In July, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation proposed significant changes to a law known as “Section 106” of the National Historic Preservation Act that could dramatically weaken protections for historic resources in the United States.

Section 106 provides an important process for considering how federal actions may affect historic and cultural resources, including resources in Chestnut Hill and the lower Wissahickon watershed. The Chestnut Hill Conservancy opposes changes that would reduce opportunities for consultation and public participation in that process.

Section 106 currently requires projects involving a federal agency or federal funding to consider the effects of those projects on historic resources. For example, if a municipality renovates a historic bridge using federal funds, or if proposed new construction in a historic district involves federal review or funding, the State Historic Preservation Office and the local municipality can review and comment on the effects of the proposal on historic resources. Additionally, other interested parties, such as preservation organizations like the Conservancy, can receive notice of the proposal and have an opportunity to comment and to request mitigation measures if they believe the proposal will adversely affect historic properties.

Section 106 does not stop projects. It requires federal agencies to consider the effects before making decisions. It is procedural, not prohibitive. It does not dictate outcomes.

Section 106 improves projects. Organizations consistently argue that consultation identifies issues earlier; improves project planning; reduces conflict; leads to better outcomes; and balances preservation with infrastructure and economic development.

The Conservancy has participated in several Section 106 consultations, including proposed cell phone towers on the SugarLoaf Campus of Chestnut Hill College, and Bells Mill Road and Valley Green Road bridges over the Wissahickon Creek. For the bridge project, the Conservancy participated as a consulting party, and staff members Krista Gebbia and Alex Bartlett reviewed PennDOT’s findings and documentation regarding the historic bridges and the project’s impact. The City of Philadelphia owns both bridges and is using federal grant funds; the project also includes the proposed creation of wetlands.

In these cases, the Section 106 process facilitated consideration of the impact on historic resources within the Chestnut Hill National Register Historic District and the Fairmount Park National Register Historic District during project planning.

Section 106 currently provides opportunities for Tribal Nations, state and local governments, organizations, property owners and members of the public to participate in the federal review process. The proposed changes would alter several of those requirements and opportunities, including:

• Federal agencies would no longer be required to avoid or minimize adverse effects to historic properties.

• State and local governments would no longer have the right to be notified and have the opportunity to comment.

• The public’s opportunity to review and comment would be at the option of the relevant federal agency.

• Cultural landscapes would no longer be considered historic resources under Section 106.

What you can do:

• Visit the National Trust’s website to learn more. Sign up for updates, check their to-do list, and learn more about the rulemaking process.

• Contact Gov. Shapiro and encourage him to request a meeting with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

• Contact the district offices of your U.S. representative and U.S. senators.

August recess is an opportunity to connect with congressional offices and talk with staff about why historic preservation matters to Chestnut Hill and Northwest Philadelphia. Ask them to oppose changes that would weaken Section 106 consultation and public participation.

When submitting your message, consider personalizing templates provided by the National Trust and provide examples specific to your community. Individualized messages can help demonstrate that comments come from distinct constituents rather than appear to be repeated submissions of the same text.