Notice of Proposed Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization, 11283-11287 [2016-04640]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
Dated: February 29, 2016.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–04674 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
I. Background on the Draft Policy
Statement
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Notice of Proposed Policy Statement
on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
ACTION: The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation seeks public
comments on its draft Policy Statement
on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization.
AGENCY:
The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) is
planning on issuing a ‘‘Policy Statement
on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization.’’ A Working
Group, comprised of ACHP members
and other preservation organizations,
has drafted a policy and invites your
views and comments. The Working
Group will use your comments to
finalize the draft policy before it is
presented to the full ACHP membership
for consideration and adoption.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
April 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments
concerning this proposed policy to
Charlene Dwin Vaughn, Assistant
Director, Office of Federal Agency
Programs, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 401 F Street NW., Room
301, Washington, DC 20001. You may
also submit comments by facsimile at
202–517–6384 or by electronic mail to
ACHPRightsizing@achp.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charlene Dwin Vaughn, 202–517–0207
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) is an independent
federal agency, created by the National
Historic Preservation Act that promotes
the preservation, enhancement, and
sustainable use of our nation’s diverse
historic resources, and advises the
President and Congress on national
historic preservation policy.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (Section 106), 54
U.S.C. 306108, requires federal agencies
to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties and
provide the ACHP a reasonable
opportunity to comment with regard to
such undertakings. The ACHP has
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
issued the regulations that set forth the
process through which federal agencies
comply with these duties. These
regulations are codified under 36 CFR
part 800.
Jkt 238001
In March 2013, the ACHP issued a
report entitled Managing Change:
Preservation and Rightsizing in
America. It can be accessed at https://
www.achp.gov/RightsizingReport.pdf.
The report focused on communities that
were addressing rightsizing. The
concept of rightsizing applied to
communities undergoing substantial
change due to economic decline,
population loss, increased amounts of
vacancy and abandonment, decline in
local services, increased homelessness
and poverty, declining educational
opportunities, and systemic blight.
Rightsizing has been occurring in
communities around the Nation for
decades as they respond to
transformative events. The report
contained the findings and
recommendations of extensive research,
on-site visits, and ACHP participation
on panels and seminars during which
stakeholders shared their views
regarding the effect of rightsizing on the
community.
The primary findings of the report
included the following observations:
—Historic preservation tools are not
used to maintain the historic integrity
of rightsizing communities;
—Historic preservation needs to be
better integrated in local planning and
economic development;
—Federal programs that can support
rightsizing in a manner that builds on
community historic resources are not
readily available;
—The early initiation of project review
under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) can
facilitate the analysis of alternative
redevelopment strategies that can
integrate historic properties; and
—Federal programs that are targeted to
extensive demolition in a community
do not always reflect the preference of
the residents in a community.
As the ACHP explored options to
implement the recommendations in the
report, it was concluded that the
development of a policy statement
would be appropriate to advance
historic preservation.
In 2006, the ACHP adopted a ‘‘Policy
Statement on Affordable Housing and
Historic Preservation’’ to assist
stakeholders in utilizing historic
properties for affordable housing
projects with minimal delays. It can be
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11283
accessed at https://www.achp.gov/docs/
fr7387.pdf. This Policy Statement was
well received by stakeholders. The
principles outlined in the document are
still used when conducting historic
preservation reviews for affordable
housing projects.
The purpose of developing the Policy
Statement on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization in 2016 is to
ensure that preservation is considered
as a tool that will assist federal, state
and local governments plan and
implement revitalization projects and
programs in a manner that reuses and
rehabilitates historic properties.
The Working Group convened by the
ACHP to assist in developing the policy
statement began meeting in December
2014. Representatives of the Working
Group included, Brad White, Expert
Member of the ACHP, as the Chairman,
the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development, US Department of
Agriculture, Department of Health and
Human Services, the National Park
Service, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, the American Assembly,
Cleveland Restoration Society,
Preservation Research Office, Historic
Districts Council, Rightsizing Network,
Michigan State Historic Preservation
Office, and Indiana Historic
Preservation Office. After consulting for
approximately one year to discuss the
major problem areas that needed to be
addressed in rightsizing and legacy
cities, a working draft of the Policy
Statement was drafted, and distributed
to ACHP members for review.
The comments received from ACHP
members resulted in revisions to the
draft policy statement to achieve the
following:
—Focus on rural and tribal communities
as well as Legacy Cities;
—Emphasize the value of preparing
local architectural and archeological
surveys;
—Emphasize how the principles apply
to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act;
—Reference the role of field, regional,
and state offices in preserving local
assets;
—Address how Section 106 reviews can
be expedited; and
—Define how creative mitigation
measures can facilitate preservation in
communities.
The ACHP invites comments from the
public on the draft Policy Statement (see
text at the end of this notice),
particularly as it relates to the following
questions:
1. How can the principles in the draft
Policy Statement help communities
balance the goal of historic preservation
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
11284
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
and the revitalization of neighborhoods
and communities?
2. How will the principles in the draft
Policy Statement establish a framework
for decision making when communities
receive federal funding to assist
distressed neighborhoods?
3. How will State Historic
Preservation Officers and Certified Local
Governments apply the principles in
their review of local revitalization
programs?
4. Will the draft Policy Statement
assist federal, state and local officials,
developers, residents, and other
stakeholders to explore alternatives for
preserving historic properties in
planning revitalization projects?
5. How can the adoption of creative
mitigation measures help a community
to preserve its historic properties?
6. What form of guidance will be
needed to implement the principles in
this draft Policy Statement?
7. Are there any other major obstacles
to using historic preservation tools in
community revitalization projects that
have not been addressed in this draft
Policy Statement?
The ACHP appreciates receiving
public input on the draft Policy
Statement. Your comments will ensure
that we have taken a holistic approach
in advancing historic preservation as a
viable tool that can help diverse
communities who are recipients of
federal, state, and local assistance.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Text of the Draft Policy
DRAFT ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION (ACHP) POLICY
STATEMENT ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION AND COMMUNITY
REVITALIZATION (February 19, 2016)
Introduction. The 2010 US Census revealed
that, as a result of the decline in the economy
beginning in 2008, an estimated 19 million
properties were abandoned throughout the
nation. As a result of the economic
downturn, many buildings, in particular
historic properties, became vacant and
abandoned, resulting in severe blight around
the Nation. Many economists compared the
impacts of the economic downturn in 2008
to that of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Natural disasters, economic downturns, and
the mortgage foreclosure crisis all occurred at
the beginning of the 21st century and eroded
urban, rural, and tribal communities. While
these events resulted in significant economic
impacts across the country, they accelerated
declines in population, tax base, industry,
jobs, and housing markets caused by
structural changes to the economy in the
Midwest, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic
regions. The estimated demolition of 200,000
properties annually during this period
exemplified the extreme actions many
communities took that resulted in the loss of
homes, buildings, and even entire
neighborhoods, many of which included
older historic buildings that were listed in or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. Although older communities
known as ‘‘legacy cities’’ have been
confronted with these issues, research has
revealed that suburban, rural, and tribal
communities have dealt with similar
problems.
