Historic Columbia Calls for Action to Protect Section 106
Monday, July 27th 2026
To Our Preservation Partners and Historic Columbia Members:
On Friday, July 24, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)—an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation of America's historic places, advises the government on policy, and oversees the Section 106 review process—voted to advance a sweeping rewrite of the federal regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The vote did not make the proposed changes final. The draft will now move through interagency review before it is published in the Federal Register for a formal public-comment period. However, the vote moved the proposal one consequential step closer to becoming federal policy.
In solidarity with fellow historic preservation organizations, businesses, and preservation-minded citizens, Historic Columbia resolutely opposes these proposed changes. They would weaken public participation, diminish meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations and state and local governments, narrow the range of historic and cultural places considered, and give federal agencies substantially greater control over reviewing the effects of their own projects.
This is not simply an administrative revision. It is an effort to dismantle the collaborative process that has helped communities protect irreplaceable places for 60 years.
What Section 106 Does
Section 106 applies when a federal agency carries out, funds, licenses, permits, or approves a project that may affect a property listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. It does not automatically stop a project, nor does it give preservation organizations, local governments, or Tribal Nations veto power.
Instead, Section 106 requires federal agencies to stop, look, and listen before making irreversible decisions. Agencies must identify historic properties that may be affected, evaluate potential harm, and consult with people who possess relevant knowledge or have a direct interest in the outcome.
When adverse effects are identified, the process creates an opportunity to explore ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate that harm. Projects can, and routinely do, move forward after Section 106 review. In many cases, they move forward with better information, greater public accountability, and fewer avoidable losses.
Preservation and progress are not opposing goals. Section 106 provides a process for balancing both.
What the Proposed Rewrite Would Change
The proposed regulations would fundamentally shift Section 106 away from consultation and toward unilateral federal agency decision-making.
Among the most serious concerns identified by national preservation, Tribal preservation and environmental-law organizations are that the proposal would:
- Make opportunities for public participation largely optional.
- Weaken the role of state and local governments in decisions affecting historic places within their jurisdictions.
- Reduce meaningful government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations and diminish recognition of Tribal expertise.
- Narrow what may qualify as a historic property, potentially excluding significant cultural landscapes, waterways, mountains and other places whose importance is not defined by a building or a compact parcel.
- Narrow the types of effects agencies must consider, including changes to a historic property’s setting, views, soundscape or broader context.
- Reduce the expectation that agencies consider ways to avoid or minimize harm.
- Give federal agencies greater authority to determine whether Section 106 applies, what resources are historic, whether harm will occur and what response—if any—is appropriate.
In effect, the agency advancing a federal project would also exercise greater control over the process intended to evaluate that project.
Supporters describe the changes as a way to reduce delays and regulatory burdens. Historic Columbia supports thoughtful improvements that make federal review more predictable and efficient, but eliminating early consultation is likely to create more uncertainty rather than less. Identifying concerns after plans are substantially complete increases the likelihood of conflict, delay, litigation, and unnecessary expense.
Why This Matters in Columbia and Richland County
Section 106 is a federal process, but its effects are local. It matters whenever federal funding, permits, licenses, or approvals are connected to projects that could affect historic properties in Columbia and Richland County. These projects may involve transportation, housing, infrastructure, disaster recovery, public facilities, or other investments that shape the places where people live and work.
Columbia contains an extraordinary concentration of historic neighborhoods, commercial areas, cultural landscapes, and community landmarks. National Register-listed districts include:
- Columbia Historic Commercial District
- Congaree Vista Historic District
- Cottontown/Bellevue Historic District
- Elmwood Park Historic District
- Melrose Heights–Fairview–Oak Lawn Historic District
- Old Shandon Historic District
- Robert Mills Historic District
- Waverly Historic District
Beyond these districts are many more properties in Columbia as well as Richland County that are listed in the National Register, nearly 200 total. National Register designation does not freeze these places in time, and it does not mean every project within these districts receives federal review. When qualifying federal involvement is present, however, Section 106 gives local governments, preservation professionals, neighborhood residents, property owners, and other stakeholders an opportunity to provide information and raise concerns before decisions are final.
That opportunity can help communities retain historic architecture, protect archaeological and cultural resources, preserve neighborhood character, and identify compatible alternatives when change is necessary.
Historic Columbia’s own properties also demonstrate the connection between federal investment and preservation responsibility. The Seibels House, Robert Mills House, and Modjeska Monteith Simkins House have benefited from federal historic-preservation grants that carried Section 106 compliance requirements.
These places are not abstractions. They tell the stories of Columbia’s architecture, politics, labor, civil rights, community life, and cultural identity. Weakening Section 106 would weaken the public’s ability to speak for places like them when federally connected projects place historic resources at risk.#advocate
What We Are Asking You to Do
The proposed regulations are not final, and there are still opportunities to act.
Contact Congress now.
Ask your U.S. representative and both of South Carolina’s U.S. senators to exercise oversight of the proposed Section 106 rewrite and oppose efforts to weaken Section 106 through this rulemaking or separate permitting-reform legislation.
Urge them to insist on a transparent process that includes meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations, state and local governments, preservation professionals, and the public. Congress should also protect the requirement that federal agencies consider how their decisions will affect historic and cultural resources.
You may use or adapt the following message:
I am asking you to oppose efforts to weaken Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Please exercise congressional oversight of the proposed rewrite of 36 CFR Part 800 and insist on a transparent process with meaningful participation by Tribal Nations, state and local governments, preservation organizations, and the public. Section 106 can be improved without eliminating the consultation and accountability that have protected historic and cultural places for 60 years.
Click on the links below to make your voice heard!
Congressman James E. Clyburn
Congressman Joe Wilson
Senator Tim Scott
Senator Darline Graham
Contact Your Legislators Directly Suggested Phone Scripts
Prepare to submit a public comment.
After interagency review, the proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register for an approximately 30-day public-comment period. Historic Columbia will share the official notice, deadline, and instructions when that period opens.
We encourage our members and partners to begin considering which local places, projects, and community experiences demonstrate the value of Section 106. Personal and place-based comments matter. Federal officials need to hear not only from national organizations and technical experts, but also from the people who live in the communities these regulations affect.
Share this information.
Send this post to neighborhood leaders, preservation advocates, architects, planners, historians, archaeologists, environmental organizations, and anyone who cares about the future of historic places.
Section 106 is not gone, but the process to weaken it has advanced. This is the time to speak up.
Historic Columbia will continue to monitor the rulemaking and provide clear, action-focused updates as additional information becomes available.
With respect and dedication,
Suzanne Brooks
Executive Director
John M. Sherrer III
Director of Preservation
To learn more about this issue and forward the cause of historic preservation, please consult these resources:
Sources and Further Reading
- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: ACHP Votes to Move Forward with Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- LAist: Trump Allies Vote to Weaken Protections for Historic Sites, Not Just in D.C.
- National Trust for Historic Preservation: Section 106 Is Under Threat
- National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers: July 2026 Updates
- U.S. House of Representatives: Find Your Representative
- United States Senate: Contact a U.S. Senator