Notice of Adoption of Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization, 80669-80675 [2016-27536]

Agencies

• Historic Preservation, Advisory Council

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80669-80675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27536]



[[Page 80669]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION


Notice of Adoption of Policy Statement on Historic Preservation 
and Community Revitalization

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ACTION: Adoption of Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and 
Community Revitalization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) adopted a 
Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization.

DATES: The final policy was adopted, and went into effect, on October 
26, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlene Dwin Vaughn, AICP, Assistant 
Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, ACHP, at 202-517-0207, or 
cvaughn@achp.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP) is an independent agency, created by the National 
Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq), that promotes the 
preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our Nation's historic 
resources, and advises the President and Congress on national 
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 projects that require federal approval, that receive federal 
financial assistance, or that are carried out by federal agencies, on 
historic properties and provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to 
comment with regard to such projects. ACHP has issued the regulations 
that set forth the process through which Federal agencies comply with 
these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800.

I. Background

    In March 2014, the ACHP issued the report entitled Managing Change: 
Preservation and Rightsizing in America, which can be accessed at 
https://www.achp.gov//RightsizingReport.pdf. This report focused on 
communities that were addressing rightsizing. The concept of 
rightsizing applies 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 
several decades as they respond to transformative events. The report 
contained the findings and recommendations of extensive research, on-
site visits, and ACHP participation in panels and seminars during which 
diverse stakeholders shared their views regarding the effect on 
rightsizing in the community.
    As the ACHP explored options to implement the recommendations in 
the report, it was concluded in 2015 that the development of a policy 
statement would be appropriate to advance historic preservation 
principles. Therefore, the purpose of developing the Policy Statement 
on Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization 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 will consider the reuse and rehabilitation of 
historic properties.
    In 2014, the Chairman of the ACHP convened a Working Group to 
assist in developing a draft policy statement. Representatives of the 
Working Group included the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, the National Park Service, the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Assembly, the Cleveland 
Restoration Society, Preservation Research Office, Historic Districts 
Council, Preservation Rightsizing Network, the Michigan State Historic 
Preservation Officer, and ACHP expert member Bradford White, Chair of 
the Working Group.
    Following the development of the draft, the ACHP posted the 
proposed draft in the Federal Register on March 3, 2016, and comments 
from the public were accepted through April 4, 2016. Information 
regarding the March 3, 2016, Federal Register notice, was posted on the 
ACHP Web site. It was widely distributed by members of the Working 
Group to their respective constituencies through broadcast emails and 
electronic LISTSERVs including communities receiving Community Block 
Grant funds from HUD, the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 
Forum, the Preservation Rightsizing Network members, and the National 
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO). In 
addition, a broadcast email was sent to Tribal Historic Preservation 
Officers for their review. To ensure that all local communities 
received the draft, it was sent to organizations actively involved in 
Legacy Cities and rightsizing activities.
    Only thirteen (13) comments were submitted by the public on the 
draft policy statement. The majority of these commenters supported the 
draft and were eager for the ACHP to adopt the policy statement so that 
it could be implemented to advance local historic preservation. Four 
commenters, however, expressed concerns regarding a number of 
substantive issues and were basically critical about the ACHP's 
development of the draft policy. Major issues expressed by the four 
commenters included recommendations that the document should be revised 
to improve grammar and tone and references to the Section 106 process. 
They also took exception to the ACHP's use of flexible and programmatic 
solutions given their opinion that the ACHP had approved many 
contradictory systems over the years.
    Other noteworthy comments made by the objectors to the draft policy 
statement included the following: (1) The sequencing of the principles 
needed to be changed; (2) best practices and case studies needed to be 
incorporated in the draft to illustrate the principles; (3) failure to 
encourage flexibility when applying the Secretary of Interior's 
Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary Standards); (4) more 
communities needed to be encouraged to become Certified Local 
Governments (CLGs); (5) allow CLGs to determine the National Register 
eligibility of properties; (6) educate stakeholders about how to apply 
the principles in the policy statement; (7) revise the ACHP's 
regulations as they include a dated framework for problem-solving; (8) 
acknowledge the benefits of state and local tax credits to communities; 
(9) public-private partnerships should be creative and incentivize the 
revitalization of neighborhoods; (10) allow residents to identify the 
resources they care about; (11) the policy is overly concerned with 
buildings and properties instead of concepts of place and landscapes; 
(12) acknowledge the immense scale of challenges for vacant and 
distressed buildings nationwide; (13) present the principles in the 
format of a Section 106 document; (14) public subsidy of historic 
preservation projects must avoid reinvestment in unsustainable areas; 
(15) all mitigation should be creative; and (16) change the tile to 
``Community Revitalization and Historic Preservation.''
    ACHP staff developed a Comment Matrix of the 104 substantive 
comments submitted by the 13 commenters. In addition to summarizing the 
comments and clarifying the ACHP's response, the