One class of communities, many of which
were located in industrial centers, was hit
particularly hard, struggling with economic
challenges that transcend market cycles such
as the recent recession. These communities,
marked by population loss exceeding 20
percent, require a holistic approach to bring
about their revitalization. Many are older
communities with historic architecture,
social cohesiveness, and walkable
neighborhoods—features which have
increasingly grown more attractive in real
estate markets that are in the process of
recovering.
In 1966 when Congress passed the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), it
determined that ‘‘the historical and cultural
foundations of the nation should be
preserved in order to give a sense of
orientation to the American people.’’ Further,
it stated that ‘‘in the face of ever increasing
extensions of urban centers, highways, and
residential, commercial, and industrial
developments, the present governmental and
nongovernmental historic preservation
programs are inadequate to ensure future
generations a genuine opportunity to
appreciate and enjoy the nation’s rich
heritage.’’
The congressional findings in the NHPA
remain applicable today, particularly since
the economic crisis of 2008. The Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP),
established by the NHPA to advise the
President and Congress on matters relating to
historic preservation, considers local
community revitalization critical to
stabilizing these economically depressed
communities. In overseeing federal project
reviews required by Section 106 of NHPA,
patterns and trends have revealed that
historic preservation reviews are often not
completed before federal funds are allocated
for redevelopment. Preservation options are
not considered and opportunities to reuse
existing assets are missed. Communities,
therefore, need guidance that illustrates how
historic preservation can help them to
determine the disposition of vacant and
abandoned properties, promote
rehabilitation, create affordable housing,
direct growth to target areas that have
infrastructure, use new infill construction to
stabilize neighborhoods, and develop mixed
use projects.
The ACHP issued a report entitled,
Managing Change: Preservation and
Rightsizing in America, in March 2013,
which focused on communities addressing
‘‘rightsizing.’’ Rightsizing applies when
communities have shrinking populations,
vacancy and abandonment, and systemic
blight issues. The report defined it as ‘‘the
process of change confronting communities
that have drastically reduced population and
excess infrastructure with a dwindling tax
base, in need of planning to recalibrate.’’ It
also identified the role of historic
preservation in rightsizing as well as noting
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
relevant existing federal programs and
policies. The extensive research, newspaper
and journal articles, and organizational and
institutional reports on rightsizing revealed
that consideration of historic preservation
issues in rightsizing decisions was often the
exception. The ACHP report noted that
rightsizing should include revitalization.
Likewise, it noted that rightsizing is not
uniquely an urban phenomenon. Rather, it
encompasses diverse communities, including
older suburbs and rural villages. All are in
need of technical assistance, education, and
outreach to help residents, developers, and
local officials use historic preservation tools.
Purpose. In accordance with Section 202 of
the NHPA, the ACHP is issuing this Policy
Statement to provide federal agencies, the
individuals, organizations, or governments
that apply for federal assistance, and public
and private partners with a flexible and
creative approach to developing local
revitalization plans that use historic
properties. It is intended to help address the
substantial challenges facing communities
that have experienced significant population
and job loss, as well as other communities
requiring strategies for revitalization. The
Policy Statement is designed to assist federal
agencies and their grantees and applicants,
State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs),
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
(THPOs), Certified Local Governments
(CLGs), and local governments in complying
with the requirements of Section 106 of the
NHPA. Section 106 requires federal agencies
to take into account the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties and
afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to
comment. With a predictable and consistent
policy framework, federal agencies and
communities will be encouraged to integrate
historic preservation in revitalization
strategies. The policy acknowledges that
consideration of alternatives to avoid or
minimize harm to historic properties is
essential when planning revitalization
projects. Further, by engaging diverse
stakeholders in the planning process,
revitalization projects can achieve multiple
community goals.
Consistent with previous work completed
by the ACHP, the purpose of this policy is
to ensure that historic preservation is
considered as a tool to stabilize and enhance
communities that have suffered from massive
structural changes to their economy. It also
recognizes that other communities, under
less severe economic distress, will benefit
from implementing the strategies described
in the principles below.
The policy addresses the value of local
communities developing historic property
surveys, including those located in older
neighborhoods with historic districts, to use
as a tool in community revitalization. Only
when local officials are aware of the historic
significance of properties in a community
can they make informed decisions about
treatment and reuse. The National Register is
also used to determine whether federal
activities must comply with Section 106.
Likewise, a property must first be listed on
the National Register before it can qualify as
a ‘‘certified historic structure’’ for receiving
the 20 percent Federal Historic Preservation
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Tax Credit for the rehabilitation of historic,
income-producing buildings. Other tax
incentives are often coupled with this credit
to revitalize historic neighborhoods, such as
the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
and state historic preservation tax incentives.
Recent studies have documented that these
tax incentive programs contribute to
economic development and job production.
Further, they are one of the primary tools for
revitalizing neighborhoods that were once
considered blighted.
The ACHP is pleased to issue this Policy
Statement on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization as we celebrate
the 50th Anniversary of the NHPA. The
principles outlined above include sound
guidance to assist communities in their
efforts to incorporate historic preservation
into project planning. As communities
develop revitalization plans to improve local
neighborhoods and target areas, they should
work with federal and state agencies, SHPOs,
THPOs, developers, residents, and other
stakeholders to implement the following
principles. While many are related to the
Section 106 consultation, some can be
applied independently of this review.
Implementing Principles
I. Historic preservation values should be
considered in the revitalization of both rural
and urban communities.
II. Historic preservation should be
incorporated in local planning for
sustainability, smart growth, and community
resilience.
III. Historic property surveys, including
those in historic districts, are tools that
should be used by communities to provide
for federal, state, and local planning and
revitalization projects.
IV. Effective citizen engagement allows
community residents to identify resources
they care about and share their views on
local history and cultural significance.
V. Indian tribes may have an interest in
urban and rural community revitalization
projects that may affect sites of historic,
religious, and cultural significance to them.
VI. Private resources can contribute to local
revitalization efforts and leverage public
funds.
VII. Tax credits can be used to promote
historic preservation projects that preserve
local assets.
VIII. Early consideration of alternatives to
avoid or minimize adverse effects to historic
properties is essential to ensure proper
integration of historic properties in
revitalization plans.
IX. Development of flexible and
programmatic solutions can help expedite
historic preservation reviews as well as more
effectively and proactively address situations
involving recurring loss of historic
properties.
X. Creative mitigation can facilitate future
preservation in communities.
These principles are interpreted below to
provide context for stakeholders who may
consider applying them to their
communities.
