Notice2024-28519
Program Comment on Stewardship and Management of National Park Service Mission 66-Era Facilities (1945-1972)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 9, 2024
Effective
November 4, 2024
Issuing agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Abstract
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has approved a program comment to facilitate continued use and preservation of Mission 66-era historic properties.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 236 (Monday, December 9, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 97631-97642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Program Comment on Stewardship and Management of National Park
Service Mission 66-Era Facilities (1945-1972)
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACTION: Notice of approval of program comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has
approved a program comment to facilitate continued use and preservation
of Mission 66-era historic properties.
DATES: The program comment went into effect on November 4, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Kulis, (202) 517-0217,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc97978990958fbc9d9f948cd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="026969776e6b714263616a722c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106 and NHPA), requires
Federal agencies to consider the effects of projects they carry out,
license/permit/approve, or assist (undertakings) on historic
properties, and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(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. Those
regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (Section 106
regulations).
Under section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request
the ACHP to provide a ``Program Comment'' on a particular category of
undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews of each
individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR
800.4 through 800.7. An agency can meet its Section 106
responsibilities with regard to the effects of those undertakings by
taking into account an applicable Program Comment and following the
steps set forth in that comment.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS)
sought a Program Comment to facilitate continued use and preservation
of Mission 66-era historic properties. On November 4, 2024, the ACHP
issued such a Program Comment, the text of which is reproduced at the
end of this notice, with various typographical errors corrected.
I. Background
``Mission 66'' refers to the massive building campaign that
occurred between 1945 and 1972 that improved, standardized, and
democratized the public's national park experience with new facilities
including comfort stations, picnic shelters, campgrounds, visitor
centers, park staff housing, maintenance buildings, warehouses, roads,
and other infrastructure. This period of feverish construction was
called ``Mission 66'' because it was supposed to have been completed by
1966, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the NPS.
The NPS requested a Program Comment (PC) to facilitate continued
use and preservation of Mission 66-era historic properties by providing
parks with an optional tool that would reduce or eliminate external
reviews for certain straightforward Mission 66-era focused
undertakings. It would also allow superintendents to consider Mission
66-era facilities as eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register) when they reference the Mission 66-
Era Multiple Property Determination Form (MPDF), thereby addressing
NPS's identification backlog. Recent laws provided NPS with funding and
charged them with improving the visitor experience and addressing
accessibility requirements. NPS plans to meet these mandates using
these facilities and reinvesting in the historic properties from this
era.
II. Program Comment Summary
The PC is intended to be an optional compliance tool and park
superintendents will not be required to use it. Moreover, the PC cannot
be used in a variety of circumstances including:
--when there's potential to affect National Historic Landmarks,
historic battlefields, burial sites, human remains, and/or funerary
objects, or if an undertaking is proposed to occur on or affect
historic properties located on Tribal lands (as defined in the NHPA),
or there's potential to affect properties of religious and cultural
significance to Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations, or to
the Native Hawaiian Community;
--when there may be adverse effects to historic properties that are
significant for reasons other than Mission 66 (e.g., not primarily
National Register -eligible or -listed due any association with the
Mission 66-era as it is described in the MPDF); or
--when there's potential for adverse effects to Mission 66-era historic
properties such that they would become ineligible for National Register
listing or candidates for de-listing.
The PC will not amend or change the existing Programmatic Agreement
among the National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference
of State Historic Preservation Officers for Compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (2008 PA), nor any other
valid Section 106 agreements.
The implementation of the PC will include regional and national
oversight and reporting, as well as regular training, to ensure
accountability. The PC will facilitate nationwide implementation of the
aforementioned MPDF, so that NPS may achieve a broader perspective in
managing these properties and they may be understood within their
national context. The NPS
[[Page 97632]]
believes that the PC will encourage reuse of Mission 66 era resources.
III. NPS Consultation Summary
The PC is the product of more than a year of early coordination as
well as formal NPS consultation which was initiated last Fall and
closed this past Summer. NPS determined the development of this request
required government-to-government consultation with Tribes. NPS held
six virtual formal consultation meetings that were attended by sixty-
two (62) external participants. This included two government-to-
government consultation meetings with Tribes. The other four formal
meetings were attended by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO)
from twenty (20) separate states and other stakeholders. In addition to
the comments from Tribes described immediately below, NPS received a
total of sixteen (16) correspondences including from eight SHPOs, three
members of the public, and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation.
NPS received one verbal comment about identification from one
Tribal representative who participated in one of the meetings and NPS
responded via email. Over the course of the NPS comment period, NPS
received four written comment letters from Tribes. One had specific
questions about a park and their comments are confidential; one was not
concerned because the proposed PC would not be used as a method of
Section 106 compliance for undertakings with potential to affect Tribal
lands and/or properties of religious or cultural significance to
Tribes; and two others declined to participate but wanted to be made
aware if there was an unanticipated discovery. NPS responded to each of
these directly.
Some of the comments from the SHPOs emphasized that qualified NPS
staff must be involved in all aspects of project planning and
execution, especially given the nuanced approach to adverse effects in
the PC. Other SHPOs noted that the proposed fifteen (15) calendar day
review period was too short for ``meaningful'' comments, and that NPS
should use proprietary (e.g., State) databases to enter project
information instead of providing information on Planning, Environment,
and Public Comment (PEPC) and emailing stakeholders. Comments from
SHPOs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and members of the
public also indicated concern that mitigation should be commensurate
with the adverse effects associated with the specific undertakings, and
inquired about how the mitigation will benefit the public.
NPS considered all comments received in consultation and responded
directly to written comments. NPS changed certain aspects of the PC to
address the comments, adding or clarifying language in the PC regarding
qualified personnel, park suspension, use on Tribal lands (it will not
be so used), consultation responsibilities and confidentiality. At that
time, NPS did not adjust the proposed fifteen (15) calendar day review
period. However, NPS responded that the accelerated timeframe will
better allow Parks to focus on other more complex projects using the
standard Section 106 process. Also, NPS clarified that Park
Superintendents will notify the relevant SHPO and/or THPO and
potentially interested Indian Tribe, Native Hawaiian Organization or
others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives via email,
hard-copy letter via mail or mail service (or an alternative method
arranged in advance in writing) when external review process (ERP)
packages are available for review and comment.
