Another Federal Overreach: A Critical Preservation Safeguard is at Risk
What's at Stake for Charleston
For six decades, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has given communities an important opportunity to weigh in when federal projects could affect historic and cultural resources. Now, the regulations that dictate how the law is implemented are being rewritten to strip state, local and tribal governments of their voices.
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their projects on historic properties and local communities. It provides opportunities for preservation organizations, local governments, Tribal Nations, state officials, and the public at large to participate in the process when cultural resources are concerned.
It does not mean projects are stopped, nor does it guarantee that every comment will result in a change. It does, however, help avoid the accidental destruction of communities and cultural resources by giving locals a seat at the table to provide valuable input.
From major infrastructure projects like widened roads and bridges to telecommunications equipment in the historic district (yes, this includes the infamous “toilet paper tower”), Section 106 has helped Charleston's preservation community have a forum to raise concerns, explore alternatives, and work toward better outcomes with the project leaders.
Now, that process could disappear.
Taking direction from President Trump, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is proposing a substantial revision of the regulations that govern how federal agencies carry out this process. On July 24, 2026, the ACHP voted to advance a draft that removes an enormous ability for oversight from multiple levels of government. This means they formally got the ball rolling to make the revisions a reality. The draft is now moving through the federal interagency review process before it is published in the Federal Register for public comment.
What’s included in the proposed rulemaking:
- Federal agencies would no longer be required to actively seek ways to avoid or minimize damage to historic places, which is a huge and important part of this whole process.
- Consultation with state and local governments, Tribal Nations, and the public would be significantly reduced or made optional.
- Large swaths of important cultural landscapes (from cities to rural areas) would lose protection.
- Agencies would not be obligated to consider broad impacts to historic resources and could focus only on direct physical damage.
These changes raise an important question: What happens when fewer people have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that affect the places they know and care about?
Section 106 in Action
Without the Section 106 review process as it exists today, several major projects in Charleston would have had significantly different outcomes:
Charleston Place:
In the late 1970s, a proposal to build a hotel and convention center in the heart of downtown Charleston sparked a fierce debate over the balance between preservation and economic development. Initial plans called for a 419-room, nine-story hotel surrounded by a four-story perimeter structure at the former Belk department store site on King Street. Because the City had received a federal grant to acquire land for the convention center and parking garage, the project was subject to Section 106 review, creating an opportunity for public consultation and allowing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate. Through that process, stakeholders acknowledged that the project would have an adverse effect on the historic district and worked together to identify appropriate mitigation measures. HCF urged a reduction in the project’s height and a reduction in the size of the parking garage to preserve not only the facades but also the front sections of the cast-iron commercial buildings on Meeting Street that were slated for demolition under the initial proposal. HCF also expressed concern about the proposed large convention center component, which suggested an intention to attract large gatherings that could further increase the already significant number of tourists visiting the city.
In January 1979, members of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation came to Charleston to take public testimony. At the hearing, HCF went on record with conditional endorsement of the project, subject to a review of all aspects of the plan by a panel of architects brought in by the foundation. HCF subsequently brought three architects to Charleston, who issued a report supporting the concept of the project and its effort to line the perimeter of the site with low-rise structures. The architects recommended reducing the project’s height by eliminating two or three stories and advised against widening Market Street. They also urged the redesign to pay greater attention to the architectural character of King Street and recommended using the Art Deco movie theater across the street as a large meeting room rather than constructing a new gathering space.
In July 1979, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding allowing the development to move forward. As a result of this process, Charleston Place was ultimately reduced to eight stories and significantly scaled back in scale and mass to better fit the architectural character of the historic district. The agreement also required the rehabilitation of the first forty feet of nine historic buildings on meeting street, with their facades restored at municipal expense. In addition, the city agreed to implement a tourism management plan designed to minimize the impact of visitors and their vehicles on the historic district. In 1984, the project received final approval from the Board of Architectural Review, and the Charleston Place development opened for business in 1986.
The project demonstrates how Section 106 can bring stakeholders to the table, provide a meaningful opportunity for public input, and help identify a path forward that balances development with the preservation of historic resources.
James Island Connector:
Transportation projects can have enormous consequences for historic communities, and the James Island Connector provides a powerful local example. The original proposal included an off-ramp onto Broad Street, which would have dumped additional traffic into Charleston’s Old and Historic District and had horrible impacts to its historic character. During the Section 106 review after strong local opposition, officials raised concerns about the impact of this alignment and considered alternatives. The connector was moved farther north to connect with Calhoun Street instead of Broad, reducing its impact on the district while still providing an important transportation connection. Without Section 106 review, we would have 20,000 cars daily funneled onto Broad Street—in the heart of Charleston’s historic neighborhoods.
Charleston Courthouse Annex:
In 1980, When the General Services Administration proposed a large modern courthouse addition near Charleston's historic Four Corners of Law, HCF and other preservationists raised concerns about the project's negative effect on the surrounding historic district, including St. Michael's Church and City Hall. Through the Section 106 consultation process, the ACHP, preservation groups, government officials, and the public raised these concerns. Although GSA initially planned to continue with the original proposal, continued opposition led the agency to reconsider. The final plan preserved the park, changed the annex’s location and design, and screened it from the Four Corners of Law. Construction still moved forward, but with much less impact on Charleston’s historic character.
Battery Extension:
The Battery Extension provides a current example of why this consultation continues to matter. Because of federal involvement, the project is subject to Section 106 review regarding the sea wall’s potential effects on Charleston’s historic landscape. HCF and other preservation stakeholders are actively participating in the ongoing process to identify potential impacts, raise concerns, consider alternatives, and work with the project team to find solutions that address Charleston’s flooding needs while respecting the historic character of Charleston's historic districts. The project design has evolved from one of a military-like T-wall to a scenic linear park that also addresses storm surge and tidal flooding.
In summary:
The Section 106 review process in Charleston has resulted in better outcomes!
- Charleston Place: The hotel was originally proposed to be significantly taller and would have demolished historic resources along Meeting Street while preserving only their facades.
- James Island Connector: The project would have included an off-ramp directly onto Broad Street, significantly changing traffic patterns and the surrounding historic district.
- Charleston Courthouse Annex: The annex would have been significantly larger, not as well designed, and taken up a portion of an existing park.
These examples demonstrate an important point: preservation is not simply about saying “no.” It is about asking questions before decisions are made. The process always leads to a stronger project for all parties.
Section 106 creates a forum for all of us to ask important questions. Could a project be designed differently? Could an impact be avoided? Is there an alternative location? What historic resources might be affected? How will a change alter the character of a neighborhood or cultural landscape?
Rather than discovering problems after a project is already underway, Section 106 provides an opportunity to identify them early, when changes and compromises are possible.
For Historic Charleston Foundation, maintaining that opportunity is critical. The voices of states, local communities, and preservation organizations should continue to be part of decisions affecting our nation's historic and cultural resources.
Next Steps
Now: The proposed rule rewriting the regulation is under review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Interested organizations, governments, and stakeholders can request meetings with OIRA to share their concerns. HCF has joined partners in submitting letters to the Governor, as well as members of Congress. We hope that Governor McMaster will be an advocate at the federal level—the proposed changes negatively impact our state’s ability to participate in federal projects.
Read our letters here.
Coming Soon: ACHP is expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, opening a public comment period. Your voice and input will be critically important at this time! We will let you know how to make comments.
Want to take action now? You don’t have to wait for the public comment period to open. Write to the Governor today and let him know why protecting meaningful participation in the Section 106 process matters to you.
We’ll share more information about how to submit public comments once the comment period opens. Stay tuned for updates.