As a federal agency and a group of senators deliberate how to make permitting development easier, Ohio’s state historic preservation office is blowing the whistle on what’s at risk.
Anything that uses federal dollars – from highway expansion to public housing development – requires archaeological review. That’s because of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These rules require federally funded construction to consider and mitigate harm to historic sites during development.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal agency, wants to rewrite the Section 106 regulations to make consulting state, local and tribal stakeholders on projects optional.
It argues that the current process delays project timelines, claiming the revisions "agencies strike a more appropriate balance between evaluating effects on historic properties and advancing critical federal projects,” according to a July internal memo.
Senators proposing the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act call for similar changes, specifically to make way for easier approval of energy projects.
That could mean historic buildings, archeological sites, and cultural landscapes might not have the same level of comprehensive review, according to Ohio’s State Historic Preservation Office. The Senate permitting bill is scheduled for a procedural vote on Nov. 9.
“This bill actually changes the National Historic Preservation Act itself, including which projects require historic preservation, what impacts must be considered, and taking the public's voice and state's voice out of these projects and really giving the federal agency all discretion on what happens to historic places when they come into a state and undertake a project,” said Ohio’s State Historic Preservation Officer Diana Welling.
The State Historic Preservation Office is a division of Ohio History Connection. Ohio’s state historic preservation office reviewed 6,000 development projects in 2025 alone. The office advises federal agencies on ways to avoid disturbing historic resources. If either of these proposals happen, Welling said projects might not receive the same level of scrutiny.
“The consultation process never meant to stop projects,” Welling said. “Projects still move, but it's just kind of a pause button to make sure that federal agencies are required to speak to the local community and the SHPO and tribes about places that matter to them in their communities.”
She’s not alone in her concern; in light of the efforts, OHC pursued a community survey of 1,185 participants.
- 90% of respondents agreed federal agencies should be required to consider historic resources when undertaking projects
- 92% of respondents agreed federal agencies should be required to notify state and local governments of proposed damage or destruction to historic places in their state or community.
- 88% of respondents agreed federal agencies should be required to allow the public to comment on federal historic preservation policies or actions
- 88% of respondents agreed the federal government should be required to consult with Tribal and Native communities about cultural resources they consider significant or sacred.
“I think these results really demonstrate strong support for protecting historic places, maintaining opportunities for public input, and also ensuring that our tribal nations and tribal partners have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their cultural heritage,” Welling said.
Welling said their office is bringing their concerns to Ohio’s congressional leaders. The public comment period for ACHP’s changes hasn’t opened yet, but when it does, it will last for 30 days.