Finally, NPS clarified that NPS will provide mitigation for
collective adverse effects to Mission 66-era historic properties at the
national level, rather than park-/undertaking-specific approaches.
However, ERP packages must identify mitigation measures, and the
Federal Preservation Officer must track mitigation progress annually.
NPS also added a requirement for NPS to develop a brief web-based on-
demand training for use by internal and external partners. NPS provided
drafts of PC to the ACHP and made various changes to address ACHP staff
comments.
In summary, NPS addressed consulting party comments on the PC
conceptual overview and outline/plan and made substantive changes in
preparation of the PC based on that consultation. NPS subsequently
prepared the PC draft, in coordination with ACHP through several
iterations of review and comment. NPS addressed all ACHP staff comments
and submitted the resulting final PC for ACHP action.
IV. ACHP Consultation Summary
ACHP initiated consultation on August 26, 2024, and held two
virtual consultation meetings; one was with SHPOs, and one was
government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes. The meetings
were attended by thirty-five (35) external participants, including
representatives from seventeen (17) SHPOs, and four THPOs as well as
staff from the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers (NATHPO). ACHP also posted a dedicated website and accepted
public comments through October 18, 2024. ACHP members discussed the PC
at a Regulations and Governance Committee meeting on October 7, 2024.
ACHP received twelve (12) correspondences from SHPOs and one from
NATHPO, totaling eighty (80) comments. ACHP responded directly to all
written correspondences.
About thirty (30) of the comments were addressed with minor edits
or clarifications. The remaining comments focused on the topics below
and were addressed with substantive changes listed in order of
magnitude:
--External Review Process: The steps in this clause were clarified and
the review period was extended to fifteen (15) business days with an
optional additional five (5) business day review and consultation
period for handling objections. The requirements for objections were
specified, and it was made clear that objections are made by the
relevant SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organizations or
others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives.
--Special External Review Process for Certain Findings of No Historic
Properties: Additional language in this clause clarifies that a special
external review must occur when a Park Superintendent makes a finding
that a Mission 66-era facility is no longer historic because it lacks
integrity. It also explains that the main purpose of the review is to
confirm that there are no properties of religious and cultural
significance to an Indian Tribe or to Native Hawaiian organizations or
others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives.
--Discoveries: This clause was expanded to provide step-by-step
instructions for Park Superintendents, to reference the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), and to
state, ``When applicable, the Park Superintendent will consider the
principles within the ACHP's Policy Statement on Burial Sites, Human
Remains, and Funerary Objects, dated March 1, 2023.'' The clause also
states that the NPS will fulfill its Tribal and Native Hawaiian
consultation obligations ``consistent with all relevant Executive
Orders, Secretary's Orders, the Department of the Interior Departmental
Manual, and NPS Director's Orders and Related Guidance. NPS recognizes
and considers Indigenous Knowledge in
[[Page 97633]]
the Section 106 review process in accordance with the November 30, 2022
Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge
issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and
Council on Environmental Quality and the Departmental Manual (301 DM 7,
Departmental Responsibilities for Consideration and Inclusion of
Indigenous Knowledge in Departmental Actions and Scientific
Research).''
--Mitigation: This clause commits NPS to developing and publishing an
Administrative History of NPS Housing which will be completed as part
of a partnership with the NPS History Program and a public university
and made publicly available by the spring of 2027. It also commits NPS
to publishing an MPDF reference guide for internal and external
partners within about six (6) months. In addition, the agency will
develop a brief web-based on-demand training for use by internal and
external partners within one (1) year of the publication of the PC in
the Federal Register.
--Park Suspension: New language in this clause specifies that the
respective SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations
or others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives may also
offer comments on park suspension.
--Design Guidelines: This clause allows for the development of various
types of design guidelines. It also explains that if design guidelines
are being developed for a specific park, comments from the respective
SHPO must be reasonably incorporated.
Finally, ACHP staff provided a final review and NPS duly addressed
its requests for minor edits and clarifications. ACHP staff concluded
that the PC request met the requirements in 36 CFR 800.14(e)(1) and the
changes made in the document reasonably addressed the comments and
concerns offered during consultation, the ACHP's Regulations and
Governance Committee meeting, and ACHP's staff review.