[[Page 80670]]

draft Policy Statement was extensively revised to incorporate all 
pertinent recommendations. The title of the Policy Statement was 
retained as it ensured that the document would be used as a historic 
preservation tool. Further, the number of principles were increased 
from ten (10) to 13 and the sequencing was modified to ensure that the 
principles addressed the comments received from the public. The Working 
Group was advised that the policy statement should be inclusive and 
applicable to all communities. As such, it does not have the urban 
focus that was recommended. Principle III of the draft became Principle 
IV in the final policy. It recognizes the importance of technology and 
community input in the preparation of local inventories and surveys. 
Principle IX was revised to acknowledge that tax credits benefit small 
as well as large projects, and that beyond financial benefits in the 
form of equity, social and other economic benefits may also be accrued.
    While Section 106 applies to most projects that meet the definition 
of undertaking as outlined in 36 CFR 800.16(y), ``when the agency 
determines that the undertaking is a type of activity that does not 
have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming 
such historic properties were present, the official has no further 
obligations under section 106.'' 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1). Therefore, the 
commenter that suggested that the use of all federal dollars should 
require compliance with Section 106 did not consider this provision or 
the fact that a Section 106 program alternative may also exclude 
certain federal activities. Likewise, the recommendation that federal 
funds must be allocated to support the development of comprehensive 
planning and revitalization strategies is incorrect. While the ACHP 
agrees with this recommendation in theory, a federal agency like HUD or 
the Rural Development under the Department of Agriculture would have to 
adopt this concept into their grant programs.
    The inclusion of references to Indian tribes in the policy 
statement was specifically requested by ACHP members. If they were 
excluded, the perspectives and concerns of Indian tribes would be 
minimized. Since Indian tribes are participants in the Section 106 
consultations and provide expertise on the importance and significance 
of historic properties on tribal lands as well as historic properties 
located off-tribal lands which have religious and cultural significance 
to them, it is important that they be involved in the development of 
community revitalization strategies for communities located throughout 
the Nation.
    Comments submitted asserting that the National Register criteria 
are viewed as an impediment, and restrict effective citizen engagement 
were not specifically addressed in the final policy statement. These 
comments and the related suggestions argue that Section 106 of the NHPA 
is a dated framework. This is beyond the scope of the development of 
this policy statement. However, it should be noted that Principle V is 
revised to allow communities to recognize the value of places that are 
important to local residents. In addition, Principle VII emphasizes the 
need for diverse citizen engagement, which encourages that all 
residents should participate in the identification of historic 
properties.
    The Working Group determined that it was important to publish a 
current policy statement that reaffirmed the importance of historic 
preservation to the revitalization of all communities that must adapt 
to changing physical, social, and economic conditions. Federal urban 
policies disseminated since 2008 have not always consistently endorsed 
the importance of historic preservation in assistance programs. This 
policy statement will continue to promote the importance of federal 
leadership in historic preservation. Further, the policy statement will 
be continually updated to illustrate for stakeholders the application 
of the principles, and to educate citizens about the benefits of 
historic preservation as part of the revitalization of their 
communities. In collaboration with federal agencies and preservation 
organizations, the policy statement will be distributed to local, area, 
field, and regional staff so that the principles assist staff in 
planning and reviewing projects and developing new programs to help 
reverse the loss of historic properties as cities implement public-
private programs throughout the community.
    The policy statement, which represents the conclusion of the 
research and public outreach efforts of the Working Group, ACHP staff, 
and deliberation of its members, was adopted by the ACHP by an 
unassembled meeting vote on October 26, 2016. The final text of the 
policy statement is provided in Section II of this notice.

