08/06/2026
One of the most important historical tools you didn't even know existed is in danger.
For 60 years, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has helped protect the places that tell America’s story.
When a project involves federal funding, permits, licenses, approvals or property, Section 106 requires the responsible federal agency to consider how that project could affect historic and cultural resources. Just as importantly, it creates a process through which tribal nations, state and local governments, preservation organizations, property owners, and members of the public can contribute information and help identify workable solutions.
Section 106 does not automatically stop projects. It ensures that historic places are identified, potential harm is understood, and alternatives are considered before final decisions are made. This consultation process has helped communities balance preservation with transportation, housing, energy, broadband, infrastructure, and disaster-recovery needs.
On July 24, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted 16–5, with two abstentions, to advance a sweeping rewrite of the regulations governing Section 106.
The proposal is now being reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the federal Office of Management and Budget. If that review is completed, the proposal will be published in the Federal Register, and a formal public-comment period will begin. Public comments are not yet being accepted, but action is needed now.
This is not a routine update. The proposal would fundamentally change how federal agencies identify historic properties, evaluate potential harm, consult with communities, and determine whether damage should be avoided or reduced.
Under the proposed regulations:
Federal agencies could complete their own analysis before consulting parties have a meaningful opportunity to help shape it.
State and local governments could lose their guaranteed opportunity to participate when federally connected projects threaten historic places in their communities.
Public participation could become optional and subject to the discretion of the federal agency.
Preservation organizations and interested community members could lose their recognized roles as consulting parties.
Federal agencies could exclude broad categories of projects from Section 106 review.
Effects on historic landscapes, settings, views, and other indirect impacts could receive far less consideration.
Agencies would have greater discretion to decide whether avoiding or minimizing harm is appropriate.
The result could be a process in which historic places are never identified, community knowledge is introduced too late, alternatives are not seriously explored, and decisions are made primarily by the federal agency carrying out the project.
Ask your U.S. representative and both U.S. senators to oppose changes that would weaken Section 106 consultation, diminish public and tribal participation, and remove meaningful consideration of historic and cultural resources.
Information courtesy of Preservation Pennsylvania.
Photo of the The Edward Steves Homestead in San Antonio.