V. Text of the Program Comment
The full text of the issued program comment, with various
typographical errors corrected, is reproduced below. Please note that
the text of the issued program comment includes hyperlinks. The
footnotes below show the web addresses that were hyperlinked:
Program Comment on Stewardship and Management of National Park Service
Mission 66-Era Facilities (1945-1972) for Compliance With Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act
This Program Comment (Program Comment) provides the U.S. Department
of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) with an alternative way to
comply with their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108, and 36 CFR part 800
(Section 106)) regarding certain stewardship and management
undertakings at NPS facilities built between 1945 and 1972 (Mission 66-
era). This document was developed in consultation by the NPS, as part
of a larger agency request, and submitted for consideration by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) pursuant to 36 CFR
800.14(e) in August 2024. It was consulted upon by the ACHP between
August and October 2024, and edits were duly incorporated.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Significance
C. Current Compliance Efforts
D. Goals
II. Scope
A. Mission 66-Era Historic Properties
B. Overall Effect
C. Effect on Other Applicable Laws or Existing Agreements
D. Effect on Tribal Lands
E. Category of Undertakings
F. Non-Qualifying Undertakings
G. Temporary Effects
H. Design Guidelines
III. Identification of Historic Properties
A. Reasonable and Good Faith Effort
B. Re-evaluation of Previously Evaluated Non-Mission 66-Era
Historic Properties
C. Properties Built Between 1990 and the Present Day
D. Mission 66-Era Utilities
E. Identification Findings and Next Steps
F. Identification Findings for the Program Comment
IV. Review Process Overview and Assessing Effects
A. Two Review Processes
B. Special External Review Process for Certain Findings of No
Historic Properties
C. Internal Review Process for Certain No Adverse Effects
Findings
D. External Review Process for Certain No Adverse Effects
Findings
E. External Review Process for Adverse Effects Findings
V. The External and Internal Review Processes
A. The External Review Process
B. The Internal Review Process
C. Implementation as Documented and Reporting
VI. ERP and IRP Package Contents
A. ERP Package Contents
B. IRP Package Contents
VII. The Consultation Record
VIII. Mitigation
A. Collective Mitigation
B. Changes to Mitigation Measures
IX. Park Suspension
A. Park Suspension Process
B. Notification of Park Suspension
X. Reporting and Meetings
A. Park Annual Report and Annual Meeting
B. Regional, Agency, and Wrap-Up Reports
XI. Administrative Clauses and Discoveries
A. Duration and Amendment
B. Discoveries
C. Emergencies
D. Section 106 Review for a Single Undertaking
E. Document Website
For purposes of this Program Comment, definitions listed in 54
U.S.C. 300309 (i.e., Tribe, Tribal lands), 54 U.S.C. 300214 (i.e.,
Native Hawaiian organization), and in the regulations at 36 CFR part
800 broadly and in 36 CFR 800.16 are incorporated by reference. Other
definitions appear within the document in parenthesis (e.g., ERP, IRP,
2008 PA, Qualifying Undertaking, etc.). Native Hawaiian Community is
defined in 43 CFR part 50.4. The NPS has requested that Native Hawaiian
Communities and Alaska Natives be specifically included in the scope,
consultation, and other review points in the Program Comment. The NPS
consults with the Native Hawaiian Community and Alaska Natives in
accordance with U.S. Department of Interior Departmental Manual 512
(2022) Chapters 4-7 and Departmental Manual 513 Chapters 1-2. More
information about the Program Comment can be found on the NPS Section
106 Compliance web page (ParkPlanning--Mission 66 Program Comment
(<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>) \1\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=116344">https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=116344</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
A. Background. In 2020, the U.S. Congress provided NPS with $1.5
billion in funding via the Great American Outdoors Act (Pub. L. 116-
152), and other legislation and funding followed. Funds from these laws
must be obligated by NPS within the next few years or they will no
longer be available for NPS use. The laws called out the agency's
deferred maintenance backlog generally, but also the need for the
agency to ensure people with disabilities have equal opportunity to
benefit from park facilities, programs, services, and activities.
There are approximately 20,000 Mission 66-era facilities in NPS
parks, many of them serving visitors and staff, located across the
country and
[[Page 97634]]
concentrated in the Pacific West and Intermountain Regions. According
to NPS data, while almost 50% of Mission 66-era facilities are in
``good'' or ``fair'' condition, 35% are in ``poor'' condition and 16%
are in ``serious'' condition and contribute to the NPS deferred
maintenance and repair backlog. This backlog totals $23.3 billion as of
the end of fiscal year 2023.
Many NPS visitor centers still lack accessible restrooms, water
fountains, and entrances. Also, paths between parking lots, sidewalks,
buildings, and interpretive programs are often not accessible. Many
facilities in staff areas (e.g., housing and maintenance facilities)
are also in need of accessibility improvements, as detailed in NPS
reports and testimony before the U.S. Congress (ALL IN! Accessibility
in the National Park Service 2015-2020).
Further, the lack of suitable affordable NPS staff housing in parks
has been identified by the current NPS director as a ``critical
issue,'' and widely reported.
B. Significance. The massive NPS ``Mission 66'' building campaign
that occurred between 1945 and 1972 improved, standardized, and
democratized the public's national park experience with new facilities
including comfort stations, picnic shelters, campgrounds, visitor
centers, park staff housing, maintenance buildings, warehouses, roads,
and other infrastructure. This period of feverish construction was
called ``Mission 66'' because it was supposed to have been completed by
1966, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the NPS.
Based on NPS nationwide data, the Intermountain Region and Pacific
West have the greatest number of NPS Mission 66-era facilities,
followed by the Southeast and Northeast, Midwest, National Capital, and
the Alaska Regions. The states with 500 or more Mission 66-era
facilities are: California (2,450), Wyoming (1,500), Washington
(1,200), Virginia (1,150), North Carolina (900), Utah (900), Arizona
(900), Colorado (800), Tennessee (700), New York (650), Montana (650),
Mississippi (600), Maryland (500), and Texas (500), for a total of
about 12,950 facilities (approximately). Other States have less than
500 each. (All figures are approximate and nationwide data has not been
verified at the regional, State, or park levels.)
While some of the Mission 66-era facilities, especially visitor
centers, were designed by renowned architects, many others were built
using standard plans such as those developed for comfort stations,
staff housing, administrative and maintenance/utility buildings, ranger
kiosks, and similar. During the Mission 66-era, some adjustments were
made to the standard plans to address changing park needs as well as
both the suitability and availability of construction materials in
different regions.
NPS staff typically utilizes the National Register of Historic
Places Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF, NRIS #64501248,
2015, <a href="https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/84789671-6031-4916-8bf1-18fbe8c80511/">https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/84789671-6031-4916-8bf1-18fbe8c80511/</a>) to provide a framework for identification of Mission 66-
era historic properties. The MPDF established the period of
significance as 1945 to 1972. It mentions certain properties as early
or exemplary embodiments of the period, lists the ninety-five (95)
parks that were established as part of Mission 66, sets eligibility
evaluation criteria for individual listings and park-wide districts,
and focuses on consideration of small area use-specific districts.
A monograph on the subject, ``Mission 66: Modernism and the
National Park Dilemma'' (Ethan Carr, LALH, 2007, Review of Mission 66:
Modernism and the National Park Dilemma (<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>) \2\), and an NPS-
published book, ``MISSION 66 VISITOR CENTERS: The History of a Building
Type'' (Sarah Allaback, Ph.D., NPS, 2000, National Park Service:
Mission 66 Visitor Centers (<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>) \3\), provide additional context.