II. Text of the Policy

    This is the final text of the policy, as adopted by the ACHP on 
October 26, 2016:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Policy Statement on 
Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization

Introduction

    The 2010 U.S. Census revealed that, as a result of the significant 
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 older and often 
historic properties, became vacant and abandoned. This has led to 
blighted conditions in many communities around the nation. Economists 
have 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, collectively eroding 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. Impacts were most severe in the Midwest, Northeast, Mid-
Atlantic, and the South. The estimated demolition of 200,000 properties 
exemplifies the extreme actions taken by many communities, resulting in 
the loss of residences, commercial buildings, and even entire 
neighborhoods. Many of the properties that were lost included historic 
buildings that were listed in or eligible for listing on the National 
Register of Historic Places. The focus of media attention on these 
issues centered on ``legacy cities,'' the term used to describe older, 
industrial communities. But research has revealed that suburban, rural, 
and tribal communities also have dealt with similar problems.
    Communities identified as industrial centers were hit particularly 
hard and continue to struggle. These communities experienced shrinking 
population, declining property values, and high rates of residential 
vacancies and abandonments and required a holistic approach to bring 
about their revitalization.
    In 1966, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA) and declared that ``the historical and cultural foundations of 
the nation should be preserved in order to give a sense of orientation 
to the American people.'' It further stated that ``in the face of ever 
increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, 
commercial, and industrial developments, the present governmental

[[Page 80671]]

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 the NHPA, the ACHP has seen that 
historic preservation reviews are often not completed before federal 
funds are allocated. Further, the funds are often ineffectively or 
inappropriately used to manage redevelopment in struggling communities. 
Preservation options are not considered, and opportunities to reuse 
existing assets are missed because of the severity of the issues 
confronted by communities.
    The ACHP sees a need to raise awareness of the potential community 
revitalization benefits from programs authorized by the NHPA and to 
provide an alternative framework for communities that have needs beyond 
the traditional historic preservation practices. To confront the 
challenge, community revitalization plans must be developed that 
address the disposition of vacant and abandoned properties, promote 
rehabilitation, create affordable housing, direct growth to target 
areas that have the infrastructure, and utilize new infill construction 
to stabilize neighborhoods or develop mixed use projects. Such plans 
can benefit from using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for 
the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) (Secretary's Standards), as 
appropriate, as the framework for revitalizing housing, infrastructure, 
and commercial facilities. Further, involving historic preservation 
professionals who meet the Secretary's Standards as employees or 
contractors of local, regional, and state agencies can aid in 
developing and implementing effective community revitalization plans 
that build on historic assets.
    In March 2014, the ACHP issued a report entitled Managing Change: 
Preservation and Rightsizing in America, which focused on communities 
addressing ``rightsizing.'' Rightsizing applies when communities have 
shrinking populations, rising vacancy and abandonment, and systemic 
blight issues. The report clarified the role of historic preservation 
in rightsizing as well as noting relevant existing federal programs and 
policies. Reviewing 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 of historic fabric. Likewise, 
it noted that rightsizing is not uniquely an urban phenomenon. Rather, 
it encompasses a variety of communities, including older suburbs and 
rural and tribal communities. All are in need of technical assistance, 
education, and outreach to help residents, developers, and local 
officials approach revitalization using historic preservation tools 
that can be adapted to the 21st century.