I. Historic preservation values should be
considered in the revitalization of both rural
and urban communities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
The NHPA was established in 1966 to
ensure that local revitalization and economic
development projects were responsive to
historic preservation values. Unfortunately,
the provisions of the NHPA requiring
consideration of historic properties in project
planning have not been applied consistently
by federal, state, and local governments. This
is particularly the case when federal funds
are allocated to local communities to address
substantial amounts of vacancies,
abandonments, and the related blight
afflicting communities. Historic properties
should be viewed as community assets and
their treatment should be informed by an
analysis of alternatives, including
stabilization, rehabilitation, new infill
construction, and demolition. Suburban,
rural, and tribal communities have
experienced many of the same or similar
issues as urban areas over the past decades.
Historic preservation tools can assist many of
these communities, particularly when
integrated in project planning as prescribed
by Section 106 of the NHPA. The adaptation
and reuse of historic properties is a viable
alternative that should be given due
consideration by federal, state, and local
officials when renewing communities.
Although historic preservation is often
ignored by stakeholders who assume that
redevelopment will allow them to spend
project funds exclusively on new
construction, decades of historic preservation
projects affirm that historic assets can also
revive a community. Therefore, historic
preservation should be an option that is
regularly considered by officials, in planning
the revitalization of neighborhoods, target
areas, and communities in urban, rural, and
tribal areas where there is considerable
economic decline and blight.
II. Historic preservation should be
incorporated in local planning for
sustainability, smart growth, and community
resilience.
The core principles in sustainability, smart
growth, and community resilience programs
administered by federal government have
been embraced by urban and rural
communities nationwide during the past
decade. Smart growth is a cohesive group of
planning tools that are focused on creating a
development pattern that can be replicated
throughout a region or locality, while
sustainable communities are focused on
conserving and improving existing resources,
including making historic assets such as
buildings, neighborhoods and communities
greener, stronger and more livable. Both
smart growth and sustainability embrace
historic preservation, emphasizing the value
in reusing historic properties. Successful
historic preservation techniques often bring
together both historic properties and
sensitive new construction to create a
dynamic and attractive environment.
Preserving historic properties and
neighborhoods in a community not only
retains streetscapes and original settings, but
also can create a focal point for a community
to embrace its history, culture, and sense of
place, all of which benefit revitalization
efforts and promote community stability.
In the aftermath of natural disasters,
climate change events, and unanticipated
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11285
emergencies, recovery projects are designed
to revitalize and rebuild resilient
communities. Achieving these goals requires
aligning federal funding with local rebuilding
visions, cutting red tape for obtaining
assistance, developing region-wide plans for
rebuilding; and ensuring that communities
are rebuilt to better withstand future
disasters, climate events and unanticipated
emergencies. Maintaining, rehabilitating, and
reusing existing historic buildings can
contribute to stabilizing and revitalizing
neighborhoods. Community recovery and
revitalization plans should be specific in the
use and treatment of historic properties,
coordinated with plans for new construction
and infrastructure. Recognizing that historic
preservation strategies are compatible with
smart growth, sustainability, and resilient
community principles will enable planners
to create housing choices, foster a sense of
place, generate jobs, maintain walkable
neighborhoods, and preserve open spaces,
thereby promoting a holistic community
environment.
III. Historic property surveys, including
those in historic districts, are tools that
should be used by communities to provide a
foundation for federal, state, and local
planning and revitalization projects.
City-wide surveys that are incomplete or
nonexistent may cause the unnecessary loss
of historic properties as well as delays in
project planning and implementation.
Without the historical context explaining the
evolution of neighborhoods and the
significance of existing building stock,
decision making is uninformed. In contrast,
communities that have completed historic
property surveys that include historic
context, identify architectural, archeological,
and cultural resources, and define historic
districts are able to develop more effective
strategies for revitalization. Surveys
conducted in advance can identify areas that
should be given special attention in project
planning and assist developers and local
officials to designate areas for tax or other
financial incentives. While funds for surveys
are often challenging to identify, many States
have used SHPO and federal Historic
Preservation Funds to update surveys
consistent with the scope of work outlined in
State-wide plans. Additional survey
information may be forthcoming during
Section 106 reviews when federal agencies
and applicants identify and evaluate
properties listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places.
Regulations for some federal programs allow
administrative funds to be allocated for
surveys, particularly when there is a need for
long-term plans to be approved for a
neighborhood or target area. Federal agencies
should prioritize assistance to communities
for such planning, where possible. In
addition, local agencies are encouraged to
incorporate historic preservation survey
information in local Geographic Information
Systems to expedite regulatory reviews
required before projects can be approved for
funding.
IV. Effective citizen engagement allows
community residents to identify resources
they care about and share their views on
local historic and cultural significance.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11286
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
The consultation process under Section
106 should be designed to elicit effective and
authentic citizen engagement. Such
engagement will help to identify places
important to the community early in the
consultation process. Special attention
should be given to including communities
that have been overlooked in prior efforts to
identify historic properties, as is often the
case with those places associated with
diverse populations that have minimal
representation in the National Register. Such
information should be routinely sought by
local officials when complying with Section
106 and evaluating properties for listing in
the National Register or on state surveys.
SHPOs and CLG’s can assist in providing
historic context statements for such
properties. Involving local academic
institutions, civic organizations, and
professional associations in the work of local
preservation commissions and architectural
review boards can help ensure that the views
of all segments of the community inform the
identification and evaluation of historic
properties. Citizen engagement is also critical
in the analysis of project alternatives to deal
with adverse effects of redevelopment on
historic properties. Many of the outcomes
from Section 106 reviews are shaped by
recommendations from citizens that
participate as consulting parties in the
process. Federal and local officials, therefore,
should provide guidance and technical
assistance to facilitate citizen engagement in
surveys and project planning.
V. Indian tribes may have an interest in
urban and rural community revitalization
projects that may affect sites of historic,
religious, and cultural significance to them.
As indigenous peoples of the Nation,
Indian tribes have lived in many places
before they became cities and towns.
Accordingly, Indian tribes often have a stake
in the effects of new development on their
history and culture. It therefore is important
to involve Indian tribes in the Section 106
reviews, particularly in the identification and
evaluation of historic properties and
assessment of effects. Since Indian tribes are
required to be invited to participate in
Section 106 as consulting parties, federal and
local officials should become familiar with
those Indian tribes that have ancestral and
historic associations with their communities.
When planning projects and conducting
Section 106 reviews, planners need to look
beyond archaeologists in assessing potential
development sites and involve Indian tribes
to ensure that cultural resources important to
them inform the siting and design of projects.
Indian tribes can also contribute to local
sustainability efforts based on their
ecological and environmental knowledge of
specific geographic areas to which they
attach religious and cultural significance.
