Comment to ACHP re: draft Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient and Connected Communities
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is developing a Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient, Connected Communities that aims to provide federal agencies with an alternate way to comply with their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In doing so, ACHP invited public comment on their proposal. Along with 13 of our Preservation Colleague organizations across the state, the following letter was sent to ACHP in response to their proposed Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient and Connected Communities. Click here for a PDF of this letter.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Sarah Bronin, Chair
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Chair Bronin:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient and Connected Communities. On behalf of the undersigned New York-based preservation nonprofit organizations, the Preservation Colleagues network, we respectfully submit the following comments.
We recognize the need to streamline the Section 106 consultation process in certain areas and appreciate that the ACHP is focusing on housing and climate. As preservation organizations, we advocate for affordable housing projects, climate resilience and sustainability in the built environment, and transportation alternatives. It is imperative that the preservation movement promote these efforts and communicate the essential role that preservation plays in advancing more resilient and equitable communities.
However, we are concerned that the draft Program Comment is too broad in scope and places too much responsibility on federal agencies and/or their consultants to review their own undertakings. As such, it runs counter to the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act and risks irreparably harming the nation’s historic resources. Specific comments are as follows:
We support streamlining the Section 106 process and agree that many of the project types included in the Program Comment are sensible. Projects that are unlikely to impact historic resources—such as electrifying appliances, replacing non-historic playground equipment, or replacing asphalt surfacing, to name a few—should indeed be exempted from the standard Section 106 review process.
For projects with potential adverse effects, we do not support removing SHPO (and other consulting parties) from the Section 106 process. Federal agencies should not be given full decision-making power over their own projects. Many of the project types in the Program Comment require nuanced consideration by an experienced preservation professional (or a person recognized by the relevant Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization to have expertise, where appropriate). SHPO staff provide objective assessment and have extensive experience reviewing potential impacts and applying the SOI Standards. For many project types, they are best suited—alongside design professionals and project sponsors— to explore creative solutions that accomplish the dual goals of preserving character defining features while also providing affordable housing and/or advancing climate goals.
We want to see a re-evaluation of project types that would be covered by the Program Comment, in consultation with SHPO staff. Of particular concern is the exemption of building exteriors, including windows, doors, and the use of substitute materials. Both primary and secondary elevations should remain subject to the standard Section 106 process.
We recommend a revision to the definition of housing to support the preservation and production of affordable housing. The current definition makes no mention of affordability; presumably the Program Comment could apply to any undertaking that involves housing, regardless of ownership or affordability.
The lack of notification requirements is concerning and could result in the intentional or unintentional loss of historic resources and/or character defining features that have not yet been identified in surveys or listed in the National Register. This could disproportionately impact historically marginalized communities, which are generally less well documented.
We also want to see a shorter initial duration of the Program Comment and do not support unilateral extension of the duration by the Chair.
We strongly recommend more robust reporting requirements, including an annual report from participating federal agencies of all undertakings covered by the Program Comment, particularly in the first years that the Program Comment is in effect. Reporting should include in-depth evaluation by ACHP with input from preservation partners such as SHPOs and nonprofit preservation organizations.
Overall, we are concerned that the broad scope of this Program Comment sends the message that preservation is an obstacle to affordable housing and climate solutions. Modern preservation best practices actively promote both. Often, the treatment that meets the SOI Standards is, in the long term, the more economical and sustainable treatment and provides building occupants with an enhanced quality of life.
While we support streamlining the Section 106 process in principle and support many of the exemptions included in the Program Comment, we do not believe that the current draft achieves an equitable balance between streamlining review processes, protecting historic resources, and providing public input in federal undertakings. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Adirondack Architectural Heritage, Erin Tobin, Executive Director
Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, Nuha Ansari, Executive Director
Historic Albany Foundation, Pamela Howard, Executive Director
Historic Districts Council, Frampton Tolbert, Executive Director
Historic Ithaca, Susan Holland, Executive Director
Landmark Society of Western New York, Wayne Goodman, Executive Director
New York Landmarks Conservancy, Peg Breen, President
Preservation Association of Central New York, Nicole M. Fragnito, Executive Director
Preservation Buffalo Niagara, Bernice Radle, Executive Director
Preservation League of New York State, Jay DiLorenzo, President
Preservation Long Island, Tara Cubie, Preservation Director
Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director
TAP Inc., Barb Nelson, AIA, Executive Director
Village Preservation, Andrew Berman, Executive Director