Purpose

    In accordance with Section 202 of the NHPA, the ACHP is issuing 
this Policy Statement to provide federal agencies; the individuals, 
organizations, and governments that apply for federal assistance; and 
their public and private partners with a flexible and creative approach 
to developing local community revitalization plans that involve 
historic properties. Likewise, the Policy Statement is intended to 
equip residents and community organizations with information on 
available tools and assist them in creating realistic strategies to 
integrate into revitalization plans the conservation and rejuvenation 
of the places and properties that define their neighborhoods.
    A major goal of the Policy Statement is assisting federal agencies 
and their grantees and applicants, State Historic Preservation Officers 
(SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), Certified Local 
Governments (CLGs), and state 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, or an 
alternative framework developed to address the unique circumstances 
faced by a community, federal agencies and applicants will be 
encouraged to integrate historic preservation principles in holistic 
community revitalization strategies. The policy acknowledges that 
consideration of alternatives to avoid or minimize harm to historic 
properties is essential when planning community revitalization 
projects. Further, by engaging varied stakeholders in the early stages 
of project planning, community revitalization projects can achieve 
multiple community goals.
    This Policy Statement builds on an earlier ACHP Policy Statement on 
Affordable Housing issued in 2006 (www.achp.gov/polstatements.html), 
continuing the ACHP's efforts to promote historic preservation in 
community revitalization and encourage the use of it 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, could benefit from 
implementing the strategies described in the principles below.
    An underlying premise of the Policy Statement is the essential need 
for and value of local inventories and surveys, particularly in older 
neighborhoods that may be listed in or eligible for listing in the 
National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as historic 
districts. Only when local officials and the public are aware of the 
historic properties in their communities can they make informed 
decisions about treatment and reuse of these assets. Likewise, the 
National Register status also determines whether proposals must be 
afforded consideration in federal project planning under Section 106, 
or whether historic properties can qualify as ``certified historic 
structures'' eligible to receive the 20 percent Federal Historic 
Preservation Tax Credit (FHPTC) 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 and local historic preservation 
tax incentives. Recent studies have documented that these tax incentive 
programs contribute to economic development and job production, making 
them a primary tool for revitalizing neighborhoods that were once 
considered blighted.
    The principles outlined below offer useful guidance that can assist 
communities in their efforts to incorporate historic preservation into 
planning revitalization efforts. Collaboration among federal, state, 
and local officials, SHPOs, THPOs, developers, residents, and other 
stakeholders is essential to successfully implement these principles. 
To foster such collaboration, this Policy Statement provides a 
framework that departs from traditional preservation doctrine in order 
to promote the effective contribution of historic assets

[[Page 80672]]

to achieving community revitalization goals.

Implementation Principles

    These principles are interpreted below to provide context for 
stakeholders who may consider applying them to their communities.
    I. Historic preservation principles should guide the preservation 
and reuse of older community assets.
    II. Historic preservation should be incorporated in local planning 
efforts that focus on sustainability and smart growth.
    III. Historic preservation should be incorporated into plans 
prepared by local governments that receive financial and technical 
assistance to build resilient communities.
    IV. Historic property inventories and surveys prepared by digital 
mapping and other traditional methods are tools that can assist 
communities seeking federal, state, and local resources for planning 
and revitalization projects.
    V. The flexibility inherent in the National Register criteria 
should be recognized by state and local governments when considering 
the significance of resources within distressed communities.
    VI. Early consideration of alternatives to avoid or minimize 
adverse effects of projects involving historic properties is essential 
to ensure the proper integration of historic properties in community 
revitalization plans.
    VII. Effective citizen engagement that reflects the diversity of 
the community can assist in identifying historic properties and 
cultural resources that should be recommended for preservation.
    VIII. Indian tribes may have an interest in urban and rural 
community revitalization projects and the effects they may have on 
historic properties to which they attach religious and cultural 
significance.
    IX. Tax credits and tax incentives can be used to promote historic 
preservation projects that preserve local assets.
    X. Flexibility in the treatment of some historic buildings in 
Section 106 reviews can help achieve broader neighborhood preservation 
goals.
    XI. Private resources can contribute to local revitalization 
efforts and also leverage public funds.
    XII. Flexible and programmatic solutions developed as part of 
Section 106 reviews can expedite historic preservation reviews as well 
as more effectively address the chronic demolition of historic 
properties.
    XIII. Creative mitigation that balances historic preservation 
values and program goals should be explored by stakeholders and 
incorporated into Section 106 outcomes.

I. Historic preservation principles should guide the preservation and 
reuse of older community assets.

    Responding to the widespread destruction of historic resources 
during the urban renewal programs of the 1950s and 1960s, the NHPA was 
established to ensure local community revitalization and economic 
development projects were responsive to historic preservation 
principles. Unfortunately, 50 years later, the provisions of the NHPA 
requiring consideration of historic properties in project planning are 
not 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 vacant and abandoned 
buildings. Historic properties should be considered and evaluated as 
community assets because of their ability to endure cyclical changes 
and continue to provide shelter and economic development to residents 
of all incomes. Their treatment should be informed by an analysis of 
alternatives, including stabilization, rehabilitation, new infill 
construction, and, in certain cases, demolition. When integrated into 
project planning as prescribed by Section 106 of the NHPA, historic 
preservation tools can be beneficial to achieving local revitalization 
goals. Rather than being viewed as part of the problem, historic 
properties can be adapted and reused as a viable alternative. They 
should be given due consideration by federal, state, and local 
officials when developing comprehensive and small area plans and 
neighborhood vision frameworks. Although historic preservation is often 
ignored by stakeholders who express a desire for new construction, 
decades of successful historic preservation projects affirm that 
renewed historic assets can meet community expectations for modern uses 
while maintaining the character that traditionally defined the area.

