New Administration’s Overhaul of Section 106: What It Means for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeology Jobs

The current administration is implementing a series of executive actions and administrative changes that are fundamentally reshaping the Section 106 review process established under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Traditionally, Section 106 mandates that federal agencies assess the potential effects of their projects on historic properties and archaeological sites through comprehensive surveys, evaluations, and extensive consultations with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and other stakeholders. These reviews have historically provided steady work for thousands of professionals in cultural resource management (CRM) and archaeology.

A Shift Toward Streamlined Reviews

Under the new policy directives, federal agencies are being instructed to accelerate the permitting process for energy projects by abbreviating or curtailing the detailed Section 106 consultations. For example, declarations of a “national energy emergency” and the rollback of previous environmental protections are being used as justifications to expedite projects related to fossil fuel development and energy extraction. As a result, the extensive, time‐intensive work that typically falls to CRM and archaeological professionals is being reduced in scope or bypassed entirely.

“Streamlined procedures are intended to reduce red tape, but they also mean that fewer archaeological surveys and cultural resource evaluations are performed,” explains one preservation expert. This move is designed to facilitate faster energy production by prioritizing economic development over the careful preservation of historic sites.

Funding, Workforce, and Priorities

The implications of these changes extend beyond administrative procedure:

? Reduced Workload and Funding: With fewer projects undergoing full Section 106 reviews, the demand for detailed historic and archaeological surveys is expected to decline. Funding allocations that previously supported these labor-intensive tasks may be reallocated or diminished, which in turn could lead to fewer job opportunities for CRM professionals and archaeologists.

? Shift in Policy Priorities: By emphasizing rapid energy development over comprehensive historic preservation, the new administration signals a major policy shift. The underlying message is that economic growth and energy independence are being placed above traditional preservation practices. This rebalancing of priorities may undermine the extensive consultation processes that have long been a source of work—and professional expertise—for cultural resource managers.

? Impact on Expertise and Employment: Prior to the enactment of the NHPA, many archaeologists and preservation specialists worked mainly in academia. Today, cultural resource management offers an alternative career path that does not necessarily require a PhD. However, with the abridgment of Section 106 reviews, the demand for these professional services is likely to drop, potentially leading to layoffs or reduced hiring in the sector.

Balancing Development and Preservation

Critics of the new approach warn that while streamlined reviews may boost short-term energy production and lower regulatory hurdles, they risk significant long-term damage to the nation’s cultural heritage. The deep-rooted consultation process—designed to ensure that historic properties and archaeological sites are properly identified, evaluated, and protected—has also been a key driver of economic activity in many communities. Local economies have historically benefited from heritage tourism and preservation projects, which not only safeguard history but also create jobs.

Proponents of the policy change argue that reducing regulatory burdens will stimulate economic development by accelerating energy projects and unlocking resource potential on federal lands. Yet, this rapid development model could come at the cost of diminished cultural resource protections and a shrinking workforce of professionals dedicated to historic preservation.

Conclusion

The current administration’s executive actions to expedite energy-related projects by curtailing the detailed Section 106 review process are expected to impact cultural resource management and archaeology jobs significantly. While the intent is to remove bureaucratic delays and promote energy independence, the streamlined review process will reduce the funding and employment opportunities available to professionals in these fields, ultimately shifting the balance between economic development and heritage preservation.

Resources and References

? National Historic Preservation Act and Section 106 Overview:

U.S. General Services Administration. “Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.”?

? ACHP Guidance on Archaeology and Historic Preservation:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. “Section 106 Archaeology Guidance.”?

? Recent Policy Shifts and Energy Agenda:

Reuters. “US Interior Department takes first steps to carry out Trump energy agenda.”?