07/25/2026
🚨If you care about historic resources and archaeological sites, please read this!🚨
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is currently considering significant revisions to the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This federal legislation currently ensures that projects with federal involvement must consider impacts to cultural resources and sites during project planning. This process brings together federal agencies, Tribal Nations, State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), local governments, preservation professionals, and the public to identify and consider places that matter to communities.
If allowed, the proposed changes will substantially reduce opportunities for consultation and public involvement in the review process. This would place the decision making about historic properties strictly in the hands of the federal agencies and REMOVE States, Tribes, Descendants, and Local Communities from the process.
🚩What does this mean for the people of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, and the rest of the country?
👎🏼 Significantly less protections for archaeological sites that will be impacted by development projects
👎🏼 Eliminated, limited, or shortened opportunities to voice concern about the destruction of cultural resources
👎🏼 If public consultation would delay development projects, they will be excluded from the process
👎🏼 Even if resources in need of protection are identified, federal agencies can ignore them to reduce review time and project cost
🚩What types of “development” projects are we talking about?
St. Johns County is the fastest-developing county in Florida. Any development projects that are carried out, funded, permitted, licensed, or approved by a federal agency were required to undertake the Section 106 process. Some examples of projects would be: wetland infilling, highway development, bridges, infrastructure, projects on federal land, cell towers, gas pipelines, railroads, modifications to shorelines, and dredging…just to name a few.
🚩What do we need to do?
We have only a 30-day window for the public to comment on these revisions. While the window is not yet open, we want to make sure everyone understands what we stand to lose if this is allowed. We will share updates when public comment is opened!
To read a more comprehensive analysis from the American Cultural Resources Association - ACRA about the proposed updates to Section 106, please visit the link below.
https://acra-crm.org/achp-draft-proposed-regulations-an-analysis/?fbclid=IwdGRjcATR0dNwZG9mBWZkaWQWULPOb4Z9YXH6kytSVm2g78KQv2HUeGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR73X5XFoAeT7Pmhiym9Dlsfis1dOPvhzpmxH4EQTz_dn15Bkg4UQrsJcnAtYA_aem_B272H9aJWBaq3o8XHlnwNA
ACHP Draft Proposed Regulations: An Analysis by [email protected] | Jul 24, 2026 | ACRAsphere | 0 comments A preliminary assessment of the ACHP’s proposed overhaul of the 800 regulations that implement Section 106 finds that the changes will lead to more project delays, more confusion about the ...