II. Historic preservation should be incorporated in local planning 
efforts that focus on sustainability and smart growth.

    The core principles in sustainability and smart growth have been 
embraced by urban and rural communities nationwide during the past 
decades. Smart growth is a cohesive group of planning principles that 
are focused on creating sustainable development patterns. 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 can foster historic preservation, emphasizing the value 
in preserving and reusing historic properties that illustrate the 
character of communities rather than filling up landfills with building 
materials. Successful historic preservation techniques often bring 
together both historic properties and compatible new construction to 
create a dynamic and attractive environment. Preserving historic 
properties 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. This can be a major contribution to 
achieving community revitalization goals to stabilize distressed 
communities and to promote long-term viability.

III. Historic preservation should be incorporated into plans prepared 
by local governments that receive financial and technical assistance to 
build resilient communities.

    In the aftermath of natural disasters, climate change events, and 
unanticipated emergencies, disaster recovery projects are often 
designed to revitalize and rebuild resilient communities. Communities 
also adopt practices before disasters strike to make them more 
resilient. Resilient communities are better able to recover from 
disasters and disruptions in a sustainable way and maintain their 
vitality and viability. Achieving community resiliency goals consistent 
with local historic preservation priorities 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 threats. 
Maintaining, rehabilitating, and reusing existing historic buildings 
can contribute to stabilizing and revitalizing neighborhoods. Community 
recovery and revitalization plans should be specific in their use and 
treatment of historic properties and coordinated with plans for new 
construction and infrastructure. Recognizing that historic preservation 
strategies are compatible with resilient community goals will enable 
planners to create housing choices, foster a sense of place, generate 
jobs, maintain walkable neighborhoods, and preserve open spaces. All 
these factors are critical to promoting resilient communities that 
include integration of historic properties.

[[Page 80673]]

IV. Historic property inventories and surveys prepared by digital 
mapping and other traditional methods are tools that can assist 
communities seeking federal, state, and local resources for planning 
and revitalization projects.

    Historic property inventories and surveys developed by qualified 
professionals documenting historic properties within a local community 
are frequently incomplete and dated or too often completely lacking. 
The absence of this basic information can result in the inadvertent 
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 
current, up to date historic property inventories and surveys which 
provide historic context; identify architecture, archaeological sites, 
and cultural resources; and define historic districts are able to 
assist local officials and developers in preparing effective 
revitalization strategies. When local governments use this tool in 
advance of applying for grants and loans, they can identify areas that 
should be given special attention in project planning and gather input 
from residents on what is important to them about their neighborhoods. 
Also, inventory and survey information allows local officials the 
flexibility of de-listing National Register properties when the 
integrity is lost due to neglect and extensive amounts of abandonment 
of historic properties.

V. The flexibility inherent in the National Register criteria should be 
recognized by state and local governments when considering the 
significance of resources within distressed communities.

    The National Register is broad enough to recognize and include 
under-represented communities and find creative approaches to recognize 
the history and culture of areas and resources preserved against 
tremendous odds. It should be recognized that as communities have aged 
and assets have been neglected, particularly in distressed communities, 
physical integrity may suffer. However, such resources may still 
possess cultural and social significance that may qualify them 
nonetheless for their associative value to the community and as 
embodiment of broad patterns of history. Where local communities have 
prepared lists of local landmarks unique to the city, those resources 
may very well meet the National Register criteria for eligibility on 
the local level. Section 106 reviews can factor in this information 
when considering alternatives and mitigation. Federal and state 
agencies that prepare National Environmental Policy Act documents 
should already be including local heritage and culture under chapters 
on Social and Economic Conditions and Cultural Resources.

