October 15 marked 60 years since the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was signed into law. For six decades, Section 106 of that law has given communities, Tribal Nations, local governments, and the public a voice before federally funded or permitted projects alter the places they love. That includes the parks, parkways, campuses, cemeteries, and other landscapes at the heart of the Olmsted legacy. Sixty years ago, Congress decided that the public deserved a say in what happens to the places that hold our shared history. That promise is worth defending.

This anniversary arrives at a precarious moment. In July, we shared our opposition to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) proposed rewrite of the regulations that implement Section 106. That proposal is still pending. But a second, more permanent threat has since emerged: legislation that would write many of those same changes, and more, directly into federal law. The Olmsted Network has joined the 106 Strong coalition to fight it.

What’s changed since July

On September 30, Senate leaders released the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, a broad permitting bill. For decades, the details of Section 106—including who gets consulted, how the public participates, and what counts as harm—have been set by regulation. This bill would go further, writing a much narrower version of the process directly into the NHPA itself, making the changes far harder to undo.

Among the most consequential changes:

  1. The public would lose its guaranteed voice. The bill would eliminate Section 106’s existing requirements for public notice and opportunities to comment before decisions are finalized.
  2. Far less would count as harm.  The bill would sharply limit consideration of visual, atmospheric, and auditory effects. It would also narrow the area agencies must review and the portions of historic properties they consider.
  3. Far fewer projects would be reviewed. Projects whose only federal involvement is financial assistance not primarily intended for historic preservation would be excluded, potentially removing certain highway, housing, and disaster recovery projects from review.
  4. Large projects would be reviewed only in part. For projects like pipelines or transmission lines, only the portions under substantial federal control would be considered, even if the rest of the project damages historic places.
  5. Agencies could decline to act. Even when harm is documented, federal officials could decide, in their “sole discretion,” that “other considerations” outweigh preservation and decline to require measures to avoid or reduce damage.
  6. Courts would have fewer ways to stop harm. Even if an agency violated historic preservation law, courts generally could not halt a project or invalidate its approval solely for that violation. Construction could continue while errors are corrected.
  7. Tribal nations will lose significant control. The bill would also expand federal authority over both state and Tribal historic preservation programs, including the power to suspend funding and assume certain functions. Tribal preservation leaders warn that the changes would weaken meaningful consultation and threaten the protection of sacred and culturally significant places.

For large, interconnected landscapes—like Olmsted park systems and parkways—these changes are especially troubling. A parkway doesn’t have to be demolished to be ruined; a severed view, new noise, or fragmented route can undo the qualities that make the entire landscape significant. Under this bill, many of those harms would no longer count.

Where things stand

The Senate is expected to hold an initial procedural vote on November 9. Meanwhile, the ACHP’s regulatory rewrite remains under White House review. When it is published in the Federal Register, we anticipate a public comment period—and we will weigh in.

The Olmsted Network has joined more than 800 Tribal Nations and organizations in the 106 Strong coalition. The coalition isn’t opposed to permitting reform. It is opposed to changes that sacrifice historic places and the public’s voice in decisions about their future.

Section 106 doesn’t guarantee that every historic place will be saved. It ensures that potential harm is considered and communities have a chance to be heard before decisions are made.

How you can help