Urgent
Defend Section 106 Now
Urgent
The proposed overhaul of Section 106 regulations is widely viewed as an unprecedented threat and assault on historic preservation, tribal sovereignty, and community participation.
Overview
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is one of the most consequential laws for heritage conservation most Americans have never heard of. Enacted in 1966, it requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic places and to consult with communities, tribes, and preservation experts before irreversible decisions are made. It is not a mandate to stop development, but a framework to ensure that growth happens with awareness, transparency, and respect for cultural heritage.
Most Angelinos have never heard of Section 106, yet this process has helped keep historic places standing across Los Angeles and beyond. As the public’s early warning system, Section 106 does not prevent change, but it requires federal agencies to stop, look, and listen before they damage or destroy places that can never be replaced. In Los Angeles County, Section 106 operates largely behind the scenes, yet its impact is everywhere. It has shaped infrastructure projects, guided transit expansion, and helped protect historic neighborhoods, cultural landmarks, and places of deep community meaning.
That means real consultation before historic theatres are altered beyond recognition, before neighborhoods lose the buildings and people that tell their story, and before culturally significant places are treated as expendable. Section 106 has provided a critical seat at the table—ensuring that preservation is part of the conversation and heard, not an afterthought.
Section 106 is now at risk. Recent actions by the current administration, along with shifts within the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, threaten to weaken the review process, limit meaningful consultation, and expedite federal approvals at the expense of historic and cultural resources. These changes may appear procedural, but their consequences are profound and will result in the loss of historic places.
About this Issue
The proposed overhaul of Section 106 regulations is widely viewed as an unprecedented threat and assault on historic preservation, tribal sovereignty, and community participation—and it has direct implications for California, Los Angeles, and the work of the Los Angeles Conservancy.
Why this matters now:
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has advanced draft regulations that would fundamentally weaken Section 106, the core federal process that requires agencies to consider impacts on historic resources before funding, permitting, or licensing projects. Preservation organizations, tribal governments, and state partners describe this as the most serious challenge Section 106 has faced in its 60‑year history, coming at the same time the nation is marking 250 years of American democracy.
For California, where federal transportation, housing, energy, and infrastructure investments intersect daily with historic districts, cultural landscapes, and tribal lands, these changes would reshape how—and whether—communities can influence federal projects.
Three major shifts in the draft regulations
1. Power consolidated inside federal agencies
2. Section 106 would apply to fewer federal actions
3. Narrowing what “counts” as historic and as harm
1. Power consolidated inside federal agencies
- Consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), local governments, and community organizations would become optional and entirely controlled by the federal agency.
- The draft replaces “shall” with “may” throughout, and redefines consultation as only “seeking and considering” views—no obligation to meet, negotiate, or reach agreement.
- Public participation becomes discretionary. Agencies are given “exclusive discretion” to decide whether involving the public is useful, and to weigh it against “other values,” allowing them to cut communities, nonprofits, and local governments out of the process.
- Applicants (for example, private developers seeking federal permits for a major infrastructure project in Los Angeles) could conduct consultation directly with SHPOs and tribes on the agency’s behalf, despite having a vested interest in moving projects forward.
- Agencies gain broad authority to change or waive deadlines—including the Advisory Council’s comment periods—by simple notice, with no opportunity for public input on those timing changes.
2. Section 106 would apply to fewer federal actions
- The draft carves out nine categories of activities that would no longer be considered “undertakings” subject to Section 106 review. These include:
- State, local, or tribal actions taken under delegated federal authority.
- Federal funding agreements where the agency does not control how or to whom the money ultimately flows.
- Actions subject only to a federal veto rather than affirmative approval.
- Projects with “minimal” federal involvement, where agencies are deemed unable to control the outcome.
- Actions where another statute is treated as a substitute for Section 106.
- The language defining these carve‑outs is vague and confusing, creating multiple avenues for agencies or applicants to argue that projects are simply not subject to review.
- The proposal also builds a streamlined process for exempting entire categories or programs from Section 106, explicitly aligning these exemptions with NEPA categorical exclusions. This would result in many more project types—especially routine transportation, housing, and energy projects seen across California—facing no historic preservation review at all.