VI. Early consideration of alternatives to avoid or minimize adverse 
effects of projects involving historic properties is essential to 
ensure the proper integration of historic properties in community 
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 unprecedented amounts of 
vacancies and abandonment and substantial population loss should 
consider alternatives that can have a positive impact. Comprehensive 
neighborhood plans, small area plans, and more targeted vision 
frameworks should disclose the criteria and processes local officials 
use to determine specific treatment for buildings and sites. SHPOs can 
also provide technical assistance when resources are available. 
Likewise, communities with CLGs that work closely with SHPOs can 
participate in local administrative reviews and provide advice 
regarding how historic properties may be affected by community 
revitalization plans. SHPOs and CLGs can work with the local community 
development agencies and land banks to determine how they can 
facilitate building preservation, rehabilitation, and revitalization, 
as well as plans proposed for substantial demolitions in target areas 
or on a community-wide basis. Essential to effective early planning is 
the engagement of the local community that is affected by the proposed 
action.

VII. Effective citizen engagement that reflects the diversity of the 
community can assist in identifying historic properties and cultural 
resources that should be recommended for preservation.

    The consultation process carried out under Section 106 is designed 
to elicit effective and informed citizen engagement. Public 
participation will help to identify places and historic properties 
important to the community early in the consultation process and foster 
creative solutions that accommodate the community's heritage with 
revitalization. Special attention should be given to including diverse 
residents in communities that have been overlooked in prior 
identification efforts. Places associated with under-represented 
communities are not broadly listed on the National Register, so it is 
important that local officials make citizen engagement a priority when 
evaluating properties for National Register eligibility in the Section 
106 process or developing surveys and inventories. SHPOs can often 
assist local officials in providing historic context statements for 
such properties and existing information on community resources. 
Involving local academic institutions, civic organizations, 
professional associations, neighborhood associations, and tribal 
representatives 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 also is critical in the 
analysis of project alternatives to deal with adverse effects of 
revitalization projects on historic properties. Many of the outcomes 
from Section 106 reviews are shaped by recommendations from citizens 
who participate as consulting parties in the process. Federal and local 
officials provide guidance and technical assistance to facilitate 
citizen engagement in completing inventories and surveys, developing 
local project plans, and participating in the required project review 
processes.

VIII. Indian tribes may have an interest in urban and rural community 
revitalization projects and the effects they may have on historic 
properties to which they attach religious and cultural significance.

    It is important to involve Indian tribes in Section 106 reviews, 
particularly in the identification and evaluation of historic 
properties and assessment of effects. Since THPOs and 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. It is important that planners look beyond archaeologists 
in assessing the significance of sites, as these resources often have 
traditional cultural or religious value to Native Americans. Indian 
tribes can also contribute to local sustainability efforts based on 
their ecological and environmental knowledge of geographic areas to 
which they have traditional ties. Involving

[[Page 80674]]

THPOS and Indian tribes early in Section 106 consultations allows them 
to advise the federal agency of protocols that should be followed in 
the event of unanticipated discoveries of sites. Finally, Indian tribes 
can provide relevant input to the agency officials in developing 
mitigation measures when sites cannot be avoided.

IX. Tax credits and tax incentives can be used to promote historic 
preservation projects that preserve local assets.

    Recent research conducted on the impacts of using Federal Historic 
Preservation Tax Credits (FHPTC) 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 FHPTCs, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, state 
historic tax credits, and local 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 small and mid-size 
neighborhood projects that involve local historic properties. SHPOs are 
uniquely situated to leverage FHPTC projects, having worked closely 
with the National Park Service and developers on previous projects. 
Further, local officials can collaborate with federal regional and 
field offices, land banks, SHPOs, and local real estate agents to 
identify vacant and abandoned buildings that are candidates for 
rehabilitation. By focusing on stabilizing anchor buildings in a 
neighborhood, local governments can protect these sites and make them 
available to developers who intend to revitalize target areas with 
major projects such as those for affordable housing and transit-
oriented development.

X. Flexibility in the treatment of some historic buildings in Section 
106 reviews can help achieve broader neighborhood preservation goals.

    Sometimes historic neighborhoods confront significant abandonment 
and serious deterioration of building stock, such that rehabilitation 
and reuse becomes an overwhelming challenge. Participants in Section 
106 consultations should be receptive to considering different 
treatment measures, including new infill construction meeting the 
Secretary's Standards, substitute materials, and strategic demolition, 
when there is concurrence that such an approach is the best approach to 
achieving broader community revitalization and preservation goals. It 
is strongly encouraged that federal agencies and applicants utilize 
historic preservation professionals to help determine when and how it 
may be appropriate to apply flexibility in the treatment of individual 
buildings.

