Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their projects on historic properties and provides opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process.

For 60 years, Section 106 regulations, which interpret the law of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, have required projects involving a federal agency, federal funding, permit, license, approval, or action consider how the project may affect properties that qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (the nation’s official list of significant historic properties); to work to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any adverse effect of the project; and to provide local communities, organizations, people, and tribes with a voice for these projects.

The process generally involves:

1. Identifying historic properties that could be affected.
2. Assessing whether the project will have an adverse effect.
3. Consulting with state or tribal historic preservation offices, Indigenous tribes, other interested parties, and the public.
4. Looking for ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm to historic properties. The law requires agencies to consider these effects and consult, but it does not necessarily prohibit projects from proceeding.

Several resources offer helpful introductions to this process:

Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen Guide to Section 106 Review explains how the Section 106 process ensures that significant historic resources are considered before federal projects move forward.  It also outlines the important role of the public in commenting on proposed projects and suggesting ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties.

The Basics of Section 106 Review published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, provides a clear overview of the Section 106 regulations, the review process, the responsibilities of federal agencies, and the important role of consulting parties.

“A Seat At The Table: Why Your Commission Should Participate In The Section 106 Process,” published by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions in The Alliance Review, discusses how local preservation commissions can participate effectively in the Section 106 process. It highlights how public involvement has often influenced and shaped improved project design and better outcomes for preservation.

The Section 106 process as it specifically works in Iowa is also outlined on the website of the State Historic Preservation Office.

Since summer 2026, proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act have generated news coverage along two primary tracks: an administrative effort by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to revise the federal regulations governing historic-preservation reviews (36 CFR Part 800), and a congressional effort to amend Section 106 through broader permitting-reform legislation, including the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (S. 5653).  Both initiatives seek to streamline federal project reviews and reduce perceived delays, but have raised concerns among preservation organizations, Tribal representatives, and other stakeholders about potentially narrowing historic-property protections, limiting public and Tribal consultation, expanding federal agency discretion, imposing stricter review timelines, and restricting opportunities for judicial review.

Proposed administrative changes by ACHP

On Friday, July 17, 2026, the vice chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) sent a draft revision of the Section 106 regulations in 36 C.F.R. Part 800 to members of the Council asking for their vote on these new regulations through email by July 24, 2026.   Various organizations including the Cultural Heritage Partners posted the redlined version and the draft online to provide the general public and professionals in historic preservation an opportunity to review these proposed changes.  On July 24, 2026, ACHP announced they had voted to approve the revised regulations and sent the draft to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review and publication.  On August 27, 2026, an unprecedented coalition of more than 800 public, private, non-project organizations and Tribal Nations – including Preservation Iowa – joined together to send a letter to Congress calling for members to reject efforts underway through regulation, legislation, and executive action to dismantle one of America’s most successful bipartisan conservation and good-government laws.

These proposed regulations make significant changes to how the Section 106 process has operated successfully for the last 60 years.  Among the proposed changes, federal agencies in charge of projects would have more authority to identify historic resources and make preservation decisions while considering if competing priorities (budget, schedule, etc.) outweigh preservation concerns.  Additionally, consulting parties, including experts from State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices to local preservation organizations and commissions, would only be consulted if and when the federal agency chooses to take this step.  This step would also take place later in the process, after the project has largely been determined.  Finally, some types of projects currently adhering to Section 106 would be exempted, potentially placing significant historic resources in the crosshairs of these projects.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has additional information and an up-to-date timeline on their Section 106 page.

Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (S. 5653)

On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Senate introduced a long-negotiated, bipartisan permitting-reform bill titled the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA). Although the legislation addresses several aspects of federal permitting, Division B, Title III, contains provisions that would significantly amend the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including Section 106. If enacted, these provisions would fundamentally change how federal agencies identify historic properties, evaluate project impacts, conduct consultation, establish review timelines, and address disputes involving historic resources.

Many of the changes proposed in the legislation reflect provisions included in ACHP’s proposed regulatory revisions. However, the legislation goes further by seeking to establish these changes directly in federal law, potentially making them more difficult to reverse through subsequent administrative action. Among its most consequential provisions, the bill would narrow the definition of projects subject to Section 106 review by requiring a greater degree of federal control and responsibility, while also creating exemptions for certain categories of projects and activities. It would further narrow the types of impacts that agencies must consider when evaluating effects on historic properties, potentially reducing consideration of indirect impacts, including certain visual, atmospheric, and auditory effects.  The legislation would also substantially restructure the consultation process, with specific deadlines for federal agencies and consulting parties, including State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), and reduced opportunities for local preservation organizations, historic preservation commissions, and members of the public to provide information about historic resources before important project decisions have been made.

