81 FR 11283 - Notice of Proposed Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 42 (March 3, 2016)

Page Range		11283-11287
FR Document		2016-04640

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.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11283-11287]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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 http://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 http://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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices 11283

Dated: February 29, 2016. issued the regulations that set forth the accessed at http://www.achp.gov/docs/
Melanie J. Gray, process through which federal agencies fr7387.pdf. This Policy Statement was
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory comply with these duties. These well received by stakeholders. The
Committee Policy. regulations are codified under 36 CFR principles outlined in the document are
[FR Doc. 2016–04674 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am] part 800. still used when conducting historic
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P preservation reviews for affordable
I. Background on the Draft Policy
housing projects.
Statement
The purpose of developing the Policy
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC In March 2013, the ACHP issued a Statement on Historic Preservation and
PRESERVATION report entitled Managing Change: Community Revitalization in 2016 is to
Preservation and Rightsizing in ensure that preservation is considered
Notice of Proposed Policy Statement America. It can be accessed at http:// as a tool that will assist federal, state
on Historic Preservation and www.achp.gov/RightsizingReport.pdf. and local governments plan and
Community Revitalization The report focused on communities that implement revitalization projects and
were addressing rightsizing. The programs in a manner that reuses and
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic concept of rightsizing applied to rehabilitates historic properties.
Preservation. communities undergoing substantial The Working Group convened by the
ACTION: The Advisory Council on change due to economic decline, ACHP to assist in developing the policy
Historic Preservation seeks public population loss, increased amounts of statement began meeting in December
comments on its draft Policy Statement vacancy and abandonment, decline in 2014. Representatives of the Working
on Historic Preservation and local services, increased homelessness Group included, Brad White, Expert
Community Revitalization. and poverty, declining educational Member of the ACHP, as the Chairman,
opportunities, and systemic blight. the US Department of Housing and
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Rightsizing has been occurring in Urban Development, US Department of
Historic Preservation (ACHP) is communities around the Nation for Agriculture, Department of Health and
planning on issuing a ‘‘Policy Statement decades as they respond to Human Services, the National Park
on Historic Preservation and transformative events. The report Service, the National Trust for Historic
Community Revitalization.’’ A Working contained the findings and Preservation, the American Assembly,
Group, comprised of ACHP members recommendations of extensive research, Cleveland Restoration Society,
and other preservation organizations, on-site visits, and ACHP participation Preservation Research Office, Historic
has drafted a policy and invites your on panels and seminars during which Districts Council, Rightsizing Network,
views and comments. The Working stakeholders shared their views Michigan State Historic Preservation
Group will use your comments to regarding the effect of rightsizing on the Office, and Indiana Historic
finalize the draft policy before it is community. Preservation Office. After consulting for
presented to the full ACHP membership The primary findings of the report approximately one year to discuss the
for consideration and adoption. included the following observations: major problem areas that needed to be
DATES: Submit comments on or before —Historic preservation tools are not addressed in rightsizing and legacy
April 4, 2016. used to maintain the historic integrity cities, a working draft of the Policy
ADDRESSES: Address all comments of rightsizing communities; Statement was drafted, and distributed
concerning this proposed policy to —Historic preservation needs to be to ACHP members for review.
Charlene Dwin Vaughn, Assistant better integrated in local planning and The comments received from ACHP
Director, Office of Federal Agency economic development; members resulted in revisions to the
Programs, Advisory Council on Historic —Federal programs that can support draft policy statement to achieve the
Preservation, 401 F Street NW., Room rightsizing in a manner that builds on following:
301, Washington, DC 20001. You may community historic resources are not —Focus on rural and tribal communities
also submit comments by facsimile at readily available; as well as Legacy Cities;
202–517–6384 or by electronic mail to —The early initiation of project review —Emphasize the value of preparing
ACHPRightsizing@achp.gov. under Section 106 of the National local architectural and archeological
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) can surveys;
Charlene Dwin Vaughn, 202–517–0207 facilitate the analysis of alternative —Emphasize how the principles apply
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The redevelopment strategies that can to Section 106 of the National Historic
Advisory Council on Historic integrate historic properties; and Preservation Act;
Preservation (ACHP) is an independent —Federal programs that are targeted to —Reference the role of field, regional,
federal agency, created by the National extensive demolition in a community and state offices in preserving local
Historic Preservation Act that promotes do not always reflect the preference of assets;
the preservation, enhancement, and the residents in a community. —Address how Section 106 reviews can
sustainable use of our nation’s diverse As the ACHP explored options to be expedited; and
historic resources, and advises the implement the recommendations in the —Define how creative mitigation
President and Congress on national report, it was concluded that the measures can facilitate preservation in
historic preservation policy. development of a policy statement communities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Section 106 of the National Historic would be appropriate to advance The ACHP invites comments from the
Preservation Act (Section 106), 54 historic preservation. public on the draft Policy Statement (see
U.S.C. 306108, requires federal agencies In 2006, the ACHP adopted a ‘‘Policy text at the end of this notice),
to consider the effects of their Statement on Affordable Housing and particularly as it relates to the following
undertakings on historic properties and Historic Preservation’’ to assist questions:
provide the ACHP a reasonable stakeholders in utilizing historic 1. How can the principles in the draft
opportunity to comment with regard to properties for affordable housing Policy Statement help communities
such undertakings. The ACHP has projects with minimal delays. It can be balance the goal of historic preservation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Document Created: 2016-03-03 03:51:07
Document Modified: 2016-03-03 03:51:07

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation seeks public comments on its draft Policy Statement on Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization.
Dates		Submit comments on or before April 4, 2016.
Contact		Charlene Dwin Vaughn, 202-517-0207
FR Citation		81 FR 11283