- Public involvement in creating exemptions would be optional, left to the proponent of the exemption to arrange, and once exemptions are granted, they would be difficult to reverse.
3. Narrowing what “counts” as historic and as harm
- The definition of “historic property” would be tightened to require both:
- Tangible human improvements (built structures).
- A “geographically compact” area.
- The draft explicitly excludes non‑compact, unimproved natural features—mountains, valleys, bodies of water, and ethnographic landscapes—from being treated as historic properties.
- This change would strip protection from many traditional cultural places and sacred sites, including large cultural landscapes that California tribes and communities recognize as central to identity and practice, as well as expansive rural and urban historic districts.
- The rule removes the consideration of indirect and cumulative effects, and deletes recognition of visual, atmospheric, audible, and use‑related changes as adverse effects.
- Only effects with a “reasonably close causal relationship” to a specific undertaking would count; impacts from separate but related projects, or the cumulative “death by a thousand cuts” affecting many neighborhoods and districts, would fall outside Section 106.
Our Position
Historic preservation is at a turning point. What is unfolding in California through state legislative action—and across the country through proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act—represents a fundamental shift in how we value, review, and ultimately protect our shared heritage.
The proposed changes to Section 106 threaten to eviscerate the framework that has shaped the historic preservation movement nationwide.
Under the banner of efficiency and streamlining, these changes would narrow the scope of review, compress timelines, and limit meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including local governments, preservation organizations, and—critically—Tribal Nations. What has long been a deliberative process grounded in expertise and public input risks becoming a procedural formality, where outcomes are predetermined and historic places are evaluated only superficially, if at all.
In a place like Los Angeles County, the consequences could be profound and lead to the direct loss of significant historic places.
Weakening Section 106 review at this moment would disproportionately endanger culturally significant places and spaces that preservation has only just begun to acknowledge. Preservation in Los Angeles County operates within a complex development environment, where federal, state, and local processes intersect. Section 106 has often been the critical backstop—the moment when historic places are identified, impacts are disclosed, and mitigation or alternatives are meaningfully considered. If that backstop is removed or diluted, the likelihood of avoidable loss increases dramatically.
The Los Angeles Conservancy believes that Section 106 must remain a robust, meaningful tool. Any effort to improve efficiency should strengthen—not undermine—its ability to identify historic places, facilitate genuine consultation, and promote thoughtful outcomes. We urge policymakers to resist short-term expediency that results in long-term loss. Once a historic place is gone, it is gone forever. The decisions we make now will determine not only what we build, but what we lose.
How You Can Help
For Los Angeles County and communities across California, these proposed changes would have serious consequences. Section 106 has long ensured that federal projects—from transportation and housing to infrastructure and energy—take into account their impacts on historic places. Weakening these regulations risks the loss of the cultural, architectural, and community landmarks that define our neighborhoods and shared history.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of our nation, we have an opportunity—and a responsibility—to affirm the importance of preserving the places that tell our collective story. We are joining a national effort to send 250,000 letters to elected officials in defense of these protections.
We urge you to contact Governor Newsom and the California congressional delegation today and ask them:
-
ONE: Oppose regulatory changes that weaken the protections and consultation requirements established under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
-
TWO: Strongly urge the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop regulations that align with congressional intent and the statutory framework of the National Historic Preservation Act.
-
THREE: Support a transparent regulatory process that fully incorporates the perspectives of State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Tribal Nations, local governments, preservation organizations, property owners, and the public.
Protecting historic places in Los Angeles County and California—and across the country—requires strong federal policy, informed local voices, and continued public engagement.
CLICK the links above to take action and help advocate for the retention of Section 106.
In The News & Helpful Links
News:
“Proposed Changes to Section 106 Rules Draw Strong Opposition from Tribal Organizations,” Native News Online, July 31, 2026
“Trump allies approve new rules that will weaken protections for historic sites,” NPR, July 26, 2026
“Critics Say Historic Sites Are Endangered by Trump-Aligned Panel’s Plan,” New York Times, July 31, 2026
Helpful Links:
Defend Section 106, Cultural Heritage Partners
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
National Parks Conservation Association and Section 106
National Trust for Historic Preservation and Section 106
