Section 106

  • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is one of the most important legal mechanisms protecting America's historic places. It's a big part of how we as a nation preserve the irreplaceable sites where our history happened.

    Section 106 ensures that when the federal government does something that would impact a historic site (construct something, approve permits for construction, lease public property, etc.), steps must “take into account” the effects of the project. This legal protection came about during the 1960s, amid a boom in urban renewal projects, highway construction, and other undertakings that resulted in the widespread demolition of historic resources across America's cities.

    Section 106 essentially requires the federal government to determine if historic places would be harmed before initiating a new project, and to consider ways to either avoid, minimize or mitigate that damage. It also mandates that the federal government provide state, local, and Tribal governments, and members of the public an opportunity to express their views on these matters, through a consultation process.

    Proposals that undergo Section 106 review and consultation tend to result in final projects that are less harmful, and more successful generally, thanks to these commonsense requirements. It's similar to how writing tends to be improved with the outside perspective of an editor.

    Courtesy: National Trust for Historic Preservation, https://savingplaces.org/stories/section-106-frequently-asked-questions

  • According to the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC), the state agency who manages Section 106 reviews, last year 1,500 federal projects went through the process and only nine required a memorandum of agreement due to adverse effects on historic resources. The vast majority of federal projects are reviewed in less than the required 30 days - usually half that time. So, while Section 106 does not delay or disrupt projects, it DOES identify historic resources, provide a pathway for mitigation, and has led to the preservation and interpretation of sites across the state.

    For example, according to MHPC, the replacement of the Richmond-Dresden bridge and the reconstruction of River Road in Windham, both of which were funded by the Federal Highway Administration and therefore required Section 106 review, are excellent examples of how consultation leads to the identification of new historic properties. Through early and regular consultation with MHPC and the involvement of knowledgeable members of the public, archaeologists were able to pinpoint the exact locations of two colonial era forts: Fort Richmond in Richmond and Province Fort in Windham.  Complete data recovery was subsequently undertaken at both sites prior to the commencement of work in the affected areas. These efforts uncovered valuable information about the cultural heritage of Maine that might very well have been lost if not for the consultation process.

    In Lewiston, federal Housing and Urban Development funds were used to redevelop an entire block to provide new housing units. The property also included the historically designated Dr. Milton Wedgewood House, and the design of the housing units took into consideration the architectural elements of the historic building that is located on a corner of the block. Early Section 106 consultation with MHPC enabled the architect and developer to develop the design for the rehabilitation of the Wedgewood house in a manner that enabled the use of federal and state historic rehabilitation tax credits.

    These are just two examples of how the Section 106 process helps identify, protect, inform, and interpret sites and projects. Maine has no statewide review process for above-ground historic resources, making Section 106 critical to the preservation of our state history.

 

CALL TO ACTION

Greater Portland Landmarks, Maine Preservation, and the Maine Historic Preservation Commission oppose the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's proposed revisions to Section 106, the federal review process that protects historic resources. The changes would gut this critical tool, and preservation organizations nationwide are pushing back. We also oppose the Senate’s permitting form bill, released on September 30, 2026, that rewrites and severely weakens Section 106. The Senate proposal was developed without consultation with the Tribal Nations, affected communities, preservation organizations, SHPOs/THPOs, local governments, and practitioners who actually participate in Section 106 reviews. 

What you can do now: Call or email the offices of Senator Collins, Senator King, and Representative Pingree. Tell them you oppose the ACHP's revisions to Section 106.

GPL and our partners are drafting Maine-specific language and examples for formal comment letters. For guidance, templates, and talking points, see:

In short, Section 106 protects historic places and without it, we’ll lose them.

The official comment period has not yet opened, but there’s action to be taken now:

  1. Learn more at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Preservation Action, the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and most news sources such as the Washington Post, CNN, and NPR.

  2. Write to the governor, who needs to hear from thousands of Mainers on this issue. The National Trust has an easy form you can use. It will provide language that you can use or customize.

  3. Write to your elected officials: there’s a form to help with this, too.

  4. Stay tuned. We’ll let you know when the official comment period has opened. When this goes to court, preservation lawyers cite letters submitted during that comment window.