Involving Indian tribes early in Section 106
consultations allows them to advise the
federal agency on protocols that should be
followed in the event of unanticipated
discoveries of sites of traditional religious
and cultural significance during project
implementation. Finally, Indian tribes can
provide relevant input to the agency in
developing mitigation measures when sites
cannot be avoided.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
VI. Private resources can contribute to local
revitalization efforts and leverage public
funds.
Private resources are instrumental in
ensuring community revitalization efforts are
successful and transformative. Federal grant
and loan programs can be used in
conjunction with private resources for local
revitalization efforts such as the Department
of Transportation’s TIGER Program and the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Brownfield Grants. These programs require
local communities to provide matching
funds, which are often solicited from the
private sector. Local institutions such as
universities, hospitals, foundations, banks,
land banks, and local businesses frequently
provide matching funds to local
governments. In addition, they often partner
with developers on multi-use historic
projects that benefit the community as a
whole. Banking institutions are able to get
credit under the Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) Program when they contribute to
local revitalization efforts. A bank’s CRA
performance record is taken into account
when evaluating their overall performance.
Therefore, advance meetings with local
banking institutions to discuss strategies
regarding loans for commercial and
residential community revitalization projects
is a good approach to identifying resources
to leverage public funds.
VII. Tax credits can be used to promote
historic preservation projects that preserve
local assets.
Recent research conducted on the impacts
of using Federal Historic Tax Credits have
revealed that investments in historic
rehabilitation have greater positive impact on
employment, state and local taxes, and the
financial strength of the state than new
construction. The use of federal Historic Tax
Credits (HTC), Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC), and State Historic Tax
Credits can often be combined to provide
neighborhoods with financial, social, and
economic benefits. Local governments should
consider how these incentives can be used to
fund not only major projects but also smaller
and mid-size neighborhood projects. SHPOs
are uniquely situated to leverage federal HTC
projects, having worked closely with the
National Park Service and the developer.
After completing Part 1 of the federal HTC
application, local officials should be
encouraged to work closely with federal
regional and field offices, land banks, SHPOs,
and local realtors to identify other vacant and
abandoned buildings that are candidates for
rehabilitation. By stabilizing an entire
neighborhood, these sites can be used for
affordable housing and transit oriented
development projects. NPS and SHPOs can
share cases studies and best management
practices on federal HTC and applicability of
the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, and meet
with local officials and developers to discuss
strategies for preserving local historic
properties.
VIII. Early consideration of alternatives to
avoid or minimize adverse effects to historic
properties is essential to ensure proper
integration of historic properties in
revitalization plans.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Effective utilization of historic properties
to support community revitalization goals
requires that preservation be an integral part
of local planning from the outset. Strategic
efforts to stabilize local neighborhoods in
communities experiencing substantial
population loss should consider alternatives
that can have a positive impact.
Comprehensive neighborhood plans should
disclose the criteria and processes local
officials use to determine specific treatment
for a building. SHPOs can also provide
technical assistance when resources are
available. Likewise, communities that have
CLG’s that work closely with SHPOs can
participate in local administrative reviews
and provide advice regarding how historic
properties may be affected by revitalization
plans. SHPOs and CLG’s can coordinate with
land banks to determine how they can
facilitate building preservation,
rehabilitation, and revitalization plans, as
well as those proposed for substantial
demolitions in target areas or communitywide.
IX. Flexible programmatic solutions help
expedite historic preservation reviews and
address situations involving recurring loss of
historic properties.
Revitalization projects with federal
involvement require compliance with
Section 106 and other federal environmental
review laws. Frequently, programmatic
solutions can expedite compliance with
regulatory requirements, improving the
efficiency of project delivery. Section 106
Programmatic Agreements can respond to
local conditions, foster larger community
preservation goals, and expedite project
reviews. Such agreements often clarify that
plans and specifications developed for local
revitalization projects, which adhere to the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, qualify for
simplified review and achieve desirable
preservation results. The public interest in
preservation should guide planning, such as
focusing reviews on exterior features and
important interior spaces open to the public,
which is included in the ACHP’s Policy
Statement on Affordable Housing and
Historic Preservation, published in 2005.
Planning for larger revitalization projects in
advance of receiving federal monies could
allow local officials to target resources for
micro grants and loans that can stabilize
residential and commercial properties on an
interim basis. CLGs can participate in project
planning and reviews and share with
stakeholders local best management
practices.
X. Creative mitigation that can facilitate
future preservation in communities.
‘‘Creative mitigation’’ is a concept that is
used in environmental reviews when it is
challenging, if not impossible, to avoid
adverse effects or offset them using standard
mitigation approaches. In Section 106
reviews, standard mitigation measures are
customarily directed at the affected historic
property and may include recordation, data
recovery, or curation. Often the public
benefit of using these standard measures is
minimal and mitigation funds might be better
invested in other preservation activities.
Because the Section 106 process does not
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
preordain a preservation outcome for affected
historic properties, federal and local officials
should consider creative mitigation measures
that promote historic preservation goals even
though they do not minimize harm to the
impacted historic resource. For example, a
neighborhood stabilization project may call
for selective demolition of contributing
structures within a historic district. To offset
the loss, the project planners might commit
funds for the renovation of other buildings
within the district or fund a historic
resources survey of a nearby neighborhood as
the basis for future preservation planning.
The activities proposed in creative mitigation
measures should leverage the federal
assistance to allow for broader public
benefits. Discussions about creative
mitigation should be initiated early in the
Section 106 review process when options can
be objectively evaluated and include
consulting parties, representatives of the
affected areas, as well as local officials, to
ensure all views are considered. A desirable
goal of creative mitigation measures is to
advance community-wide preservation. They
might include the development of local
historic preservation ordinances, acquisition
and relocation of historic properties to
alternate sites in a historic district, or
funding for landscaping and streetscape
improvements in a district.
Federal, state, and local officials,
applicants, and residents are encouraged to
use these principles as plans are developed
and Section 106 reviews coordinated. Please
visit the ACHP’s Web site, achp.gov, to view
helpful case studies and best management
practices that can further expand your
knowledge of historic preservation tools, and
how they are being used to revitalize and
stabilize communities throughout the Nation.
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 304102(a).
Dated: February 26, 2016.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2016–04640 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–K6–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
[1651–0080]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Deferral of Duty on Large
Yachts Imported for Sale
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for
comments; Extension of an existing
collection of information.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) of the Department of
Homeland Security will be submitting
the following information collection
request to the Office of Management and
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Budget (OMB) for review and approval
in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act: Deferral of Duty on
Large Yachts Imported for Sale. This is
a proposed extension of an information
collection that was previously
approved. CBP is proposing that this
information collection be extended with
no change to the burden hours or to the
information collected. This document is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before April 4, 2016 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on
this proposed information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget. Comments should be addressed
to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs
and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security, and sent via
electronic mail to oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395–5806.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Tracey Denning,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade, 90 K Street NE.,
10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–
1177, at 202–325–0265.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed information collection was
previously published in the Federal
Register (80 FR 68326) on November 4,
2015, allowing for a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments.