In 2022, NPS also published process guidelines for determinations of
eligibility for Mission 66 Campgrounds (Mission 66 Campgrounds
Determination of Eligibility Process Guidelines (<a href="http://npshistory.com">npshistory.com</a>) \4\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Book review--<a href="https://www.nps.gov/crps/CRMJournal/Winter2010/reviewbook3.html">https://www.nps.gov/crps/CRMJournal/Winter2010/reviewbook3.html</a>.
\3\ <a href="https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/allaback/index.htm">https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/allaback/index.htm</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://www.npshistory.com/publications/mission66/campground-doe-process-guidelines-2022.pdf">https://www.npshistory.com/publications/mission66/campground-doe-process-guidelines-2022.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Current Compliance Efforts. The Programmatic Agreement among the
National Park Service (U.S. Department of Interior), the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers for Compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (2008) (2008 PA, What We Do--Section
106 Compliance Program (U.S. National Park Service) (<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>) \5\),
governs implementation of regular management activities at the NPS.
Such management activities may include work done on Mission 66-era
facilities; however, as described below, the 2008 PA has limited
applicability in regard to many undertakings on Mission 66-era
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/whatwedo.htm">https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/whatwedo.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 PA requires Park Superintendents to develop an inventory
of historic properties, properties that are listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register. When an undertaking is proposed, the
2008 PA's streamlined process requires that ``identification and
evaluation of all types of historic properties within the project area
of potential effects (APE) must have been previously undertaken,
sufficient to assess effects on those resources'' either via 36 CFR
part 800 or section 110 (54 U.S.C. 306102) (The identification effort
would have occurred sometime before the undertaking was planned.).
These processes can be time consuming and according to NPS
nationwide data, approximately 75% of Mission 66 facilities have not
been evaluated for listing in the National Register.
Furthermore, the 2008 PA focuses on regular management activities.
As many Mission 66-era facilities are in poor or serious condition and
hundreds are underutilized or unutilized (defined in the Federal Real
Property Profile Data Dictionary, FRPC Guidance Library [verbar] GSA
\6\), scopes of work may address more than regular management. Also,
the streamlined review process described in the 2008 PA can only be
used by Park Superintendents when there is a determination of ``no
historic properties affected'' or ``no adverse effects'' (36 CFR part
800). Some proposed scopes of work go beyond regular management and may
pose adverse effects to Mission 66-era historic properties, rendering
the 2008 PA inapplicable. Finally, the 2008 PA's streamlined review
process cannot be used when there is a lease that includes a change of
use or where projects cumulatively result in the complete
rehabilitation of a historic property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/real-property-policy-division-overview/asset-management/federal-real-property-council/frpc-guidance-library">https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/real-property-policy-division-overview/asset-management/federal-real-property-council/frpc-guidance-library</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is standard for NPS to make reasonable efforts to avoid
and minimize adverse effects (e.g., so activities are completed in
accordance with various NPS Preservation Briefs Preservation Briefs--
Technical Preservation Services (U.S. National Park Service) (<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>)
\7\), again, there may be cases in which projects cannot achieve
mission goals while completely avoiding or minimizing adverse effects
to Mission 66-era historic properties
[[Page 97635]]
(e.g., such as making accessibility improvements to comfort stations by
changing their layouts, upgrading staff housing kitchens and baths,
applying certain preventive seal treatments to vehicular areas,
switching out building yard plantings to address the changing climate,
and improving utilities at campgrounds, etc.). There may also be
temporary adverse effects to Mission 66-era historic properties and
other historic properties during construction and reasonably associated
with construction activities, that may not be entirely avoidable or
minimizable, but will cease once construction is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ <a href="https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/preservation-briefs.htm">https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/preservation-briefs.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these cases, compliance for Mission 66-era facilities has often
occurred in conjunction with other larger park initiatives, for which a
memorandum of agreement or a programmatic agreement has been executed,
or when a park-wide programmatic agreement is already in place.
D. Goals. The Program Comment will support specific NPS efforts to
use Mission 66-era historic properties to meet mission needs, by
expediting Section 106 reviews. It will help NPS fulfill legislated
mandates to improve the visitor experience and accessibility, enhance
conditions for staff, address longstanding deferred maintenance, and
advance ongoing stewardship efforts. NPS plans to accomplish the
following with the Program Comment:
1. implement the MPDF on a national level, to address the NPS
identification backlog and alleviate workloads;
2. utilize the existing NPS compliance staffing and teams with
Qualified Personnel and/or Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Team
engagement;
3. encourage preservation and predictability in project planning by
requiring internal reviews by Qualified Personnel and/or a CRM Team for
certain undertakings that either pose no adverse effects to historic
properties or when the only condition for such a finding, by a Park
Superintendent, is that the undertaking will follow the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
(Secretary's Standards, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties--Technical Preservation Services
(U.S. National Park Service) (<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>) \8\) and applicable guidelines;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ <a href="https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm">https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. provide for accountability by listing requirements for the
Consultation Record and ensuring the NPS Federal Preservation Officer
(FPO) and deputies have access to it for oversight and regular
reporting, and may reference it as needed;
5. complete mitigation for adverse effects associated with
undertakings subject to the Program Comment with measures including
development of additional National Register documentation of Mission
66-era historic properties, development and publication of an
Administrative History of NPS Housing available by spring 2027, and
either advancing conservation of Mission 66-era materials via materials
research and analysis or developing a nationwide interpretive plan, as
funds allow; and
6. facilitate a smooth transition to consistent use of the 2008 PA,
for regular routine management activities, at the end of the Program
Comment's ten-year duration.
E. Existing Compliance Structure. NPS will utilize the existing NPS
compliance staffing and teams (described in the 2008 PA and this
Program Comment) at the national, regional, and park levels, with
Qualified Personnel and/or Cultural Resource Management Team
engagement, to implement this Program Comment as described below.
1. In the entire Federal Government, NPS has one of the largest
concentrations of qualified cultural resource personnel. In this
Program Comment, the term Qualified Personnel (Qualified Personnel)
refers to those in NPS employ that meet the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards or the OPM Personnel Qualification
Standards, which codify the minimum requirements that must be met for
professional work concerning historic properties.
