Georgetown County archaeologists are sounding the alarm as a Senate bill set for consideration next week could undermine Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The legislation would allow federal agencies to decide unilaterally whether infrastructure projects outweigh historic preservation concerns, potentially sidelining local input.
Local experts stress the importance of Section 106
“What’s really at stake is who controls the history that survives,” said Jodi Barnes, an archaeologist with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Barnes was among a panel of speakers in Georgetown this week urging Congress to reject the proposed changes to the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act.
State underwater archaeologist Jim Spirek highlighted recent discoveries on Prince George’s beach, where riveted‑iron artifacts lie ten feet beneath the sand. “There’s no record of a blockade runner,” Spirek noted, emphasizing that the artifacts were documented only because developers were required to conduct a Section 106 assessment before moving Pawleys Inlet and rebuilding the eroded shoreline.
Section 106: A partnership model
Section 106, which created the National Register of Historic Places, mandates that federal agencies consult with state and local officials on projects that could affect historic sites. “It calls for partnership with state and local government,” said Eric Poplin of Brockington & Associates, a cultural resource management firm.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, representing more than 800 groups, warned that the pending bill would let agencies decide if a project’s benefits outweigh preservation considerations, or even deem that a project has no significant impact on historic value.
Potential impact on local projects
State archaeologist Chris Judge explained that Section 106 reviews have been crucial for beach renourishment projects, which rely on pipelines to pump offshore sand. “Shipwrecks don’t hold up well against a cutterhead dredge,” Spirek added, underscoring the need for careful assessment.
Judge also noted South Carolina’s database of 38,000 historic sites, including 1,650 on the National Register and 45 in Georgetown County. The list has grown steadily, in part because Section 106 reviews often uncover previously unknown sites.
Bill supporters cite infrastructure delays
Proponents argue the bill is needed to reduce delays for projects such as transmission lines and pipelines that cross multiple tracts. They claim the current review process can stall critical infrastructure, harming economic growth.
Critics, however, contend that removing the public‑input requirement erodes community stewardship of heritage. Former Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge manager Craig Sasser said the review process also helps engage local residents in federal projects, noting, “So much of history is in the soil.”
What’s next?
The Senate is expected to take up the bill the week after the midterm elections. Preservation advocates plan to rally public support and push lawmakers to retain Section 106’s consultation requirements.
“We’re asking the public to rally around archaeology,” Judge said, urging South Carolinians to contact their representatives and voice opposition to the proposed changes.
Original reporting: Coastal Observer (Georgetown County) — read the source article.