This process is conducted in accordance
with 5 CFR 1320.10. CBP invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to comment on proposed and/
or continuing information collections
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C.
3507). The comments should address:
(a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s
estimates of the burden of the collection
of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden, including the use
of automated collection techniques or
the use of other forms of information
technology; and (e) the annual costs to
respondents or record keepers from the
collection of information (total capital/
startup costs and operations and
maintenance costs). The comments that
are submitted will be summarized and
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
11287
included in the CBP request for OMB
approval. All comments will become a
matter of public record. In this
document, CBP is soliciting comments
concerning the following information
collection:
Title: Deferral of Duty on Large Yachts
Imported for Sale.
OMB Number: 1651–0080.
Abstract: This collection of
information is required to ensure
compliance with 19 U.S.C. 1484b which
provides that an otherwise dutiable
yacht that exceeds 79 feet in length, is
used primarily for recreation or
pleasure, and had been previously sold
by a manufacturer or dealer to a retail
customer, may be imported without the
payment of duty if the yacht is imported
with the intention to offer for sale at a
boat show in the United States. The
statute provides for the deferral of
payment of duty until the yacht is sold
but specifies that the duty deferral
period may not exceed 6 months. This
collection of information is provided for
by 19 CFR 4.94a which requires the
submission of information to CBP such
as the name and address of the owner
of the yacht, the dates of cruising in the
waters of the United States, information
about the yacht, and the ports of arrival
and departure.
Action: CBP proposes to extend the
expiration date of this information
collection with no change to the
estimated burden hours or to the
information collected.
Type of Review: Extension (with no
change).
Affected Public: Businesses and
Individuals.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
50.
Estimated Number of Total Annual
Responses: 50.
Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 50.
Dated: February 24, 2016.
Tracey Denning,
Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2016–04747 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11283-11287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04640]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Notice of Proposed Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
ACTION: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation seeks public
comments on its draft Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is
planning on issuing a ``Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and
Community Revitalization.'' A Working Group, comprised of ACHP members
and other preservation organizations, has drafted a policy and invites
your views and comments. The Working Group will use your comments to
finalize the draft policy before it is presented to the full ACHP
membership for consideration and adoption.
DATES: Submit comments on or before April 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed policy to
Charlene Dwin Vaughn, Assistant Director, Office of Federal Agency
Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 401 F Street NW.,
Room 301, Washington, DC 20001. You may also submit comments by
facsimile at 202-517-6384 or by electronic mail to
achp.gov">ACHPRightsizing@achp.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlene Dwin Vaughn, 202-517-0207
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) is an independent federal agency, created by the
National Historic Preservation Act that promotes the preservation,
enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation's diverse historic
resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic
preservation policy.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section
106), 54 U.S.C. 306108, requires federal agencies to consider the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the
ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such
undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the
process through which federal agencies comply with these duties. These
regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800.
I. Background on the Draft Policy Statement
In March 2013, the ACHP issued a report entitled Managing Change:
Preservation and Rightsizing in America. It can be accessed at https://www.achp.gov/RightsizingReport.pdf. The report focused on communities
that were addressing rightsizing. The concept of rightsizing applied to
communities undergoing substantial change due to economic decline,
population loss, increased amounts of vacancy and abandonment, decline
in local services, increased homelessness and poverty, declining
educational opportunities, and systemic blight. Rightsizing has been
occurring in communities around the Nation for decades as they respond
to transformative events. The report contained the findings and
recommendations of extensive research, on-site visits, and ACHP
participation on panels and seminars during which stakeholders shared
their views regarding the effect of rightsizing on the community.
The primary findings of the report included the following
observations:
--Historic preservation tools are not used to maintain the historic
integrity of rightsizing communities;
--Historic preservation needs to be better integrated in local planning
and economic development;
--Federal programs that can support rightsizing in a manner that builds
on community historic resources are not readily available;
--The early initiation of project review under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) can facilitate the analysis
of alternative redevelopment strategies that can integrate historic
properties; and
--Federal programs that are targeted to extensive demolition in a
community do not always reflect the preference of the residents in a
community.
As the ACHP explored options to implement the recommendations in
the report, it was concluded that the development of a policy statement
would be appropriate to advance historic preservation.
In 2006, the ACHP adopted a ``Policy Statement on Affordable
Housing and Historic Preservation'' to assist stakeholders in utilizing
historic properties for affordable housing projects with minimal
delays. It can be accessed at https://www.achp.gov/docs/fr7387.pdf. This
Policy Statement was well received by stakeholders. The principles
outlined in the document are still used when conducting historic
preservation reviews for affordable housing projects.
The purpose of developing the Policy Statement on Historic
Preservation and Community Revitalization in 2016 is to ensure that
preservation is considered as a tool that will assist federal, state
and local governments plan and implement revitalization projects and
programs in a manner that reuses and rehabilitates historic properties.
The Working Group convened by the ACHP to assist in developing the
policy statement began meeting in December 2014. Representatives of the
Working Group included, Brad White, Expert Member of the ACHP, as the
Chairman, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, US
Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, the
National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
the American Assembly, Cleveland Restoration Society, Preservation
Research Office, Historic Districts Council, Rightsizing Network,
Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, and Indiana Historic
Preservation Office. After consulting for approximately one year to
discuss the major problem areas that needed to be addressed in
rightsizing and legacy cities, a working draft of the Policy Statement
was drafted, and distributed to ACHP members for review.
The comments received from ACHP members resulted in revisions to
the draft policy statement to achieve the following:
--Focus on rural and tribal communities as well as Legacy Cities;
--Emphasize the value of preparing local architectural and
archeological surveys;
--Emphasize how the principles apply to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act;
--Reference the role of field, regional, and state offices in
preserving local assets;
--Address how Section 106 reviews can be expedited; and
--Define how creative mitigation measures can facilitate preservation
in communities.
The ACHP invites comments from the public on the draft Policy
Statement (see text at the end of this notice), particularly as it
relates to the following questions:
1. How can the principles in the draft Policy Statement help
communities balance the goal of historic preservation
[[Page 11284]]
and the revitalization of neighborhoods and communities?
2. How will the principles in the draft Policy Statement establish
a framework for decision making when communities receive federal
funding to assist distressed neighborhoods?
3. How will State Historic Preservation Officers and Certified
Local Governments apply the principles in their review of local
revitalization programs?
4. Will the draft Policy Statement assist federal, state and local
officials, developers, residents, and other stakeholders to explore
alternatives for preserving historic properties in planning
revitalization projects?
5. How can the adoption of creative mitigation measures help a
community to preserve its historic properties?