2. The term Cultural Resources Management Team or CRM Team is
explained in the 2008 PA and in NPS's PA Guidance as follows: A team of
subject matter experts appropriate to the resource types found in the
park. The number of individuals on the CRM Team may vary from park to
park as needed to represent all disciplines appropriate to the park's
resources. For example, an undertaking being planned that involves a
historic building must have a historical architect on the CRM Team.
Typical CRM Teams often include a historical architect, a historical
landscape architect, an archeologist, a cultural anthropologist, a
historian, and a museum curator. Members may include park staff or
staff of other parks, NPS Regional Offices, NPS Centers, federally
recognized Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, or others
from the public or private sector. Agency personnel or contractors who
participate on the Park's CRM Team must meet either the qualification
standards established in Appendix E to NPS-28, which references the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Personnel Qualifications
Standards, or the Professional Qualification Standards in the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation. These qualification standards define minimum education
and experience required to perform identification, evaluation,
registration, and treatment activities. In some cases, additional areas
or levels of expertise may be needed, depending on the complexity of
the task and the nature of the historic properties involved (NPS
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement National Guidance Document, 2022, NPS
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement National Guidance Document \9\). A
CRM Team may be brought in by a Park Superintendent to support the
review process set forth in the Program Comment as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ <a href="https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/upload/2022-06-06-PA_Guidance_508_2022-0606-3.pdf">https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/upload/2022-06-06-PA_Guidance_508_2022-0606-3.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Scope
A. Mission 66-Era Historic Properties. Within this Program Comment,
the term Mission 66-era Historic Property refers to a type of historic
property (see 36 CFR 800.16(l)) that was built between 1945-1972,
during a massive NPS ``Mission 66'' building campaign that was called
``Mission 66'' because it was supposed to have been completed by 1966,
in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the NPS. This
term includes Operations Outdoors historic properties that were built
for the U.S. Forest Service, or any other historic properties from the
Mission 66-era that are now in the custody and control of the NPS as
described in the relevant section in this document. Any facility built
between 1945-1972 may be covered by this Program Comment; the facility
does not need to have been built as part of the Mission 66 program.
(May be referred to in singular as a Mission 66-era Historic Property,
and both historic and non-historic Mission 66-era properties are
referred to as Mission 66-era facilities.)
B. Overall Effect. This Program Comment will provide an alternative
way for NPS to fulfill their Section 106 responsibilities to take into
account the effects on historic properties of their covered
undertakings at Mission 66-era facilities. The Program Comment also
provides the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment regarding
[[Page 97636]]
covered undertakings at Mission 66-era facilities.
C. Effect on Other Applicable Laws or Existing Agreements. The
Program Comment is an optional tool, and will not replace, amend, or
otherwise change the 2008 PA, nor any other park- or project-specific
Section 106 agreements.
Under NPS policy, each Park Superintendent serves as the
responsible agency official for the purposes of Section 106 compliance
for their park and makes all findings and determinations in the Section
106 process.
If standard Section 106 review, the 2008 PA, a park- or project-
specific agreement, or some other applicable program alternative is
better suited for NPS to fulfill their Section 106 responsibilities for
a given undertaking, there is no requirement for this Program Comment
to be used by the Park Superintendent. Again, use of this Program
Comment is optional.
D. Effect on Tribal Lands. This Program Comment cannot be used on
Tribal lands (as defined in the NHPA). In addition, this Program
Comment cannot be used when any portion of an undertaking is proposed
to occur on or affect historic properties located on Tribal lands or
when the undertaking includes activities that may affect historic
properties located on Tribal lands (section II.F.2.).
E. Category of Undertakings. A Park Superintendent will determine
whether it is appropriate to use this Program Comment for a given
undertaking as described immediately below and referencing both the
park inventory of historic properties described in I.C, above and the
park's most recent annual report, such as a report associated with the
2008 PA or some other park-wide agreement, and going forward as
described in section X.
This Program Comment may be selected by a Park Superintendent as
the appropriate Section 106 compliance method when one of the following
management undertakings is planned to take place: (a) at a single
Mission 66-era facility or (b) at one or more NPS facilities where the
majority of facilities (or resources) within the APE are from the
Mission 66-era (1945 to 1972), as determined by the Park Superintendent
(in consultation with Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team with such
consultation documented in the Consultation Record).
The following lists the qualified undertakings (Qualified
Undertaking(s) or Qualifying Undertaking(s)) covered by this Program
Comment:
1. Regular repetitive management activities (as listed in the 2008
PA Stipulation III.C, and referred to in this Program Comment as
Regular Management Activities.) and associated work (e.g., site, site
signage, and utilities) and
2. Other management activities (Other Management Activities) and
associated work (e.g., site, site signage, and utilities) listed below:
i. Complete rehabilitation in accordance with the Secretary's
Standards, specifically the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation,
and applicable guidelines; and/or
ii. section II.E.2.i. when associated with leasing; and/or
iii. Alteration, accessibility improvements, HazMat abatement,
stabilization and mothballing, demolition of non-historic properties,
new construction in accordance with the Secretary's Standards and
applicable guidelines or with Design Guidelines (section II.H.), and
construction of additions.
F. Non-Qualifying Undertakings. However, an otherwise Qualifying
Undertaking may not utilize the Program Comment when the Park
Superintendent (in consultation with Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM
Team and documented in the Consultation Record), determines that any of
the conditions below (also referred to as Kick-Outs) are present, as it
would then be considered non-qualified or non-qualifying (Non-Qualified
Undertaking(s) or Non-Qualifying Undertaking(s)):
1. potential to affect National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)
(including those from the Mission 66-era), historic battlefields,
burial sites, human remains, and/or funerary objects;
2. any portion is proposed to occur on or affect historic
properties located on Tribal lands, or there is the potential to affect
properties of religious and cultural significance to an Indian Tribe or
to Native Hawaiian organizations or others in the Native Hawaiian
Community, or to Alaska Natives;
3. potential to affect a historic property that is significant for
reasons other than Mission 66 (e.g., National Register-eligible or -
listed historic properties that are not primarily-eligible or -listed
due to any association with the Mission 66-era as it is described in
the MPDF, such as a Colonial-period archaeological site, a Queen Anne
Style farmhouse complex district, a CCC-era structure or linear
district, a historic landscape site or district, etc.); and/or
4. potential to affect a Mission 66-era historic property or
properties such that it/they would be ineligible for National Register
listing or a candidate(s) for de-listing.
