Section 106 | Preservation Mass

Section 106 Success Stories

Massachusetts places, saved through federal review, community voice, and a process now under threat.

Share Your Story!

Gay Head Lighthouse is one story, but Massachusetts is full of others! Mill villages, train stations, courthouses, waterfronts, and neighborhoods that were shaped for the better because Section 106 gave someone a chance to speak up before a federal decision was made.

We're collecting Massachusetts-based Section 106 success stories to show, in concrete terms, what's at stake if this process is gutted. Whether you were a project applicant, a consulting party, a local official, or simply someone who showed up to a public meeting that mattered, we want to hear from you.

Each story we collect helps make the case to regulators, to legislators, and to the public that this process isn't red tape.
It's how communities get a say
in their own history.

SUBMIT YOUR STORY

A Massachusetts Success Story: Gay Head Lighthouse

For more than 160 years, the Gay Head Lighthouse has stood watch over the cliffs of Aquinnah on Martha's Vineyard. It's the only lighthouse in the country with a documented history of Native American keepers, and a landmark deeply tied to the heritage of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). By the early 2010s, the cliffs beneath it were quickly eroding, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation named it one of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places in 2013.

Saving it required moving it, and moving it required Section 106. Because the lighthouse's transfer from the U.S. Coast Guard to the Town of Aquinnah involved a federal action under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act, the General Services Administration had to carry out a full Section 106 review, bringing the Town, the National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Wampanoag Tribe, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to the table, resulting in a formal agreement that not only approved the move, but also built in permanent protections. As part of the deal, the Town granted preservation covenants to the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the National Park Service protecting the lighthouse in perpetuity, and committed to restoring it and reopening it as a working museum.

In 2015, with the help of a mobilized local community and financial support, the 400-ton brick lighthouse was moved 129 feet inland, safely out of reach of the eroding bluff, and reopened to the public. It's a story the ACHP itself now touts as a model of what Section 106 can accomplish.

Gay Head Lighthouse in Aquinnah, MA (Photo by Rene Cizio)

Read ACHP's official account of the Gay Head Lighthouse project.

What is Section 106?

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is one of the quiet workhorses of American preservation law. In plain terms, it requires federal agencies to stop and look before they leap: before a federal project, permit, or funding decision moves forward, the agency has to identify whether historic properties will be affected, and if so, consult with the people who have a stake in the outcome: State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Nations, local governments, preservation organizations, and the public.

Section 106 doesn't give any single party veto power, and it doesn't stop every project. What it guarantees is a seat at the table. For nearly 60 years, that seat has been where some of the best outcomes in American preservation were achieved, not through litigation but through negotiation, creative problem-solving, and communities showing up to say a place mattered to them.

Right here in Massachusetts, that process has saved lighthouses, revitalized train stations, kept mill villages standing, and given communities a voice in how federal decisions shape the places we all call home.

Why This Matters Right Now

Section 106 is facing the most significant threat to its effectiveness in decades.

On July 24, 2026, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the federal body that oversees Section 106, voted to advance a sweeping rewrite of the regulations that implement it (36 CFR Part 800). If adopted, the proposed changes would:

Make public comment optional rather than mandatory for federal agencies
Narrow what counts as a historic property eligible for review
Remove requirements to notify state and local governments when a federal project may affect a historic place in their community
Significantly weaken Tribal consultation requirements

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers have all formally opposed the proposal. The draft rule now heads to interagency review before publication in the Federal Register, at which point a public comment period will open, one of the few remaining opportunities for preservationists, municipalities, and everyday residents to weigh in before these changes could become final.

Learn more and stay informed:

The best case for why Section 106 is worth defending isn't abstract. It's written into the buildings, landscapes, and landmarks it has already helped save, right here in the Commonwealth.