6. What form of guidance will be needed to implement the principles
in this draft Policy Statement?
7. Are there any other major obstacles to using historic
preservation tools in community revitalization projects that have not
been addressed in this draft Policy Statement?
The ACHP appreciates receiving public input on the draft Policy
Statement. Your comments will ensure that we have taken a holistic
approach in advancing historic preservation as a viable tool that can
help diverse communities who are recipients of federal, state, and
local assistance.
II. Text of the Draft Policy
DRAFT ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION (ACHP) POLICY STATEMENT
ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION (February 19,
2016)
Introduction. The 2010 US Census revealed that, as a result of
the decline in the economy beginning in 2008, an estimated 19
million properties were abandoned throughout the nation. As a result
of the economic downturn, many buildings, in particular historic
properties, became vacant and abandoned, resulting in severe blight
around the Nation. Many economists compared the impacts of the
economic downturn in 2008 to that of the Great Depression in the
1930s. Natural disasters, economic downturns, and the mortgage
foreclosure crisis all occurred at the beginning of the 21st century
and eroded urban, rural, and tribal communities. While these events
resulted in significant economic impacts across the country, they
accelerated declines in population, tax base, industry, jobs, and
housing markets caused by structural changes to the economy in the
Midwest, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic regions. The estimated
demolition of 200,000 properties annually during this period
exemplified the extreme actions many communities took that resulted
in the loss of homes, buildings, and even entire neighborhoods, many
of which included older historic buildings that were listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Although older communities known as ``legacy cities'' have been
confronted with these issues, research has revealed that suburban,
rural, and tribal communities have dealt with similar problems.
One class of communities, many of which were located in
industrial centers, was hit particularly hard, struggling with
economic challenges that transcend market cycles such as the recent
recession. These communities, marked by population loss exceeding 20
percent, require a holistic approach to bring about their
revitalization. Many are older communities with historic
architecture, social cohesiveness, and walkable neighborhoods--
features which have increasingly grown more attractive in real
estate markets that are in the process of recovering.
In 1966 when Congress passed the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA), it determined that ``the historical and cultural
foundations of the nation should be preserved in order to give a
sense of orientation to the American people.'' Further, it stated
that ``in the face of ever increasing extensions of urban centers,
highways, and residential, commercial, and industrial developments,
the present governmental and nongovernmental historic preservation
programs are inadequate to ensure future generations a genuine
opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the nation's rich heritage.''
The congressional findings in the NHPA remain applicable today,
particularly since the economic crisis of 2008. The Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP), established by the NHPA to advise
the President and Congress on matters relating to historic
preservation, considers local community revitalization critical to
stabilizing these economically depressed communities. In overseeing
federal project reviews required by Section 106 of NHPA, patterns
and trends have revealed that historic preservation reviews are
often not completed before federal funds are allocated for
redevelopment. Preservation options are not considered and
opportunities to reuse existing assets are missed. Communities,
therefore, need guidance that illustrates how historic preservation
can help them to determine the disposition of vacant and abandoned
properties, promote rehabilitation, create affordable housing,
direct growth to target areas that have infrastructure, use new
infill construction to stabilize neighborhoods, and develop mixed
use projects.
The ACHP issued a report entitled, Managing Change: Preservation
and Rightsizing in America, in March 2013, which focused on
communities addressing ``rightsizing.'' Rightsizing applies when
communities have shrinking populations, vacancy and abandonment, and
systemic blight issues. The report defined it as ``the process of
change confronting communities that have drastically reduced
population and excess infrastructure with a dwindling tax base, in
need of planning to recalibrate.'' It also identified the role of
historic preservation in rightsizing as well as noting relevant
existing federal programs and policies. The extensive research,
newspaper and journal articles, and organizational and institutional
reports on rightsizing revealed that consideration of historic
preservation issues in rightsizing decisions was often the
exception. The ACHP report noted that rightsizing should include
revitalization. Likewise, it noted that rightsizing is not uniquely
an urban phenomenon. Rather, it encompasses diverse communities,
including older suburbs and rural villages. All are in need of
technical assistance, education, and outreach to help residents,
developers, and local officials use historic preservation tools.
Purpose. In accordance with Section 202 of the NHPA, the ACHP is
issuing this Policy Statement to provide federal agencies, the
individuals, organizations, or governments that apply for federal
assistance, and public and private partners with a flexible and
creative approach to developing local revitalization plans that use
historic properties. It is intended to help address the substantial
challenges facing communities that have experienced significant
population and job loss, as well as other communities requiring
strategies for revitalization. The Policy Statement is designed to
assist federal agencies and their grantees and applicants, State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers (THPOs), Certified Local Governments (CLGs), and local
governments in complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the
NHPA. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the
ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment. With a predictable and
consistent policy framework, federal agencies and communities will
be encouraged to integrate historic preservation in revitalization
strategies. The policy acknowledges that consideration of
alternatives to avoid or minimize harm to historic properties is
essential when planning revitalization projects. Further, by
engaging diverse stakeholders in the planning process,
revitalization projects can achieve multiple community goals.
Consistent with previous work completed by the ACHP, the purpose
of this policy is to ensure that historic preservation is considered
as a tool to stabilize and enhance communities that have suffered
from massive structural changes to their economy. It also recognizes
that other communities, under less severe economic distress, will
benefit from implementing the strategies described in the principles
below.
The policy addresses the value of local communities developing
historic property surveys, including those located in older
neighborhoods with historic districts, to use as a tool in community
revitalization. Only when local officials are aware of the historic
significance of properties in a community can they make informed
decisions about treatment and reuse. The National Register is also
used to determine whether federal activities must comply with
Section 106. Likewise, a property must first be listed on the
National Register before it can qualify as a ``certified historic
structure'' for receiving the 20 percent Federal Historic
Preservation
[[Page 11285]]
Tax Credit for the rehabilitation of historic, income-producing
buildings. Other tax incentives are often coupled with this credit
to revitalize historic neighborhoods, such as the Federal Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit and state historic preservation tax incentives.
Recent studies have documented that these tax incentive programs
contribute to economic development and job production. Further, they
are one of the primary tools for revitalizing neighborhoods that
were once considered blighted.
The ACHP is pleased to issue this Policy Statement on Historic
Preservation and Community Revitalization as we celebrate the 50th
Anniversary of the NHPA. The principles outlined above include sound
guidance to assist communities in their efforts to incorporate
historic preservation into project planning. As communities develop
revitalization plans to improve local neighborhoods and target
areas, they should work with federal and state agencies, SHPOs,
THPOs, developers, residents, and other stakeholders to implement
the following principles. While many are related to the Section 106
consultation, some can be applied independently of this review.
Implementing Principles
I. Historic preservation values should be considered in the
revitalization of both rural and urban communities.
II. Historic preservation should be incorporated in local
planning for sustainability, smart growth, and community resilience.
