Denver council to consider opposition to proposed Section 106 rewrite
The council is scheduled to consider an opposition proclamation Aug. 31, while the federal historic-preservation rewrite remains under review without a published public-comment deadline.
Denver City Council is scheduled to consider a proclamation Aug. 31 opposing proposed changes to the federal historic-preservation review process. The council’s adoption of the measure could not be verified as of Aug. 29, 2026.
The council agenda lists Proclamation No. 26-1193 under proclamations and identifies Councilmember Torres as its sponsor. The agenda does not establish that the measure passed. The available proclamation includes a future-dated line stating “PASSED BY THE COUNCIL August 31, 2026,” but no post-meeting minutes, clerk-certified record or official recording dated Aug. 31 or later was available for this update.
If approved, the proclamation would urge the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to withdraw or substantially revise its proposed rewrite of regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It also would encourage Denver residents and preservation organizations to participate if a federal public-comment period opens.
The Advisory Council’s July 24 announcement said the council voted to move forward with a notice of proposed rulemaking revising the Section 106 regulations, known as 36 C.F.R. Part 800. The vote advanced the proposal but did not make the rewrite final.
The proposal’s public-comment period had not opened as of Aug. 29, and no official deadline had been published. The Reginfo.gov record for RIN 3010-AA10 identifies the action as a proposed rule under review. The OIRA pending-review listing showed the action as pending, and a Federal Register search did not show a published notice.
The next formal step identified in the available federal record is completion of interagency review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, followed by publication of a proposed rule in the Federal Register if the proposal moves forward. Publication would begin the formal public-comment process. No OIRA completion date or Federal Register publication date was posted.
Section 106 generally applies when a federal agency carries out, funds, assists, permits, licenses or approves a project that could affect historic properties. The review can involve federal agencies, states, Tribes, local governments and other consulting parties.
The proposed Denver proclamation characterizes the rewrite as potentially making public participation optional, weakening consultation with states, Tribes and local governments, reducing the role of Certified Local Governments such as Denver, exempting some federally funded projects from review, narrowing the definition of historic property and allowing federal agencies to determine whether their own projects cause harm. The proposed regulatory text was not available in the federal records reviewed, so those descriptions remain the proclamation’s characterizations.
Preservation and Tribal organizations have opposed advancing the proposal. Historic Denver’s July 2026 current-issues update describes the changes as sweeping and says they could threaten historic places, including sites in Denver.
The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers said it voted against advancing the proposal, citing concerns about weaker Tribal consultation, narrower consideration of places of religious and cultural significance, and expanded unilateral decision-making by federal agencies, according to its July 2026 update.
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers also said its representative voted against advancing the proposal. In a July 24 update, the organization said formal public comment would follow publication of a notice in the Federal Register. Its initial assessment said the rewrite could make the expertise of state and Tribal historic-preservation offices, local governments and other consulting parties more advisory and give federal agencies greater unilateral authority.
No independently published response from History Colorado or a specifically identified Colorado Tribal Nation was located in the materials reviewed. The council’s action should be updated after a dated council record, certified document or official recording confirms the outcome.