I have regularly taught on online one-hour course for public officials on how to navigate Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 is a consultation process that reviews federal undertakings for their effect on historic resources. This makes it a regulation, so knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers with no knack for capitalism think of it as an obstacle. Skilled practitioners recognize it as a way to find solutions that satisfy constituents and guarantee return.
There is no law that prevents demolition of landmarks. Full stop. There are only laws that make it more difficult. But not impossible. In my class I share the story of the USPS in 1991 which decided to tear down a Daniel Burnham building. They knew how Section 106 worked, and that a federal agency can always out-wait the process and tear down the building. So they did.
This is when I was out standing in my field.
The virtue of Section 106 is that it may take time, but it saves lawsuits and conflicts that come afterwards. This week, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is proposing eliminating this consensus-building process, presumably at the behest of the aforesaid Neanderthal-adjacent. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has publically opposed the move, as has the National Preservation Partners Network. Here is our statement.
Position Statement: Opposition to Proposed Changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Issued: July 23, 2026
Who We Are
The National Preservation Partners Network (NPPN) is a coalition of statewide and local preservation organizations and preservation professionals working alongside State Historic Preservation Offices, Certified Local Governments, and Tribal partners to protect historic and cultural places in communities across the country. Our members work directly with the Section 106 process on a daily basis — advising project sponsors, sitting at the consultation table, and helping communities and federal agencies reach outcomes that work for everyone. We offer this statement as practitioners with on-the-ground experience with the process.
Summary
The existing Section 106 process reduces conflict, identifies problems early, creates predictable outcomes, and avoids costly litigation. It is a process that works — not despite its consultation requirements, but because of them. The National Preservation Partners Network (NPPN) therefore opposes the draft rewrite of 36 C.F.R. Part 800 — the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) — that was circulated by the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on July 17, 2026, for an expedited Council vote by July 24, 2026. NPPN urges the ACHP to withdraw the draft, restore the deliberative process it previously committed to, and preserve the collaborative consultation framework that has worked for sixty years.
Statement of Position
NPPN believes the proposed rule, both in the manner of its introduction and in its substance, is an unwarranted departure from the collaborative, multi-party consultation model that Congress established when it enacted the NHPA. NPPN calls on the ACHP to:
- Withdraw the current draft and restore the previously adopted 30/60-day process for developing and reviewing any revisions to Part 800.
- Reject an unassembled, one-week vote on a rule of this magnitude, and instead ensure Council deliberation occurs in a transparent, recorded public forum.
- Preserve the core consultative structure of Section 106 rather than replacing it with a model of unilateral agency control.
- Engage Tribal Nations through genuine government-to-government consultation on any changes affecting places of religious and cultural significance.
- Engage with the broader preservation community and the public in order to improve the Section 106 process without endangering or destroying historic places.
Background
For six decades, Section 106 has required federal agencies to identify historic properties, consult with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), Tribal Nations, local governments, and other interested parties, and consider alternatives before undertakings that affect historic properties move forward. It has never functioned as a veto over federal projects; rather, it has provided a structured process for balancing infrastructure, energy, housing, broadband, and disaster-recovery needs against the preservation of the nation’s irreplaceable historic and cultural resources.
Earlier this year, the ACHP adopted a resolution directing its staff to develop a public timeline for revising Part 800 within 30 days and to give Council members 60 days to submit comments before any regulatory action proceeded. That process was never completed. Instead, on the afternoon of Friday, July 17, 2026, the Vice Chairman distributed a nearly complete rewrite of the regulations and asked Council members to cast an unassembled, email-based vote within one week — abandoning the process the Council itself had adopted. The Council set a deadline of Friday, July 24, 2026, for that vote; the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a Council member, has already voted no. If approved, the draft would move to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before publication in the Federal Register, triggering a 30-day public comment period.
Why Section 106 Benefits Everyone — Not Just Preservationists
Section 106 is not an obstacle that pits preservation against progress. In practice, it does the opposite. Section 106 works because it creates better projects: earlier identification of issues, fewer late-stage surprises, negotiated solutions, greater public confidence in federal decision-making, lower litigation risk, and greater certainty for project sponsors. Federal agencies, applicants, local governments, Tribal Nations, and the public all rely on the same process to get to “yes” on projects that serve infrastructure, energy, housing, and disaster-recovery needs. Weakening that process does not make federal projects move faster or cost less — it removes the mechanism that prevents costly conflicts and litigation from happening.
