Add at least one place above to begin.

Are you writing this comment as an individual or on behalf of an organization? This tells the Council who is speaking. Organizations may name the community or constituency they represent.

What is your connection to these places? Your relationship grounds the comment in a real, personal stake.

Would you like to share the cultural community you belong to? OPTIONAL The right of these communities to take part in Section 106 was secured through the 1992 amendments to the Act. You choose whether this appears in your comment.

Would you like to include this demographic information in your comment? Sharing your identity can strengthen the record. Choose No to keep it out of the public comment.

Are the sites you care about already listed on the National Register, or eligible for it? Listed properties are already on the National Register. Eligible properties meet the criteria and are not yet listed (generally at least 50 years old, still holding their historic integrity, and significant for a tie to important events, important people, distinctive design or construction, or information about the past). Section 106 protects both.

Which of these best describe why this matters to you? Select any that apply. These speak to what is at stake for our communities.

Places central to my community were never formally documented and could lose protection Communities and Tribal nations must be consulted before any review is weakened The process moved too quickly and without adequate public notice The changes risk irreparable harm to historic districts and sacred landscapes Another reason (write your own)

Which kinds of projects most worry you near your cultural resources? Select all that apply. These are the federally funded or federally permitted projects that Section 106 review currently reaches.

Data centers Oil and gas pipelines Cell towers and telecom infrastructure Highway and road expansion Federally funded housing and redevelopment Mining and energy extraction Transmission lines and power infrastructure Dams, levees, and water projects

Which specific changes in the rewrite concern you most? Select any that apply. Each reflects a specific provision The Culture Keepers Circle identified in the 50-page draft.

Federally funded highways and housing, and permitted projects like pipelines, cell towers, and data centers, would no longer trigger review at all Stewards of Black burial grounds, freedmen’s towns, and non-recognized Tribes would lose any pathway to be invited to consult Language recognizing Tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship would be struck from the rule A new test would exclude sacred waters, mountains, and cultural landscapes that lack a “compact footprint” or “human improvement” Indirect harms such as water contamination and noise would no longer be counted as effects Silence within 60 days would be treated as consent, permanently waiving a community’s standing Binding agreements would become one-sided decisions, paired with a “covenant not to sue” The rule was advanced in secret on a one-week email vote with no public meeting

Have you or your community taken part in a Section 106 review before? OPTIONAL, BUT POWERFUL Share a specific place and what the process protected. A court will later review this record, and concrete success stories carry real weight.

In your own words, what would be lost if these places were harmed or removed? A few sentences is enough. This becomes the heart of your comment.

The Culture KeepersComment Builder

Find the historic places near you

Tell us your concerns

Step 3 · Your comment

The Culture Keepers
Comment Builder