These proposed amendments to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would shift it from a collaborative process that considers historic preservation early in federal project planning toward a more streamlined process in which federal agencies have greater authority to determine which resources and impacts receive consideration. For local communities and Tribal Nations, this could mean fewer opportunities to identify historic and culturally significant places, raise concerns, and participate in decisions affecting those resources. Supporters argue that permitting reform is necessary to facilitate infrastructure investment, energy development, and economic growth, while preservation advocates caution that efficiency should not come at the expense of public participation and the protection of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources. As of October 2026, S. 5653 remains a legislative proposal and has not been enacted into law. Its future will be important to watch, particularly as Congress considers the broader implications of permitting reform and its potential consequences for the nation’s historic preservation framework.

More information about this legislation can be found on the Section 106 Updates page of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) has created a page on Section 106 Under Threat to provide an overview of Section 106, the proposed changes, links to webinars on the topic, and action steps.

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) has posted several articles under News on the proposed changes to Section 106 and additional information about these important regulations.

“Positioned to fundamentally change how Section 106 operates, the proposed rule shifts authority away from the collaborative consultation framework Congress established, in favor of unilateral federal agency control over nearly every stage of the process. That includes determining whether Section 106 applies, identifying historic properties, evaluating effects, deciding whether mitigation is appropriate, and ultimately determining whether preservation concerns are outweighed by other considerations.  Anyone who works in historic preservation understands that Section 106 has never been about stopping projects. To the contrary, countless hours have been spent finding practical ways to balance infrastructure, energy, housing, broadband, and disaster recovery with our nation’s irreplaceable historic and cultural assets.  What makes the Section 106 consultation process effective is that informed decisions are made by leveraging differing expertise before projects are finalized.  SHPOs bring statewide preservation expertise, Tribes provide knowledge not found in agency files, and local governments understand community priorities. Together, those perspectives (coupled with applicants’ practical solutions) lead to better federal decision-making and help avoid costly mistakes.”

The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) has outlined the key provisions of the proposed changes to Section 106 and potential impact on local communities on their Advocacy page.

“These proposals could reduce the opportunity for local knowledge and community perspectives to shape federal decisions about historic properties. There is still time to raise your concerns with these proposed changes to Section 106 and ensure local voices remain a part of the review process”

Cultural Heritage Partners (CHP) has compiled information and articles on the proposed changes to Section 106 on their Defending Section 106 page, including links to webinars that they have hosted on the topic and a call for action for education about Section 106 and adverse effects of the proposed regulations.

“These revisions will devastate our ability to protect and preserve historic places and would dramatically curtail public participation in federal decisions that affect local communities. They strip the regulations of the language for meaningful consultation, change the definition of consultation, eliminate the requirements for “avoidance, minimization, and mitigation,” eliminate protections for Traditional Cultural Landscapes, and imperil thousands of significant cultural and historical sites who will not meet the new definition of “historic.” They are a betrayal of Congress’s intent when it passed the NHPA sixty years ago, and a betrayal of the government-to-government relationship with Tribal Nations.”

In October 2026, CHP launched the 106 Strong website, representing the coalition of over 1,000 organizations that have banded together to voice concern about the proposed changes to Section 106.  This excellent website provide specific information about the importance of Section 106, proposed changes to Section 106, and current updates.  Most recent updates and calls for action are also posted on their Facebook page.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) is collecting Section 106 success stories from across the United States of where Section 106 led to win-win outcomes as they continue to champion the importance of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).  Please consider submitting your Section 106 success story directly to the NTHP!

Preservation Iowa is also assisting with the nationwide effort to identify stories of how the Section 106 process made a positive impact for historic resources and the heritage of a community, rural area, or region.  These examples will be used to illustrate the value of Section 106 in providing a local voice in historic preservation.  If you know of a project (federally funded, licensed or permitted) in your community that was reviewed through Section 106, please let us know some basic details on the project, as well as any local consultation and resulting changes to the project or mitigation.  Information can be submitted through this Section 106 form, by sending an email to info@preservationiowa.org with Section 106 in the subject line, or through our Connect & Contact Us page.  Please submit your story to Preservation Iowa, as well as directly to the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Examples include federal projects developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT), Corps of Engineers, General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Postal Service, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Communications Commission, etc.

Take action to contact elected officials!