XI. Private resources can contribute to local revitalization efforts 
and also leverage public funds.

    Private resources are instrumental in ensuring most community 
revitalization efforts are successful and transformative. Examples of 
federal grant and loan programs used in conjunction with private 
resources for local revitalization efforts include 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 are frequently the 
source for matching funds. In addition, they often partner with 
developers on multi-use projects that benefit the community as a whole. 
Banking institutions are able to get credit under the federal Community 
Reinvestment Act (CRA) program when they contribute to local 
revitalization efforts. A bank's CRA performance record is taken into 
account when evaluating its overall performance. Therefore, project 
proponents and local officials should reach out to local banking 
institutions to discuss strategies regarding loans for commercial and 
residential community revitalization projects. When using private 
resources to assist with revitalization projects, local officials 
should inform the funding entity of the importance of the local 
historic preservation principles to the community to ensure they are 
not inadvertently compromised.

XII. Flexible and programmatic solutions developed as part of Section 
106 reviews can expedite historic preservation reviews as well as more 
effectively address the chronic demolition of historic properties.

    Community revitalization projects with federal involvement require 
compliance with Section 106 and other federal environmental laws. 
Frequently, programmatic solutions that address the broad effects 
resulting from the implementation of multiple projects can expedite 
compliance with regulatory requirements, improving the efficiency of 
project delivery. Section 106 Programmatic Agreements, which are quite 
varied, are intended to manage multiple projects that result in similar 
types of effects, can respond to local conditions, foster community 
preservation goals, and expedite project reviews. Such agreements often 
clarify that plans and specifications developed for local community 
revitalization projects should adhere to the recommended approaches in 
the Secretary's Standards, when feasible, and qualify for simplified 
reviews. When communities cannot consistently adhere to the Secretary's 
Standards, they should consider developing project plans that are based 
largely on the Secretary's Standards but provide greater flexibility. 
The public interest in preservation should guide planning, such as 
focusing reviews on exterior features and limiting reviews of interior 
spaces to those areas open to the public. Planning for larger scale 
revitalization projects should occur in advance of submitting 
applications for federal monies, and allow local officials to target 
any grants received into grants and loans to areas that can be 
stabilized. Given the often changing financial market and the passage 
of time in many communities where revitalization activities are 
limited, securing and stabilizing buildings may be a useful interim 
measure. It can avoid the loss of substantial numbers of historic 
properties in areas that may ultimately rebound.

XIII. Creative mitigation that balances historic preservation values 
and program goals should be explored by stakeholders and incorporated 
into Section 106 outcomes.

    ``Creative mitigation'' is a concept that allows federal agencies, 
in consultation with stakeholders, to use non-traditional approaches to 
compensate for adverse effects that cannot be avoided or offset by 
using standard mitigation techniques. In Section 106 reviews, standard 
mitigation measures are customarily directed at the affected historic 
property and may include recordation, data recovery, or curation. 
Sometimes the public benefit of using these standard measures is 
minimal, and allocation of funds for other preservation activities 
would be prudent. Federal agencies, SHPOs, CLGs, and other consulting 
parties are encouraged to be open to creative mitigation when 
consulting to resolve adverse effects on historic properties. Any 
mitigation for the loss of historic properties or materials should both 
provide public benefit and be commensurate with the extent of loss. The 
activities proposed in creative mitigation measures also should

[[Page 80675]]

leverage the federal assistance in a manner that produces broader 
public benefits. Discussions about creative mitigation should be 
initiated early in the Section 106 review process when options can be 
objectively evaluated and before project plans and commitments become 
firm. Creative mitigation measures ultimately should advance community-
wide preservation goals discussed during Section 106 reviews. Examples 
of creative mitigation that have been successful include the 
development of local historic preservation ordinances; acquisition and 
relocation of historic properties to alternate sites in a historic 
district; funding for landscaping and streetscape improvements in a 
district; and guidance on managing vacant and abandoned properties in 
the community.

Conclusion

    Federal, state, and local officials; applicants; residents; and 
preservationists are encouraged to use the above principles when 
developing community revitalization plans and coordinating Section 106 
reviews. Please visit the ACHP's Web site, www.achp.gov, to view 
helpful case studies and best management practices and to learn about 
webinars that can further expand knowledge of these historic 
preservation tools and how they are being used throughout the nation.

    Authority:  54 U.S.C. 304102

    Dated: November 9, 2016.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-27536 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P