To clarify, the majority of facilities (or resources) within the
APE must have been built within the Mission 66-era (1945 to 1972), as
determined by the Park Superintendent (in consultation with Qualified
Personnel and/or the CRM Team with such consultation documented in the
Consultation Record), section II.E., or the undertaking is Non-
Qualifying.
G. Temporary Effects. Use of this Program Comment may still occur
if there may be potential temporary adverse effects to a historic
property or properties during construction which may be reasonably
associated with construction activities for the Qualifying Undertaking.
Such temporary adverse effects are the type that will cease once
construction is complete (Temporary Effects) (e.g., temporary effects
associated with safety signage or apparatus, construction lay-down or
staging areas, or for temporary provision or cessation of utilities or
channeled drainage). These effects must be minimized with assistance
from Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team, as documented in the
Qualifying Undertaking's Consultation Record.
If a Qualified Undertaking would not otherwise trigger an External
Review Process (defined below), but may cause Temporary Effects, the
External Review Process will not be triggered due to the Temporary
Effects.
H. Design Guidelines. Guidelines for new construction, construction
of additions, or other actions (II.E.2.) at Mission 66-era facilities
that may be developed on a park-by-park basis or on a facility type
basis (e.g., Design and Maintenance Guidelines: Mission 66 Comfort
Stations, National Capital Region, Washington, DC) and utilized in
conjunction with this Program Comment to avoid and minimize adverse
effects when comments by ACHP, the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), and the respective state State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) for park-by-park guidelines have
been reasonably incorporated and the final document is promulgated by
the Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) to ACHP, NCSHPO, and the
respective state SHPO(s) online, and in regular reporting (Design
Guidelines).
III. Identification of Historic Properties
A. Reasonable and Good Faith Effort. After determining that it is
appropriate to use the Program Comment for the proposed Qualifying
Undertaking as described above, the Park Superintendent will identify
historic properties within its APE. Qualified Personnel and/or a CRM
Team will
[[Page 97637]]
support Park Superintendents to help them make informed determinations.
The Park Superintendent will make a reasonable and good-faith effort to
identify historic properties through one of the options described
below, or a combination thereof, and must also reference their park's
most recent annual report, such as a report associated with the 2008 PA
or some other parkwide agreement and going forward as described in
section X.
1. Rely on the records from previous identification efforts
including but not limited to those completed pursuant to 36 CFR
800.4(c) for another undertaking within the APE, or identification
efforts done in implementation of the agency's responsibilities under
section 110 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306102). In consultation with the
Qualified Personnel and/or CRM Team, the Park Superintendent would
determine if those previous efforts are sufficient to identify historic
properties within the APE for the proposed undertaking.
2. Alternatively and in lieu of conducting individual
determinations of eligibility in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4, the Park
Superintendent may consider unevaluated Mission 66-era facilities (or
those for which evaluations were incomplete or insufficient) as
eligible for the National Register for the purposes of compliance with
Section 106 via the Program Comment, with assistance from Qualified
Personnel and/or a CRM Team primarily by applying the criteria set
forth in the MPDF, and the National Register criteria, and any
associated guidance so that the historic property's character-defining
features are identified and documented as described immediately below.
Identification efforts and consultation (e.g., among the Park
Superintendent, Qualified Personnel and/or a CRM Team), including any
disagreements and their resolution, must be documented in the
Qualifying Undertaking's Consultation Record. The Consultation Record
must also summarize the applicability of the MPDF and the National
Register criteria, and any associated guidance, the summary being
prepared by Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team, so that the
historic property's character-defining features are identified. The
following resources, ``Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park
Dilemma'' (Ethan Carr, LALH, 2007) and ``MISSION 66 VISITOR CENTERS:
The History of a Building Type'' (Sarah Allaback, Ph.D., NPS, 2000),
and other NPS publications may provide additional context, if
necessary.
B. Re-evaluation of Previously Evaluated Non-Mission 66-Era
Historic Properties. Analysis and formal correspondence may be
necessary to determine whether properties that are not from the Mission
66-era are historic. This may require re-evaluation of previously
evaluated properties (e.g., in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4), and would
preclude use of the Program Comment until such evaluation is complete.
C. Properties Built Between 1990 and the Present Day. The Park
Superintendent would not carry out any identification or evaluation
efforts on properties within the APE that were built between 1990 and
the present day unless previous review or consultation identified that
property as National Register-eligible under Criteria Consideration G.
Excepting previously determined eligible properties, the Park
Superintendent would have no further review responsibility to consider
effects for Qualifying Undertakings on post-1990 properties under the
Program Comment.
D. Mission 66-Era Utilities. The Mission 66 program provided funds
to introduce potable water, sewer systems, and electricity to new
comfort stations and other buildings and structures within a park, as
well as certain roads or trails. While construction of this
infrastructure addressed Mission 66 goals to modernize parks and
visitor services, utility infrastructure, such as water, sewer,
telephone (communication), and electric lines (above and below ground),
the utilities seldom in and of themselves have architectural or
historical significance. Utility resources that are buried, either
wholly or in part, should be described as a part of the overall
setting, but need not be further evaluated or assessed to consider
potential effects to them. They should be considered and described
within the context of a related historic district, as applicable. As
such, there are two (2) types of Mission 66-era facilities for which no
further review is required under the Program Comment:
i. Effects to those Mission 66-era facilities already formally
determined as ineligible, when those determinations indicated that the
MPDF was taken into consideration and did not call for further
evaluation of the subject facilities; and
ii. Effects to below-grade utilities and above or below-grade
utility covers, lines, poles, and pipes (e.g., water, sewer, telephone
and communication, and electric) unless it is/they are an example of
distinctive design or engineering.
