November 11, 2026
The relocation of railroad tracks near Station Park in Providence in the 1980s underwent federal historic preservation review because of its proximity to the Rhode Island State House, the Providence Preservation Society says. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)
One of the largest and oldest preservation groups in Rhode Island’s capital city is opposing a sweeping federal permitting bill cosponsored by U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse that proposes changes to the National Historic Preservation Act.
The Providence Preservation Society, a citywide advocacy group founded in 1956, says the legislation could undermine the public’s participation in local development. The group is also worried that the legislation could do away with the consultations typically undertaken with state and tribal preservation officials concerning projects in their communities.
The preservation society first raised its concerns with Whitehouse in an Oct. 23 letter, followed by similar correspondence to the state’s senior senator, Jack Reed, on Nov. 2. Both messages were received by the senators in advance of Monday’s 73-25 vote that saw the Senate advance consideration, but not final passage, of H.R. 2347 — an unrelated bill already passed by the House that is being used as a vehicle for the senate legislation.
Whitehouse is the top ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is chaired by West Virginia’s Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. The permitting reform legislation is spearheaded by this committee and the Senate Energy Committee, led by Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee and New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich.
Whitehouse and Reed voted to advance the legislation Monday.
The permitting reform bill has some bipartisan support, although it has also faced opposition from some Democrats who have concerns over the bill’s intention of streamlining the approval pipeline for energy-related construction projects.
Permitting overhaul advances in US Senate with tepid bipartisan support
Providence Preservation Society Executive Director Marisa Angell Brown explained in emails to Rhode Island Current that her organization is opposed to the bill for different reasons.
Revisions made on Saturday axed an earlier provision which would have let the Interior Department take over certain Tribal Historic Preservation Officers’ responsibilities. It also requires federal agencies to conference with local parties consulting on federal construction projects, and would lengthen the period in which local stakeholders can issue a formal objection.
These proposed amendments have not totally soothed her group’s concerns, Brown said Tuesday.
“We have reviewed the amendment, and while there have been a few changes that addressed some of the Tribal concerns, we are still opposed to the bill,” Brown said in an email.
The Preservation Society is most concerned about proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which outlines the review process federal agencies must undertake when embarking on projects that could affect historic properties.
Under current regulations, state and tribal historic preservation officials must be consulted before projects begin, and agencies also need to provide a chance for local governments and the public to have their say in the process. These regulations are meant to identify potential harm to historic properties so agencies can avoid, minimize or mitigate the damage and prevent what federal regulations dub an “adverse effect.”
The proposed permitting legislation, Brown said, could overwrite these regulations and leave out comparable requirements for public involvement.
“The bill still does not enshrine in law the public’s ability to substantially inform projects that may take place in their communities,” Brown wrote Tuesday, echoing a concern she had written in an earlier email on Friday: “The bill is silent on if the public must be considered. When the public is allowed to participate, it is only in the form of public comment in a small window of time.”
Brown was also concerned that the revised legislation would narrow just exactly what the federal government defines as an “adverse effect” of a project, noting that the weekend’s revisions “still limit what is recognized as harm or whether harm to a cultural resource/historic property is recognized at all.”
The current set of federal regulations acknowledges outcomes which alter historic properties either “directly or indirectly.” The latter is omitted in the proposed permitting legislation.
In a statement responding to Saturday’s amendment, the National Trust for Historic Preservation shared similar concerns, writing that the organization “supports efforts to make federal permitting more efficient, predictable, and timely.”
“But efficiency should not come at the expense of meaningful consultation, public participation, Tribal sovereignty, or the consideration of historic properties in federal decision-making,” the statement continued.
What might change in Providence specifically under the permitting bill, if passed into law?
In her Tuesday email, Brown said she had pondered over the weekend how Providence’s landscape had been reshaped by urban renewal during the 1950s and 1960s. Approximately 9% of the city’s landmass, Brown said, was redeveloped during this time. It mostly affected communities of color.
“So much of that redevelopment was driven by federal highway construction,” Brown wrote. “The next wave of federal infrastructure projects will likely be tied to green energy — which is so critical — but my fear when I think about the changes underway is that they would pave the way, again, for neighborhoods like South Providence to take the brunt of development as resourced neighborhoods often have access to attorneys to help fight plans while less-resourced neighborhoods are more dependent on regulations like Section 106.”
Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey Emidy was not immediately available for comment Tuesday, but his office sent an August statement from Emidy concerning a separate proposal to revise regulations in Section 106.
Emidy wrote then that his office reviews more than 1,000 federally connected projects annually. Most leave historic properties unscathed, Emidy wrote, noting that the “vast majority of federal projects that occur in Rhode Island do not impact historic properties.”
But consultations remain an important part of the process, Emidy wrote, and involve “assessing and mitigating possible impacts, and suggesting alternatives to avoid adverse impacts.”
One example offered by Brown, although she said it was “long past,” involved the Rhode Island State House itself. The relocation of the train tracks and Station Park — which sit across the street from the State House — were required to undergo an older version of the Section 106 process, Brown said.
Meaghan McCabe, a spokesperson for Whitehouse, said in an email Tuesday that Saturday’s amendment “protects by statute the consultation rights of historic preservation groups and other interested parties.”
Whitehouse also defended the permitting overhaul in a joint statement released after Saturday’s amendments, characterizing the changes as incorporating “the thoughtful feedback we have received.”
“Now it’s time to pass this bill so we can lower costs, juice the clean energy economy, build big things again in America, reduce pollution, and create tons of new well-paying union jobs,” Whitehouse said in the statement.
An explainer on the permitting legislation published in October by the Bipartisan Policy Center, meanwhile, noted that “a Section 106 review can run for years without a fixed end date.”
“The burden falls hardest on linear infrastructure, which crosses hundreds of miles and dozens of jurisdictions, each with its own preservation office working through a backlog,” the article stated, noting that Section 106 “can add years to a schedule before construction begins” and delay the improvements to grid infrastructure the legislation seeks to expedite.
The legislation remains under Senate consideration before it can head toward a final vote.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.
Courtesy of Rhode Island Current
