Images via ACHP Section 106 Success Stories
10.30.2025 E&E News | Historic preservation enters the permitting conversation
Hearing
On Wednesday, October 29th, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held their planned Full Committee Hearing to Examine the Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Envisioned to spur conversation about Section 106 and serving as a precursor for regulatory reform, in which impacts to NHPA & NEPA are expected – the committee sought to better understand the Section 106 process.
Challenges most frequently cited by SHPO offices, pertaining to Section 106
1. Lack of Federal Agency Ownership and Capacity
Most frequently cited with offices expressing frustration over federal agencies not fully accepting their responsibilities under Section 106 and staffing accordingly
- Overreliance on SHPO: Federal agency excessive reliance on SHPOs to provide basic guidance and technical support – rather than having their own qualified staff or providing appropriate training to applicants/recipients. There are 5 agencies which consistently pose more challenges than others
- Blame Game: Unjustified & frequent blaming of SHPOs for delays in the process. This is exacerbated when agencies delegate the consultation to applicants or responsible entities without providing adequate training/support
2. SHPO Capacity and Resource Limitations
This is equally as common as the agency issue and highlights internal limitations that constrain SHPO offices from running the review process efficiently
- Funding & Staffing Shortfalls: A lack of staff and funding at SHPO offices results in a lack of capacity to manage increasing workloads, which leads to longer review times (though most SHPOs are within the 30 day time period)
- Technology Deficits: SHPOs are constrained by a lack of modern technology, with many citing the need for an adequate e-submission portal and a functional GIS system for historic survey data
3. Inadequate & Poorly Timed Submissions
This challenge focuses on the quality and timing of the documentation submitted by agencies or their delegates (applicants/consultants)
- Incomplete Information: SHPO staff spend time tracking down information because agencies (or sub-recipients) submit inadequate or incomplete information which lacks necessary context to complete a review including location data, maps, clear project description
- Late Consultation: Submittals often occur too late in the process, meaning agencies do not consult soon enough for survey work to be done without negatively impacting overall project timelines
Talking Points
- The federal government must invest in the preservation of our nation’s history, culture, and archaeological heritage – especially as we prepare to commemorate these milestones in 2026:
- 250th America’s Semiquincentennial
- 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act
- 50th anniversary of the Historic Preservation Fund
- 50th anniversary of the federal Historic Tax Credit program
- The federal government must remain steadfast in its commitment to our nation’s historic resources – holding federal agencies accountable and ensuring SHPOs nationwide have the capacity (funding & staff) necessary to continue partnership with the federal government
- The historic preservation community (inclusive of SHPOs & NCSHPO) welcome opportunities to discuss and systematically address ways to create efficiencies in federal project review – without compromising historic preservation goals
Background
The U.S. government has processes in place for the funding, review and approval of federal projects. These long-standing procedures are rooted in safeguarding natural and cultural resources for the ‘greater good’ on behalf of our citizenry, and to provide a measure of input and accountability for federal projects. Key elements include: application submissions to relevant federal agencies, environmental review & compliance with applicable laws (such as the National Environmental Policy Act – NEPA), interagency coordination, public input and financial transparency.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is one method in which federal agencies are required to review potential impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Referred to as an ‘undertaking’, consultation must take place prior to advancing a project or activity. Federal agencies rely upon the expertise of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) as a required consulting party to assist with identifying and assessing potential impacts on historic properties. When followed correctly, the result is a project that can minimize or avoid impacts to historic properties, that can identify potential challenges early on and offering alternatives, which consequently lead to a more predictable, efficient and responsible project.
Efficiencies Sought
For several years, creating efficiencies in the federal permitting process has been a priority outlined by federal lawmakers. While some aspects attract bipartisan attention, some more divisive strategies have been proposed by the present-day congressional majority. Fueling ongoing conversations to speed up federal projects is the Energy Emergency declared earlier this year by Presidential Executive Order. In part, the EO declared “insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our Nation’s economy, national security, and foreign policy,” and requiring federal agencies to “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other lawful authorities they may possess, to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources, including, but not limited to, on Federal lands.”
Notably, the declared Energy Emergency allows the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to follow ACHP outlined emergency procedures, allowing:
- SHPO only 7 days to respond (vice standard 30 days)
- Project to proceed, regardless of SHPO response (even if more info is needed/requested)
SHPOs Role
The consultative role of State Historic Preservation Offices is a prime example of federalism — delegating certain responsibilities to states instead of relying upon unilateral federal control. Since the enactment of the NHPA in 1966, the federal government has continuously relied upon states to ensure historic resources are factored into federal decision making — a responsibility states have taken seriously, despite decades of underfunding. Though no process is perfect, this partnership is designed to recognize the importance of historic and cultural resources in the lives of everyday Americans.
It would be a dereliction of duty for the federal government to seek efficiencies without giving due consideration to our nation’s historic resources
The Section 106 process remains a highly effective collaborative process, known for achieving positive outcomes. Yielding economic and community benefits that are beyond compare, it has proven time and again how federal project delivery can be balanced with historic preservation — benefitting communities from coast to coast.
Resources
- Federal agency efforts to rescind/revise NEPA:
- Legislation in the 119th Congress w/provisions seeking to propel federal projects forward/reduce perceived barriers, including:
- Fix Our Forests Act [S.1462/H.R. 471]
- HEATS Act [H.R.5587]
- RAPID Act [H.R. 5318]
- FEMA Act of 2025 [H.R. 4669/S. 1246]
- Homefront Act of 2025 [H.R. 5095]
- SPEED ACT [H.R. 4776]
- National Defense Authorization Act FY 2026 [S.2296]
- Connecting Communities Post Disasters Act of 2025 [H.R. 3960]
- FREE Act – Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act [H.R. 689]
- Save Our Sequoias Act [H.R. 2709]
- Coastal Broadband Deployment Act [H.R. 2817]
- Proportional Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act [H.R. 2289]
- Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act of 2025 [H.R. 2298]
- Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act [H.R. 1655]
- Wireless Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act [H.R. 1541]
- Expediting Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects Act [S.378]
- Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act of 2025 [H.R. 2298]