Key Concerns with the Proposed Rule
A shift from consultation to unilateral agency control. The draft replaces the collaborative consultation process with a single Section 106 report prepared by the federal agency, which would then be circulated for comment. SHPOs, THPOs, Tribes, local governments, and other consulting parties would react to a completed agency analysis rather than helping shape it — removing a substantive planning process. Agencies would decide unilaterally whether competing priorities, such as budget and schedule, outweigh historic preservation concerns.
Narrowed participation. Local governments and Certified Local Governments would no longer be entitled to consult, and preservation organizations and members of the public would lose recognized status. Public involvement becomes discretionary, with agencies deciding whether public input is worth the time and cost. Collaborative, negotiated solutions are lost.
Broad new exclusions from review. The proposal would exempt whole categories of projects — including state- or locally administered federal programs, actions involving minimal federal funding or control, and projects carried out under delegated authority. It would align many NEPA exclusions with Section 106, removing review of projects that currently receive it.
A narrowed definition of “effect.” The draft limits adverse effects to those that are foreseeable, closely tied to the undertaking, and involve material physical alteration. This curtails consideration of setting, visual impacts, and other indirect effects, and raising serious questions about how places of Tribal religious and cultural significance would be protected.
A narrowed definition of “historic property.” The proposal excludes certain cultural landscapes — mountains, valleys, and ethnographic landscapes — from protection. Combined with the loss of Traditional Cultural Landscape protections and the elimination of “avoidance, minimization, and mitigation” as an operating standard, these changes will reduce protection for Tribal sacred sites and Traditional Cultural Properties and disregard practical, positive alternatives that preservation review makes possible.
Mitigation becomes optional. The current process encourages negotiated Memoranda of Agreement among consulting parties. The proposed rule makes Memoranda of Agreement optional and allows agencies to make unilateral decisions without the agreement of consulting parties, likely leading to conflict.
Legal vulnerability and more delay, not less. The proposed regulations contradict both the National Historic Preservation Act and ACHP’s own rules and procedures. The internally inconsistent draft contains many errors, inviting regulatory confusion. Stripped of the well-established consultation process that has long produced negotiated, durable outcomes, agencies and applicants should expect more legal challenges and delays, not less — undermining the efficiency the proposal claims.
The draft is a complete rewrite that places decision-making authority in the very agency proposing the undertaking. It discards the independent expertise SHPOs, THPOs, Tribal Nations, local governments, and the public bring to federal decisions. Under the narrowed definition of “historic property,” federal agencies would no longer be required to take into account adverse effects to significant cultural landscapes like the Grand Canyon.
Call to Action
NPPN encourages its members and the broader preservation community to:
- Track the rulemaking closely and prepare to submit substantive comments once the rule is published in the Federal Register.
- Contact their Members of Congress to express concern about the proposed rule and the process by which it was introduced.
- Contact State Historic Preservation Officers, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and state and local elected officials to coordinate a unified response.
- Submit written comments during the forthcoming public comment period via regulations.gov once the docket number is available.
Conclusion
Section 106 has succeeded for nearly sixty years not despite its consultation requirements, but because of them. NPPN urges the ACHP to reject an accelerated, closed-door process for rewriting regulations and to engage the full preservation community — Tribes, SHPOs, local governments, preservation organizations, and the public — to uphold, rather than dismantle, Congress’s intent in enacting the National Historic Preservation Act.
NPPN’s opposition to this draft is not opposition to reform. NPPN stands ready to participate in a collaborative review of Part 800 that improves efficiency, provides greater clarity, reduces delay, maintains consultation, honors Tribal sovereignty, preserves public participation, and fulfills Congressional intent. We welcome the opportunity to work with the ACHP to that end.
Sources: Cultural Heritage Partners, “War Room for Threats to Section 106” (July 2026); National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, “The End of Section 106 as We Know It?” (July 20, 2026); Arizona Preservation Foundation, “ACHP Proposes New Federal Regulations that Devastate Protections for Historic Properties” (July 2026); National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, member advisory on proposed Section 106 regulatory changes (July 2026); National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Section 106 Is Under Threat: What You Need To Know” (July 2026).