National News: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Under Review

Since 1966, Section 106 has made certain that when federal agencies invest in major infrastructure projects, like transportation, housing, energy, or public-works, they pause to consider the potential impact of those projects on historic buildings, landscapes, archaeological sites, and cultural places.  

In late October 2025, Section 106 came under review during a Congressional hearing to examine potential “regulatory burdens” across federal agencies that could be streamlined. National preservation organizations, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Action, and multiple State Historic Preservation Offices pointed out that the Section 106 already operates efficiently and at minimal cost, warning that proposed rollbacks of the law would dramatically limit the public’s voice in the review of federal projects and the protection of irreplaceable heritage. 

How does Section 106 Work

Section 106 does not prohibit development, but it does guarantee a transparent, public review process that identifies and aims to minimize impacts of those projects on historic resources.  Largely a response to the considerable loss of historic resources through the massive highway and federal Urban Renewal projects of the mid-20th century, Section 106 has effectively protected many historic communities and places over the last 60 years.

Most public officials and community advocates believe Section 106 adds value to planned public projects and helps to avoid unintentional losses of valuable community history.  Section 106 requires federal agencies to identify historic resources, assess potential project impacts, and consult with preservation partners, including each State’s Historic Preservation Officers, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, municipal historical commissions, and community stakeholders, before implementing federally funded or permitted undertakings.  This process has two benefits that preserve history in the face of change: 1) decisions about federal spending are transparent, with opportunities for the public to comment on their plans, and 2) most projects move forward, but sometimes with modified designs, protective buffer zones, requirements for archaeological documentation, or interpretive programs.

Massachusetts State Register Review 

 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a strong state-level equivalent to Section 106, commonly referred to as State Register Review.  Under M.G.L. Chapter 9, Sections 26–27C (950 CMR 71.00),  all projects receiving state funding, permitting, or licensing are required to submit a Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).  MHC staff review these projects to determine their potential impacts on historic properties that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the State or National Registers of Historic Places. MHC also serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as such, the MHC participates in the Section 106 process within Massachusetts.  . 

The City of Boston’s Role in Section 106 and State Register Review 

The Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) is recognized as the “Local Historical Commission” and can participate in both state and federal historic review processes as a consulting party. BLC brings deep knowledge of local communities and conditions to the Section 106 and State Register review processes. BLC staff comment directly on the projects under review and can recommend alternative ways to eliminate, minimize or mitigate impacts to historic resources.  

Section 106 is an important review as cities and states continue to experience substantial investment in new climate-resiliency measures, renewable energy projects, housing expansion, and transit upgrades.  These projects have to be done, but they should be planned to avoid inadvertently losing the visible and invisible heritage that gives each place its identity.

The Process in Action

If you drive through Boston, you may not realize that you are seeing the results of Section 106 and the State Register Review processes throughout the city. The rehabilitation of the Longfellow Bridge, crossing the Charles from Boston to Cambridge, was subject to Section 106 due to the involvement of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The rehabilitation included upgrading the bridge’s structural capacity, creating bicycle lanes, replacing Red Line tracks, and improving bridge-to-street accessibility connections. The historic steel and granite bridge was originally built in 1907. Through the Section 106 process led by the FHWA with the assistance of MASSDOT, the Massachusetts Historical Commission and consulting parties, including the Boston Landmarks Commission, the Cambridge Historical Commission, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation were consulted regarding the changes and treatment of historic materials on the bridge.