III. Historic property surveys, including those in historic
districts, are tools that should be used by communities to provide
for federal, state, and local planning and revitalization projects.
IV. Effective citizen engagement allows community residents to
identify resources they care about and share their views on local
history and cultural significance.
V. Indian tribes may have an interest in urban and rural
community revitalization projects that may affect sites of historic,
religious, and cultural significance to them.
VI. Private resources can contribute to local revitalization
efforts and leverage public funds.
VII. Tax credits can be used to promote historic preservation
projects that preserve local assets.
VIII. Early consideration of alternatives to avoid or minimize
adverse effects to historic properties is essential to ensure proper
integration of historic properties in revitalization plans.
IX. Development of flexible and programmatic solutions can help
expedite historic preservation reviews as well as more effectively
and proactively address situations involving recurring loss of
historic properties.
X. Creative mitigation can facilitate future preservation in
communities.
These principles are interpreted below to provide context for
stakeholders who may consider applying them to their communities.
I. Historic preservation values should be considered in the
revitalization of both rural and urban communities.
The NHPA was established in 1966 to ensure that local
revitalization and economic development projects were responsive to
historic preservation values. Unfortunately, the provisions of the
NHPA requiring consideration of historic properties in project
planning have not been applied consistently by federal, state, and
local governments. This is particularly the case when federal funds
are allocated to local communities to address substantial amounts of
vacancies, abandonments, and the related blight afflicting
communities. Historic properties should be viewed as community
assets and their treatment should be informed by an analysis of
alternatives, including stabilization, rehabilitation, new infill
construction, and demolition. Suburban, rural, and tribal
communities have experienced many of the same or similar issues as
urban areas over the past decades. Historic preservation tools can
assist many of these communities, particularly when integrated in
project planning as prescribed by Section 106 of the NHPA. The
adaptation and reuse of historic properties is a viable alternative
that should be given due consideration by federal, state, and local
officials when renewing communities. Although historic preservation
is often ignored by stakeholders who assume that redevelopment will
allow them to spend project funds exclusively on new construction,
decades of historic preservation projects affirm that historic
assets can also revive a community. Therefore, historic preservation
should be an option that is regularly considered by officials, in
planning the revitalization of neighborhoods, target areas, and
communities in urban, rural, and tribal areas where there is
considerable economic decline and blight.
II. Historic preservation should be incorporated in local
planning for sustainability, smart growth, and community resilience.
The core principles in sustainability, smart growth, and
community resilience programs administered by federal government
have been embraced by urban and rural communities nationwide during
the past decade. Smart growth is a cohesive group of planning tools
that are focused on creating a development pattern that can be
replicated throughout a region or locality, while sustainable
communities are focused on conserving and improving existing
resources, including making historic assets such as buildings,
neighborhoods and communities greener, stronger and more livable.
Both smart growth and sustainability embrace historic preservation,
emphasizing the value in reusing historic properties. Successful
historic preservation techniques often bring together both historic
properties and sensitive new construction to create a dynamic and
attractive environment. Preserving historic properties and
neighborhoods in a community not only retains streetscapes and
original settings, but also can create a focal point for a community
to embrace its history, culture, and sense of place, all of which
benefit revitalization efforts and promote community stability.
In the aftermath of natural disasters, climate change events,
and unanticipated emergencies, recovery projects are designed to
revitalize and rebuild resilient communities. Achieving these goals
requires aligning federal funding with local rebuilding visions,
cutting red tape for obtaining assistance, developing region-wide
plans for rebuilding; and ensuring that communities are rebuilt to
better withstand future disasters, climate events and unanticipated
emergencies. Maintaining, rehabilitating, and reusing existing
historic buildings can contribute to stabilizing and revitalizing
neighborhoods. Community recovery and revitalization plans should be
specific in the use and treatment of historic properties,
coordinated with plans for new construction and infrastructure.
Recognizing that historic preservation strategies are compatible
with smart growth, sustainability, and resilient community
principles will enable planners to create housing choices, foster a
sense of place, generate jobs, maintain walkable neighborhoods, and
preserve open spaces, thereby promoting a holistic community
environment.
III. Historic property surveys, including those in historic
districts, are tools that should be used by communities to provide a
foundation for federal, state, and local planning and revitalization
projects.
City-wide surveys that are incomplete or nonexistent may cause
the unnecessary loss of historic properties as well as delays in
project planning and implementation. Without the historical context
explaining the evolution of neighborhoods and the significance of
existing building stock, decision making is uninformed. In contrast,
communities that have completed historic property surveys that
include historic context, identify architectural, archeological, and
cultural resources, and define historic districts are able to
develop more effective strategies for revitalization. Surveys
conducted in advance can identify areas that should be given special
attention in project planning and assist developers and local
officials to designate areas for tax or other financial incentives.
While funds for surveys are often challenging to identify, many
States have used SHPO and federal Historic Preservation Funds to
update surveys consistent with the scope of work outlined in State-
wide plans. Additional survey information may be forthcoming during
Section 106 reviews when federal agencies and applicants identify
and evaluate properties listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. Regulations for some federal
programs allow administrative funds to be allocated for surveys,
particularly when there is a need for long-term plans to be approved
for a neighborhood or target area. Federal agencies should
prioritize assistance to communities for such planning, where
possible. In addition, local agencies are encouraged to incorporate
historic preservation survey information in local Geographic
Information Systems to expedite regulatory reviews required before
projects can be approved for funding.
IV. Effective citizen engagement allows community residents to
identify resources they care about and share their views on local
historic and cultural significance.
[[Page 11286]]
The consultation process under Section 106 should be designed to
elicit effective and authentic citizen engagement. Such engagement
will help to identify places important to the community early in the
consultation process. Special attention should be given to including
communities that have been overlooked in prior efforts to identify
historic properties, as is often the case with those places
associated with diverse populations that have minimal representation
in the National Register. Such information should be routinely
sought by local officials when complying with Section 106 and
evaluating properties for listing in the National Register or on
state surveys. SHPOs and CLG's can assist in providing historic
context statements for such properties. Involving local academic
institutions, civic organizations, and professional associations in
the work of local preservation commissions and architectural review
boards can help ensure that the views of all segments of the
community inform the identification and evaluation of historic
properties. Citizen engagement is also critical in the analysis of
project alternatives to deal with adverse effects of redevelopment
on historic properties. Many of the outcomes from Section 106
reviews are shaped by recommendations from citizens that participate
as consulting parties in the process. Federal and local officials,
therefore, should provide guidance and technical assistance to
facilitate citizen engagement in surveys and project planning.
V. Indian tribes may have an interest in urban and rural
community revitalization projects that may affect sites of historic,
religious, and cultural significance to them.
