National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

08/18/2026

08/11/2026

Section 106 Works!!!

The Project: In an effort to replace deficient bridges in Oklahoma, a bridge in Sequoyah County was identified as needing replacement. While the bridge itself was determined to not be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), an important NRHP-listed archaeological site occupied during the Late Archaic period (ca. 2000 to 300 B.C.) and during the Mississippian / Early Caddo (Harlan phase; ca A.D. 850 to 1200) periods was located near the bridge.

The 106 Process: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects they carry out, fund, or permit on historic properties prior to making final decisions on the projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funded the bridge replacement project through the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). The landowner, Dan Hill, the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (OAS), and the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) implementing measures to complete a geophysical survey, which identified six previously unknown buried archaeological features, and an archaeological recovery plan to excavate and analyze these features and the artifacts associated with them.

Section 106 Success: The Section 106 process allows for public participation in federally funded, licensed, or permitted actions. As such, Mr. Dan Hill could convey his concerns to the federal agency (and their delegate) pertaining to the prehistoric resources on his property. Furthermore, he was provided with the opportunity to serve as an invited signatory to the Memorandum of Agreement. Neither Mr. Hill’s concerns nor the presence of a significant NRHP listed prehistoric archaeological site prevented the project (the bridge replacement) from moving forward. The project was completed in 2025.

08/10/2026

Between Jan. 1, 2026 & June 30, 2026, PA SHPO was a signatory to nine Section 106 agreements with four agencies as part of consultation to resolve adverse effects to historic properties. Learn more ⬇

08/07/2026

What's next for the Section 106 rulemaking?

Read NCSHPO & National Trust for Historic Preservation comments on the proposed rule, get the latest on the federal rulemaking process, and see how Congress's parallel Section 106 discussions fit into the bigger picture.

Read at link in comments.

08/05/2026

You might have seen some recent stories in the news about historic preservation.

Our State Historic Preservation Office is closely monitoring proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects on historic properties of projects they carry out, assist, fund, permit, license or approve, according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. https://ow.ly/KKyt50ZwkAr

In the coming weeks, we will share more information about these changes on our website at https://ow.ly/TcgL50ZwkAs

For any questions, please email [email protected].

07/31/2026

07/30/2026

Section 106 Works!!!

The Project: In 2015, the Tulsa District Corps of Engineers (COE) submitted the Diamond Pipeline project from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Memphis, Tennessee, for review. The route through Oklahoma would include the following counties: Creek, Haskell, LeFlore, Lincoln, McIntosh, Muskogee, and Okmulgee. The project was initiated by the COE because the company needed federal permits from the COE for water crossings.

The 106 Process: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects they carry out, fund, or permit on historic properties prior to making final decisions on the projects. While the COE only acknowledges a narrow parameter for water crossings as the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and not the entire length of the pipeline corridor that included work stations and pipeline rights-of-way, the OKSHPO’s comments were restricted to only those historic properties that were within the COEs APE.

The SHPO noted that the proposed route cuts diagonally through the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and National Historic Landmark (NHL) designated Honey Springs Battlefield. The engagement at Honey Springs was the largest and most important battle during the Civil War in Indian Territory. To be clear, the battlefield is larger than the nominated area. The boundaries for both the NRHP and NHL are imposed on the site by the property ownership which were not present at the time of the battle. Due to the proposed location of the pipeline and the work zones/vehicular traffic, the SHPO noted that the project would be an adverse effect on the battlefield. Conversely, the SHPO noted that the project would have no effect on Route 66, also a historic property, as they proposed to use horizontal drilling to install the pipeline.

Section 106 Success: The current Section 106 process allows for avoidance, minimization, or mitigation to avert an adverse effect. By working with the project proponent, they were able to reroute the pipeline around the battlefield allowing the archaeological evidence to remain intact and to allow the landscape of the battlefield to go untouched. As such, the project proponent and the federal agency issuing the permit were able to avoid the adverse effect and save the battlefield from unnecessary ground disturbing activities, and more importantly, allowed a pipeline project to be constructed. But for Section 106, the outcome for Honey Springs Battlefield could have been very different.

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

07/29/2026

"If the intent is to reinvent a law that has guided federal decision-making for 60 years, one expects evidence — not a handful of controversial projects, hypothetical scenarios, or isolated examples that reinforce a desired outcome".

Our latest article examines why evidence, not anecdotes, should drive Section 106 discussions, and why meaningful solutions begin with an honest diagnosis.

Read at link in comments.: "Show Your Work: Evidence, Anecdotes, and the Section 106 Debate".

National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
American Cultural Resources Association - ACRA
National Preservation Partners Network