However, there may be components of Mission 66-era utility systems
that are visible and if, based on a determination of the Park
Superintendent with input from Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team,
they constitute examples of distinctive design or engineering
compatible with other Mission 66 facilities and retain integrity, they
should be evaluated for eligibility and included with the Park
Superintendent's assessment of effects under the Program Comment
(sections IV. and V.).
E. Identification Findings and Next Steps. After completing the
effort described above, the Park Superintendent will make one of the
following determinations (with input from Qualified Personnel and/or
the CRM Team and made part of the Consultation Record):
1. A finding of no historic properties within the APE including no
Mission 66-era historic properties, or
2. A finding that properties identified within the APE consist of:
i. only Mission 66-era historic properties, or
ii. Mission 66-era facilities (a combination of Mission 66-era
historic properties and Mission 66-era facilities that are not
historic), or
iii. a combination of Mission 66-era historic properties and other
non-historic facilities (or resources) from outside of the Mission 66-
era (but with the latter not representing a majority of the properties,
per the Kick-Outs); or
iv. Mission 66-era facilities that are not historic and other
facilities (or resources) from outside of the Mission 66-era that are
historic (section II.E.).
Once one of these determinations has been made by the Park
Superintendent, they will proceed to the next steps in the process,
sections IV. and V., below.
The Park Superintendent must also record the identification
finding(s), for the purposes of the annual report (section X.).
F. Identification Findings for the Program Comment. The Park
Superintendent would only make National Register determinations of
eligibility as described above for Mission 66-era facilities when
considering a Qualified Undertaking(s) under the Program Comment. If
for any reason Section 106 compliance must be accomplished via another
means (e.g., standard Section 106 review, a park-specific programmatic
agreement, or an undertaking-specific memorandum of agreement is needed
because an undertaking is no longer a Qualified Undertaking),
additional analysis and reviews may be necessary.
[[Page 97638]]
IV. Review Process Overview and Assessing Effects
A. Two Review Processes. Under this Program Comment, there are two
review processes. Some Qualifying Undertakings may require an External
Review Process (ERP) and others may require only an Internal Review
Process (IRP). The ERP package and IRP package will include relevant
documentation so as to meet the requirements set forth in 36 CFR
800.11, as described below, and will be part of the Consultation
Record.
Qualified Personnel and/or a CRM Team will support Park
Superintendents to help them make informed determinations, to avoid or
minimize adverse effects, and to take cumulative effects into
consideration. It is standard for Park Superintendents to make
reasonable efforts to avoid and minimize adverse effects to historic
properties. The Consultation Record must indicate that such
consideration occurred and support the Park Superintendent's findings.
Any disagreements about the ERP or IRP between Park Superintendents,
Qualified Personnel, and/or a CRM Team, and their resolution, must also
be part of the Consultation Record.
B. Special External Review Process for Certain Findings of No
Historic Properties. When no historic properties are identified within
the APE, including findings that there are no Mission 66-era historic
properties (section III.E.1.) or some Mission 66-era facilities that
are not historic because they lack integrity (section III.E.2.ii. and
iv.), a special ERP is required. This review is independent of the ERP
but follows the same process (section V.A.) and has the same ERP
Package Content requirements (section IV.A.). It requires a special
review with Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations or others in
the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives and the main purpose is
to confirm that there are no properties of religious and cultural
significance to an Indian Tribe or to Native Hawaiian organizations or
others in the Native Hawaiian Community or to Alaska Natives in the
APE.
If an ERP is occurring, the Special ERP may be accomplished in
conjunction with the ERP. If an ERP is not occurring, the Special ERP
must be completed separately.
C. Internal Review Process for Certain No Adverse Effects Findings.
For all findings in section III.E.2., when there is a determination
that there are no adverse effects to historic properties in the APE
because the Secretary's Standards and applicable guidelines will be
applied (confirmed with input from Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM
Team and as shown in in the Consultation Record), and there are no
other conditions (Conditions such as but not limited to archaeological
monitoring, movement monitoring, and similar, but not those for
Temporary Effects), the Park Superintendent is required to do an IRP.
D. External Review Process for Certain No Adverse Effects Findings.
For all findings in section III.E.2., when there is also a
determination that there are no adverse effects to historic properties
in the APE because the Secretary's Standards and applicable guidelines
will be applied, and other conditions will also be applied (aside from
those for Temporary Effects), the Park Superintendent is required to do
an ERP. (Conditions such as but not limited to archaeological
monitoring, movement monitoring, and similar.)
E. External Review Process for Adverse Effects Findings. For
findings in section III.E.2.i-iii., if there is a determination that
there may be adverse effects to Mission 66-era historic properties, the
Park Superintendent is required to do an ERP.
(For findings in section III.E.2.iv., if there is a determination
that there may be adverse effects to non-Mission 66 era historic
properties (i.e., II.F.3.), excepting Temporary Effects, the Park
Superintendent must follow the standard Section 106 review process or
another applicable program alternative, because such adverse effects
would render the undertaking Non-Qualifying.)
V. The External and Internal Review Processes
A. The External Review Process. The ERP will occur in the
situations described above, sections IV. B. and D-E. The Park
Superintendent will develop the ERP package as set forth in section VI.
and post it on a public-facing PEPC (or other publicly accessible)
website for Notified Parties (hereinafter defined) and consulting
parties.
The Park Superintendent will notify the relevant SHPO and/or Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and potentially interested Indian
Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations or others in the Native
Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives (Notified Parties) (i.e., via
email, hard-copy letter via mail or mail service, or an alternative
method arranged in advance in writing) that the ERP package has been
posted.
Upon the Notified Parties' receipt of the notification, a fifteen
(15) business day review period commences. The public-facing PEPC (or
other publicly accessible) website and the first page of the ERP will
clearly indicate the last day of the review period.
