changes to the Milestone rotary.

“Some [projects], like the roadway redesigns, don't require HDC review, and technically speaking, federal lands like the Coast Guard station are exempt from HDC review,” Carr said.

Carr added that the Coast Guard wants to replace historic wooden towers atop the station that date back to 1908 with standardized concrete and steel towers. Under the current guidelines, that plan has to go through Section 106 review. If the proposed changes to how the act is implemented go through, similar plans may not need to do so in the future.

Another example of a project that was subject to Section 106 review is the Vineyard Wind offshore wind farm. Section 106 was a significant part of the leverage the town used to push the wind farm back a mile and secure special paint to make the turbines less visible.

The changes to Section 106 are not yet a done deal. At the moment, they remain under federal review.

Carr and other historic preservation advocates see the rewrite of the implementation rules as an effort to weaken historic preservation and steamroll community review in the name of Trump’s agenda.

“With the current federal administration, the composition of that council is now pushing forward these changes,” Carr said. “Within the broader preservation field nationally, there is an understanding these changes are being pushed to make it easier to build President Trump's ballroom at the White House and the [proposed United States] Triumphal Arch.”

Supporters of the change argue that the historic review process is bloated and slow, backing up important projects, including much-needed infrastructure work, and making it more expensive and time-consuming to build things like transmission lines and rail. The changes, they argue, would incentivize economic activity and promote efficiency without eliminating historic review.

The move is part of the Trump administration’s broader deregulatory agenda, which has included similar revisions to the Endangered Species Act and federal limits on pollution.

In addition to the shifts in implementation proposed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Congress is looking at altering the act itself, though any Congressional changes will have to make it through both chambers even as the Republican and Democratic parties vie for control in the upcoming midterm election.

Carr said that she hopes that local organizations will continue to seek historic review for projects, even if the Section 106 guidelines are changed and they are no longer legally required to do so.