Preservation Iowa stands with the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) in encouraging residents of Iowa (and other states) to reach out to their Senators and Representatives in Congress to tell them about the importance of Section 106 and historic preservation in the state and country.  Webinars, information on Section 106, and action steps to take can be found on the Section 106 Updates page of the NTHP.

The NTHP has a call for action on the top of their Section 106 page to encourage people to Take Action by reaching out to senators to voice concern for changes proposed in Division B, Title III, for Historic Preservation in the proposed federal permitting reform legislation (Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026) in the Senate, S. 5653.  For 60 years, the National Historic Preservation Act has protected the places that tell America’s story and given communities a say in their future.  The proposed legislation would significantly weaken protections for historic resources and make optional most community consultation for federally funded projects by limiting the role of Section 106.  As currently drafted, the bill’s preservation provisions would limit meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations and preservation stakeholders, narrow the scope of Section 106 review, expand unilateral federal agency authority, and constrain judicial review.

As part of their campaign to generate 250,000 letters to elected officials, the NTHP has created a Take Action to Contact Congress page that easily collects your information, identifies your representatives and senators, and generates a basic letter to be sent, which can be personalized with individual stories and comments.  Please consider taking 5 minutes to join this effort!

The NTHP is also encouraging people across the country to contact their governors to let them know the importance of historic preservation, Section 106, and support for State Historic Preservation Offices.  On their Take Action to Tell Your Governor page, information can easily be entered and a basic letter generated to be sent, which can be personalized with individual stories and comments.

Finally, when members of Congress are home on recess, this creates an opportunity for preservation advocates to make their voices heard at the local level. While lawmakers are back in their home districts, this is the time to engage directly, build relationships, and elevate the importance of historic preservation in your community.  The National Trust for Historic Preservation has an excellent toolkit on Making the Case for Preservation that includes advocacy for Section 106 and the Historic Preservation Fund, as well as other pertinent current issues.

Interested in learning more about where the established Section 106 process has had a positive community impact?  Check out this map of Section 106 Success Stories from the National Trust for Historic Preservation for projects in Iowa and throughout the country!

A small sampling of Section 106 success stories in Iowa include:

Black Hawk Bridge over the Mississippi River in Lansing in Allamakee County:  Built in 1931, the Black Hawk Bridge, also known as the Lansing Bridge, was a riveted cantilever truss bridge named after Sauk leader Chief Black Hawk. Crossing the Mississippi River, the bridge connected Lansing, Iowa with Crawford County, Wisconsin. Its unique design, which included a center arch and two tower-like trusses, was beloved by the communities on either side. The only bridge for 30 miles, it carried about 2,100 vehicles per day. While the bridge was a familiar landmark, its narrow design impacted the crossing of larger vehicles, and barges on the river navigated it with some difficulty due to the location of the bridge piers. Through the survey, identification, and mitigation processes, consulting parties surveyed the area, identified several interesting archaeological sites, and were able to document histories that may have otherwise been lost. While the Black Hawk Bridge was demolished in 2025, the Section 106 process allowed the community to have a say in what replaced it. Public input on the design of the bridge was very important to the local community and went a long way in making the loss of the original bridge more acceptable to local citizens. Additionally, by surveying the local area, several archaeological sites were identified and consulting parties were able to document their histories, which otherwise may have been lost. The story of the Black Hawk Bridge is captured in this documentary on YouTube, which was published by the Iowa DOT in 2024.

Drive to Prosperity: Manufacturing Drive and Bluff Blvd in Clinton: The Drive to Prosperity project corridor extends through an area of Clinton containing numerous historic-age properties and cultural resources, including historic buildings, cemeteries, archaeological sites, and historic districts. Cultural resource investigations completed for the project identified and evaluated these resources to determine their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and their relationship to the proposed improvements.  When a proposed roundabout appeared likely to affect Springdale Cemetery and could have required residential relocations, the Section 106 consultation process gave the City, Iowa Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, State Historic Preservation Office, designers, and cultural resource professionals time to reconsider the design and identify a better solution.  The consultation process allowed participants to reduce the roundabout footprint and develop an alternative that addressed the roadway needs while protecting key features of the Springdale Cemetery. Without the identification and consultation requirements provided by Section 106, there would have been no comparable federal review process requiring those properties to be considered before construction.