As indigenous peoples of the Nation, Indian tribes have lived in
many places before they became cities and towns. Accordingly, Indian
tribes often have a stake in the effects of new development on their
history and culture. It therefore is important to involve Indian
tribes in the Section 106 reviews, particularly in the
identification and evaluation of historic properties and assessment
of effects. Since Indian tribes are required to be invited to
participate in Section 106 as consulting parties, federal and local
officials should become familiar with those Indian tribes that have
ancestral and historic associations with their communities. When
planning projects and conducting Section 106 reviews, planners need
to look beyond archaeologists in assessing potential development
sites and involve Indian tribes to ensure that cultural resources
important to them inform the siting and design of projects. Indian
tribes can also contribute to local sustainability efforts based on
their ecological and environmental knowledge of specific geographic
areas to which they attach religious and cultural significance.
Involving Indian tribes early in Section 106 consultations allows
them to advise the federal agency on protocols that should be
followed in the event of unanticipated discoveries of sites of
traditional religious and cultural significance during project
implementation. Finally, Indian tribes can provide relevant input to
the agency in developing mitigation measures when sites cannot be
avoided.
VI. Private resources can contribute to local revitalization
efforts and leverage public funds.
Private resources are instrumental in ensuring community
revitalization efforts are successful and transformative. Federal
grant and loan programs can be used in conjunction with private
resources for local revitalization efforts such as the Department of
Transportation's TIGER Program and the Environmental Protection
Agency's Brownfield Grants. These programs require local communities
to provide matching funds, which are often solicited from the
private sector. Local institutions such as universities, hospitals,
foundations, banks, land banks, and local businesses frequently
provide matching funds to local governments. In addition, they often
partner with developers on multi-use historic projects that benefit
the community as a whole. Banking institutions are able to get
credit under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Program when they
contribute to local revitalization efforts. A bank's CRA performance
record is taken into account when evaluating their overall
performance. Therefore, advance meetings with local banking
institutions to discuss strategies regarding loans for commercial
and residential community revitalization projects is a good approach
to identifying resources to leverage public funds.
VII. Tax credits can be used to promote historic preservation
projects that preserve local assets.
Recent research conducted on the impacts of using Federal
Historic Tax Credits have revealed that investments in historic
rehabilitation have greater positive impact on employment, state and
local taxes, and the financial strength of the state than new
construction. The use of federal Historic Tax Credits (HTC), Low
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and State Historic Tax Credits
can often be combined to provide neighborhoods with financial,
social, and economic benefits. Local governments should consider how
these incentives can be used to fund not only major projects but
also smaller and mid-size neighborhood projects. SHPOs are uniquely
situated to leverage federal HTC projects, having worked closely
with the National Park Service and the developer. After completing
Part 1 of the federal HTC application, local officials should be
encouraged to work closely with federal regional and field offices,
land banks, SHPOs, and local realtors to identify other vacant and
abandoned buildings that are candidates for rehabilitation. By
stabilizing an entire neighborhood, these sites can be used for
affordable housing and transit oriented development projects. NPS
and SHPOs can share cases studies and best management practices on
federal HTC and applicability of the Secretary of Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and meet with
local officials and developers to discuss strategies for preserving
local historic properties.
VIII. Early consideration of alternatives to avoid or minimize
adverse effects to historic properties is essential to ensure proper
integration of historic properties in revitalization plans.
Effective utilization of historic properties to support
community revitalization goals requires that preservation be an
integral part of local planning from the outset. Strategic efforts
to stabilize local neighborhoods in communities experiencing
substantial population loss should consider alternatives that can
have a positive impact. Comprehensive neighborhood plans should
disclose the criteria and processes local officials use to determine
specific treatment for a building. SHPOs can also provide technical
assistance when resources are available. Likewise, communities that
have CLG's that work closely with SHPOs can participate in local
administrative reviews and provide advice regarding how historic
properties may be affected by revitalization plans. SHPOs and CLG's
can coordinate with land banks to determine how they can facilitate
building preservation, rehabilitation, and revitalization plans, as
well as those proposed for substantial demolitions in target areas
or community-wide.
IX. Flexible programmatic solutions help expedite historic
preservation reviews and address situations involving recurring loss
of historic properties.
Revitalization projects with federal involvement require
compliance with Section 106 and other federal environmental review
laws. Frequently, programmatic solutions can expedite compliance
with regulatory requirements, improving the efficiency of project
delivery. Section 106 Programmatic Agreements can respond to local
conditions, foster larger community preservation goals, and expedite
project reviews. Such agreements often clarify that plans and
specifications developed for local revitalization projects, which
adhere to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, qualify for simplified review and achieve
desirable preservation results. The public interest in preservation
should guide planning, such as focusing reviews on exterior features
and important interior spaces open to the public, which is included
in the ACHP's Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic
Preservation, published in 2005. Planning for larger revitalization
projects in advance of receiving federal monies could allow local
officials to target resources for micro grants and loans that can
stabilize residential and commercial properties on an interim basis.
CLGs can participate in project planning and reviews and share with
stakeholders local best management practices.
X. Creative mitigation that can facilitate future preservation
in communities.
``Creative mitigation'' is a concept that is used in
environmental reviews when it is challenging, if not impossible, to
avoid adverse effects or offset them using standard mitigation
approaches. In Section 106 reviews, standard mitigation measures are
customarily directed at the affected historic property and may
include recordation, data recovery, or curation. Often the public
benefit of using these standard measures is minimal and mitigation
funds might be better invested in other preservation activities.
Because the Section 106 process does not
[[Page 11287]]
preordain a preservation outcome for affected historic properties,
federal and local officials should consider creative mitigation
measures that promote historic preservation goals even though they
do not minimize harm to the impacted historic resource. For example,
a neighborhood stabilization project may call for selective
demolition of contributing structures within a historic district. To
offset the loss, the project planners might commit funds for the
renovation of other buildings within the district or fund a historic
resources survey of a nearby neighborhood as the basis for future
preservation planning. The activities proposed in creative
mitigation measures should leverage the federal assistance to allow
for broader public benefits. Discussions about creative mitigation
should be initiated early in the Section 106 review process when
options can be objectively evaluated and include consulting parties,
representatives of the affected areas, as well as local officials,
to ensure all views are considered. A desirable goal of creative
mitigation measures is to advance community-wide preservation. They
might include the development of local historic preservation
ordinances, acquisition and relocation of historic properties to
alternate sites in a historic district, or funding for landscaping
and streetscape improvements in a district.
Federal, state, and local officials, applicants, and residents
are encouraged to use these principles as plans are developed and
Section 106 reviews coordinated. Please visit the ACHP's Web site,
achp.gov, to view helpful case studies and best management practices
that can further expand your knowledge of historic preservation
tools, and how they are being used to revitalize and stabilize
communities throughout the Nation.
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 304102(a).
Dated: February 26, 2016.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-04640 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P