Why We’re Speaking Up for Section 106…
And Why You Should Too
Most people have never heard of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. But if you’ve ever benefited from a historic downtown, a preserved landmark, or a community’s say in a federal project, you’ve encountered Section 106 , whether you knew it or not.
This week, WHALE sent a letter to Governor Healey and Massachusetts’ Senator Warren, Senator Markey, and Rep. Keating urging them to oppose a proposed rewrite of the Section 106 regulations that would dramatically weaken this law. You can read our full letter here.
What is Section 106, and why does it matter?
For sixty years, Section 106 has required federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties before acting — and to do so in consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, local governments, and the public. It’s the reason communities get a seat at the table before a federally funded or permitted project moves forward near a historic building, landscape, or archaeological site.
This isn’t red tape. It’s the process that catches problems early, before they become expensive litigation, and it has repeatedly produced better outcomes, not slower ones, for the agencies and applicants involved.
What’s being proposed and why it’s alarming
On July 24, 2026, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted 16–5, with two abstentions, to advance a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would fundamentally rewrite the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 C.F.R. Part 800), the first comprehensive revision in over two decades. The vote followed an unusually compressed and opaque process: council members reportedly had only about a week to review a nearly complete draft, despite the ACHP having resolved weeks earlier to develop a public timeline and allow 60 days for member comment before any proposal was drafted. Neither step took place.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and preservation, archaeological, and Tribal organizations nationwide have all opposed the proposal, on both substantive and procedural grounds.
Among the most alarming changes:
- Federal agencies would no longer be required to try to avoid or minimize damage to historic architecture, neighborhoods, and landscapes.
- State and local governments would lose the right to be notified , or even to comment, when a federal agency proposes to damage or destroy a historic place in their own jurisdiction.
- Public comment on federal historic preservation actions would become entirely optional, at the discretion of the agency taking the action.
- Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with Native American Tribes or seek their expertise regarding their own significant cultural and historic resources.
- The definition of “historic property” would be narrowed so that significant cultural landscape features could fall outside the Act’s protection entirely.
- Agencies would only have to consider direct, physical damage, not the reasonably foreseeable downstream consequences of their actions on historic properties.
What this means for New Bedford
These changes would be felt acutely here. New Bedford’s historic community includes hundreds of contributing structures, federally designated National Historic Landmarks, a National Historical Park, and neighborhoods whose economic revitalization has depended directly on the kind of coordinated federal, state, and local review that Section 106 makes possible.
Important local Section 106 projects include the U.S. Custom House, the oldest operating custom house in the country, the roof work on the historic Bourne Building at the New Bedford Whaling Museum, among others. The collaborative processes enabled by Section 106 produced outcomes that a weakened, optional, agency-discretion-only consultation process would make far less likely to replicate.
Massachusetts’ density of historic resources means our communities, our regional economies, and our sense of place have more to lose from this rulemaking than almost anywhere else in the country.
What we’re asking for
In our letter, we asked Governor Healey, et. al. to:
- Formally urge the ACHP, in writing, to withdraw or substantially revise this proposal and to restore the collaborative timeline and member-comment process it had previously committed to.
- Press for a public comment period sufficient to allow State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, local governments, and the public to meaningfully weigh in once the rule is published in the Federal Register.
- Make clear to the Administration and to ACHP leadership that Congress expects the letter and spirit of the National Historic Preservation Act, including its consultation requirements, to be honored, not circumvented through regulation.
How you can help
Historic preservation in New Bedford and across Massachusetts has thrived because of good-faith, collaborative relationships among federal, state, and local partners. This rulemaking puts those relationships directly at risk, and it’s not too late to speak up.
- Write to Governor Healey, via the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s action page.
- Write to your members of Congress during the current comment window via the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s website.
- Learn more about the proposed changes and the rulemaking timeline from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
- Share Section 106 success stories and Explore advocacy resources from Preservation Massachusetts website.
Preservation isn’t about stopping progress; it’s about making sure the places that define our communities are thoughtfully considered and the community has a voice in what happens next. Thank you for making your voice heard.
WHALE (Waterfront Historic Area LeaguE) is a historic preservation nonprofit and community development corporation founded in 1962 to protect and revitalize New Bedford’s historic built environment.