Indian Creek / Bertram Bridge in Linn County: The Indian Creek Bridge (also known as the Bertram Bridge) is a truss bridge located in southern Linn County, about one mile east of Cedar Rapids.  Built by the Wrought Iron Bridge Company (WIBCo) of Canton, Ohio, around 1876, the bridge uses an unusual variation of the Pratt truss, featuring double-intersecting counter members that radiate from the center of the span known as a double-intersection Pratt or Whipple truss.  When the Linn County Secondary Road Department proposed replacement of the bridge, consultation with Linn County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) resulting in interpretive signage and relocating the bridge to a depressed area along the Indian Creek Nature Center trail system, maintaining this significant county resource for community use.

Moving Flood Prone Houses to Save History in Mason City:  Founded in 1854 at the confluence of the Winnebago River and five creeks, Mason City experienced its worst disaster in 100 years in June 2008 as major flood caused catastrophic damage throughout the city, affecting more than 1,200 structures.  The City needed a plan that would not only mitigate the flood damage but also address the effects of potential future flooding. To accomplish this, leaders decided to participate in a voluntary acquisition program to purchase houses and move residents to new housing outside the floodplain.  The City proposed relocation and salvage as options to preserve flood-impacted historic structures and minimize waste produced by demolition.  The City purchased 167 properties, and through reconnaissance surveys, FEMA and the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (IHSEMD) identified 22 properties in the buyout that were individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. The majority of these properties were located in the East Park Place neighborhood, which was one of the four potential historic districts identified.  The Section 106 process resulted in the successful relocation of five properties, including the Egloff House, a property of national significance that was built in 1938 and includes elements of Moderne, Art Deco, and International styles.  The Moving Houses to Save History booklet was also produced by the City of Mason City as part of the project.

U.S. 75 Reconstruction in Hinton in Plymouth County:  The planned reconstruction of U.S. 75 to expand the highway westward in Hinton was identified as impacting the Hinton Business Corner Historic District, associated with the town’s rebuilding after a 1914 fire.  Section 106 consultation began while the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) and the City of Hinton were still evaluating alignments. An early architectural survey identified the district before a preferred alternative was selected. Alternatives east of the existing road would have substantially affected railroad operations and an agricultural cooperative, and bypasses carried much higher costs and environmental and community concerns.  The final plans thus continued to adversely impact the Hinton Business Corner Historic District by requiring the demolition of two contributing buildings: the Bank of Hinton (also individually eligible) and Haas-Shuenk Hardware.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Iowa DOT, and Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) signed an agreement requiring a mural and three interpretive panels explaining the district’s history be created.  The roadway improvements will proceed, with the history of the district documented and interpreted within the community.

Gordon Drive Viaduct and South Bacon Creek Conduit Reconstruction in Sioux City:  A proposed project to reconstruct the deteriorating Gordon Drive Viaduct, built in 1936, and a portion of the original South Bacon Creek Conduit, completed in 1910, identified these significant historic structures as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.  The viaduct carries Gordon Drive across Sioux City’s railroad and industrial corridor.  While removal of the viaduct and some effects to the identified archeological sites could not be avoided, the Section 106 consultation process determined how the project will mitigate damage to these and other historic properties.  During consultation, the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) questioned an initial finding that a railroad district was not eligible for the National Register. Further evaluation examined the potential Sioux City Rail Yards and Industrial Historic District and recognized additional places that were contributing properties to the district. A review of alternatives for the historic South Bacon Creek Conduit led to a plan to close it while leaving it almost entirely intact, resulting in a No Adverse Effect finding.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), and Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) signed an agreement requiring an architectural survey of the potential district, a plan for archaeological data recovery, and construction protections for nearby historic buildings, including preconstruction condition surveys and vibration monitoring, with work required to stop if damage occurs. The completed district survey will be shared with Sioux City’s Historic Preservation Commission, and consulting tribes and nations will have opportunities to review the archaeological work.  The Section 106 consultation process distinguished unavoidable losses from those that could be avoided or minimized while allowing the transportation project to proceed.

Know of other examples of projects in Iowa that had positive community impacts due to the established Section 106 process?

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) is collecting Section 106 success stories from across the United States of where Section 106 led to win-win outcomes as they continue to champion the importance of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Please consider submitting your story directly to the NTHP!

Preservation Iowa is also assisting with the nationwide effort to identify stories of how the Section 106 process made a positive impact for historic resources and the heritage of a community, rural area, or region.  Please also submit your story directly to Preservation Iowa through this Section 106 form, by sending an email to info@preservationiowa.org with Section 106 in the subject line, or through our Connect & Contact Us page.

Follow Preservation Iowa on Facebook for the latest updates on Section 106 and other advocacy efforts.  Become a member to receive our newsletter and advocacy alerts directly in your inbox.