Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order last week aimed at speeding up historic preservation reviews often required for energy development and other projects on federal land.
The Thursday secretarial order instructs agency officials to be timely in their processing of reviews, to create lists of activities that can be exempted from historic evaluations and use alternative arrangements to accelerate reviews.
“We’re cutting red tape, clearing bureaucratic roadblocks, and making sure government isn’t standing in the way of American communities,” an Interior spokesperson said Monday. “This Secretary’s Order will allow the Department to consider any effects on historic properties in a more meaningful and timely fashion, and require the same of states and tribes.”
The changes at Interior come as the Trump administration is considering major changes to historic reviews, which are required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Those reviews apply to a wide array of federal projects, from oil and gas drilling out West that can disrupt sites considered sacred by Native American tribes to President Donald Trump’s projects to build and renovate across Washington. Congressional Republicans have also pushed for changes, saying the regulations slow down federal permitting of energy and other infrastructure projects.
Critics have said the broader proposed changes from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which have not yet been implemented and are currently being considered by the White House, would cut out input from tribes and states while allowing for faster approvals of energy developments.
One of Interior’s changes implemented on Thursday tells agencies to do reviews more efficiently by using “program alternatives” that can expedite historical reviews of more routine matters. Another tweak limits what’s known as “offsite compensatory mitigation,” which aims to offset harm to property when it cannot be avoided through work at another location. That part of the order mirrors a similar directive Interior implemented during the first Trump administration, in 2020.
Some historic preservation advocates raised concerns about Interior’s de-emphasis of mitigation.
Erik Hein, executive director of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, said that sometimes offsite mitigation is the best option for a project, and that he doesn’t want agencies to “forgo” that alternative if it’s the best one.
He also said he was worried about a directive for agencies to create lists of activities that are not expected to harm historic places without first consulting with states or other entities.
But Hein said he supports efforts to make historic reviews function more smoothly, pointing to the adoption of categorical reviews for some activities.
“There are some good things here,” Hein said.
Historic preservation advocates said the timing of Interior’s order was confusing, as it operates under rules which may soon be entirely rewritten. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation approved its larger revision of regulations in July, a proposal that has been criticized by congressional Democrats negotiating with Republicans on permitting reform. Democrats have said the draft language would cut out meaningful input for Native American tribes.
“It’s kind of a left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing situation here,” said Christopher Cody, associate general counsel for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
About the ACHP proposal, an Interior spokesperson previously said that it is “premature and irresponsible” to discuss and describe the draft before it has been officially published.
“The Department’s goal is to modernize the Section 106 regulations to provide greater clarity, consistency, and efficiency while fully carrying out the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act,” the spokesperson previously said. “The rulemaking process is designed to solicit public input, and interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to review the proposal and submit comments once it is published.”
Cody said that offsite mitigation, which the Interior order from last week de-emphasizes, can be useful when onsite mitigation will have little benefit or is not feasible.
As an example, he cited a wind project that was going to damage archaeological sites in a remote location. To mitigate for the lost archaeological sites, the developer agreed to pay for a museum exhibit about the history of the area in a nearby town, which ultimately would bring benefits to many more people than a similar exhibit at the wind farm, he said.
“There are some very rural, remote areas where some of these projects have major impacts on historic resources, and it’s hard to have mitigation onsite that is meaningful and has a meaningful public benefit,” Cody said.
Marion Werkheiser, the managing partner at Cultural Heritage Partners, a law firm that specializes in historic preservation cases, agreed, and said that off-site mitigation can often allow developers to begin construction more quickly.
She said that the changes will make it “much harder to keep development projects on budget and on time.”
“By disfavoring offsite mitigation, Interior takes away one of the Department’s tools for resolving adverse effects to historic properties, making it more difficult to find win-win solutions to conflicts between federal projects and community values,” Werkheiser said.
