6.10.2026 Update

Recent reporting on Congressional permitting reform negotiations highlights the debate on the role of the National Historic Preservation Act in project delivery.

While stakeholders continue to discuss potential changes, the conversation has also underscored a reality long recognized by preservation practitioners: in FY 2025 alone, SHPOs and THPOs reviewed over 200,000 federal undertakings. While annual totals vary from year to year, this illustrates the substantial workload these offices manage with limited staffing and resources.

As policymakers consider ways to improve predictability and efficiency, it is worth remembering that many of the tools designed to streamline Section 106 review already exist. Programmatic Agreements, developed through consultation among agencies, SHPOs, THPOs, Tribes, and other stakeholders, continue to provide proven frameworks for efficient project delivery while ensuring historic and cultural resources are appropriately considered.

6.3.2026 Historic Preservation is increasingly intertwined with ongoing Congressional efforts to accelerate infrastructure project delivery. Enter the latest example: the BUILD America 250 Act, which includes provisions that would direct reliance on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 2024 Program Comment for Certain Housing, Building, and Transportation projects — an approach already mired in controversy.

The proposed inclusion of these provisions led a coalition of national preservation, archaeology, and Tribal organizations to urge Congress to take a different approach: strengthen and continue the use of statewide Programmatic Agreements (PAs) that already govern how most transportation agencies comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The argument is straightforward: the streamlining tool Congress is seeking already exists, is widely used, and has a proven record of success.

The Myth of Preservation as a Major Project Delay

Discussions about permitting reform often assume that historic preservation review is a significant obstacle to project delivery. The available data tells a different story.

The overwhelming majority of projects reviewed under Section 106 do not result in adverse effects to historic properties. In practice, most transportation projects move through the review process with little controversy because agencies, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and project sponsors have spent decades developing procedures that focus attention where it is actually needed.

That efficiency is not accidental. It is largely the result of Programmatic Agreements.

What Programmatic Agreements Actually Do

Programmatic Agreements are negotiated frameworks that allow federal agencies and their partners to tailor Section 106 review procedures to the realities of a state’s transportation program.

Rather than reviewing every project the same way, PAs establish clear categories of work that require varying levels of review. They routinely exempt activities with little or no potential to affect historic properties, allowing agencies to focus resources on projects that genuinely warrant closer consideration.

In other words, the very concept often described as “streamlining” is already embedded in these agreements.

A majority of Federal Highway Administration Division Offices and state Departments of Transportation currently operate under statewide PAs. These agreements are not theoretical policy tools sitting on a shelf. They are the day-to-day mechanisms that make transportation project delivery more predictable and efficient, providing agencies and project sponsors with a clear roadmap for compliance that has been refined through decades of practical application.

Flexibility Beats One-Size-Fits-All

One of the strengths of Programmatic Agreements is their ability to evolve.

Transportation programs change. New project types emerge. Technologies advance. States identify opportunities to improve efficiency.

When that happens, PAs can be amended through consultation among agencies, SHPOs, THPOs, and other stakeholders. The process allows participants to update exempted activities, clarify procedures, and address emerging issues without waiting for Congress to revisit statutory language.

That flexibility matters. Transportation programs vary widely across the country, and Programmatic Agreements allow agencies to tailor review procedures to local conditions while still meeting federal preservation requirements.

A national statutory “shortcut”, by contrast, cannot easily adapt to local circumstances and may create uncertainty about when streamlined procedures apply and how they should be implemented.

Getting to “Yes” Faster

Section 106 was designed to ensure that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on historic properties before decisions are made.

That process works best when communities, Tribes, preservation professionals, and agencies help shape the procedures in advance. Programmatic Agreements accomplish exactly that.

The consultation required to develop PAs often resolves issues before projects ever reach construction. Participants understand expectations, review procedures are clearly documented, and potential conflicts can be addressed early. That upfront coordination gives agencies, project sponsors, and consulting parties greater confidence that projects can move forward without unexpected procedural disputes later in the process.

Removing those opportunities for consultation may appear efficient on paper. In reality, it can simply shift disagreements later into the project timeline, where they become more expensive and more difficult to resolve.

A Better Path Forward

The preservation coalition’s recommendation is not to preserve bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. Quite the opposite.

The transportation world is not suffering from a lack of streamlining mechanisms. The challenge is often using existing tools effectively and consistently.

Congress would benefit from building on a framework that transportation agencies already know how to use, that stakeholders already understand, and that has demonstrated success in balancing efficient project delivery with responsible stewardship of historic and cultural resources.

In an era when every federal program seems to be searching for new shortcuts, there is value in recognizing when a tool is already doing the job.

Sometimes the fastest path forward is not creating a new process…it’s using the one that has been working all along.