Consulting parties and the Notified Parties may provide any
comments in writing via the public-facing PEPC (or other publicly
accessible) website or email to the Park Superintendent within the
review period, and the Park Superintendent will take them into account.
If no written objection or no response from the Notified Parties is
received by the Park Superintendent within the review period, the
Section 106 review as documented in the ERP is complete and no further
review or consultation on the Qualifying Undertaking is required.
A Notified Party may object to the ERP package by providing a
written notice to the Park Superintendent within the review period with
a substantive, fact-based, and project-specific objection, and
including a reasonable level of detail. Upon receipt, the Park
Superintendent will either follow the standard Section 106 review
process in 36 CFR part 800 or another applicable program alternative,
or attempt to resolve the objection with the objecting Notified Party.
If the Park Superintendent attempts to resolve the objection, they
may reach out to the objecting Notified Party and/or other Notified
Parties to consult. If additional materials are necessary, they must be
posted on the public-facing PEPC (or other publicly accessible) website
for an additional five (5) business day review and consultation period.
The Notified Parties will be notified of the availability of the
additional information in the same way they received the initial ERP
notification, and the first page of the public-facing PEPC (or other
publicly accessible) website and the first page of the additional ERP
information will clearly indicate the last day of the additional review
and consultation period.
If the Park Superintendent is able to resolve the objection by the
end of the additional review and consultation period, a summary of the
resolution will be posted on the public-facing PEPC (or other publicly
accessible) website promptly, and the Notified Parties will be notified
of the resolution in the same way they received the initial ERP
notification.
If the Park Superintendent is unable to resolve the Notified
Party's objection by the end of the additional review and consultation
period, the Program Comment cannot be used for the proposed undertaking
and the Park Superintendent will follow the standard Section 106 review
process in 36 CFR
[[Page 97639]]
part 800 or another applicable program alternative.
All ERP package materials, comments, and objections will become
part of the Consultation Record.
B. The Internal Review Process. The IRP will occur in the
situations described in section IV.C. Park Superintendents, Qualified
Personnel, and/or a CRM Team will develop the IRP package in accordance
with the requirements in section VI., reasonable time periods will be
provided for internal review and discussion, and the Consultation
Record must reflect all findings and determinations. Any disagreements
between Park Superintendents, Qualified Personnel, and/or a CRM Team,
and their resolution must also be documented in the Consultation
Record.
C. Implementation as Documented and Reporting. Implementation of a
Qualifying Undertaking in accordance with the finding(s) as documented
in the ERP or IRP, including with any documented resolution summary
described in section V.A., fulfills the agency's responsibilities under
Section 106 for the Qualifying Undertaking.
The status of any ERP or IRP will be included in annual reporting,
described in section X. If the Qualified Undertaking is not being
reasonably executed as documented in the ERP or IRP package (e.g., due
to substantive differences between the preliminary design documents
from the ERP or IRP package and later final design or construction
documents that introduce Kick-Outs or new adverse effects,
intensification of adverse effects, etc., or for another reason), then
NPS will consult with Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team to
determine whether the matter can be resolved, the initial effect
findings maintained, and documented appropriately (i.e., in the
Consultation Record). If it cannot, Section 106 compliance must be
reopened and accomplished via the Program Comment (i.e., a new or
updated IRP or a new ERP) or another means (i.e., standard Section 106
review, a park-specific programmatic agreement, or an undertaking-
specific memorandum of agreement). If this occurs, additional analysis
and reviews may be necessary.
VI. ERP and IRP Package Contents
A. ERP Package Contents. The ERP package for the proposed
Qualifying Undertaking must include:
1. a description of the Qualifying Undertaking;
2. analysis confirming no Kick-Outs are present;
3. a relevant excerpt of current preliminary design documents that
clearly depict and delineate the Qualifying Undertaking (i.e., plans,
elevations, and specifications);
4. a description and map of the APE;
5. ground-disturbance information and surveys as appropriate and
consistent with confidentiality provisions in 36 CFR 800.11(c);
6. a finding by the Park Superintendent as noted in section III.E.;
7. a finding by the Park Superintendent as noted in section IV. B.,
D. (e.g., conditions), or E.;
8. the Park Superintendent's name and the name(s) of Qualified
Personnel and/or the CRM Team; and,
9. the Park Superintendent's signature on the ERP package to
confirm: the proposed project is a Qualifying Undertaking; that
reasonable efforts were made to avoid and minimize adverse effects; the
finding and determinations; that the park will execute the Qualifying
Undertaking as documented; and,
10. the following statement, to account for various situations such
as where there may be substantive differences between the preliminary
design documents from the ERP package and later final design or
construction documents that introduce Kick-Outs or new adverse effects,
or intensify adverse effects, ``If the Qualifying Undertaking is not
substantively executed as documented in the ERP, including any
resolution summary if applicable, NPS will consult with Qualified
Personnel and/or the CRM Team to determine whether the matter can be
resolved and documented appropriately (i.e., in the Consultation
Record). If the matter cannot be resolved, and the initial effect
findings would change, the Park Superintendent will reopen Section 106
and accomplish compliance for the proposed project via the Program
Comment (i.e., a new or updated ERP or IRP) or another means (i.e.,
standard Section 106 review, a park-specific programmatic agreement, or
an undertaking-specific memorandum of agreement).''
With regard to section VI.A.7., when adverse effects to Mission 66-
era historic properties may result from the proposed undertaking, the
Park Superintendent will reference the commensurate and relevant
Mitigation Menu measure in section VIII., which will not be subject to
further consultation, nor available for objection in the ERP.
The status of the ERP for the Qualifying Undertaking will be posted
on a public-facing PEPC (or other publicly accessible) website for the
duration of construction.
B. IRP Package Contents. The IRP package for the proposed
Qualifying Undertaking must include the same elements listed for the
ERP package to the extent applicable to the proposed undertaking, but
will be posted on an internal-facing PEPC site, and all references to
ERP above will be substituted with the term IRP.
VII. The Consultation Record
A. A complete Consultation Record that follows the documentation
standards in 36 CFR 800.11, will be available and accessible to NPS
staff at the park-, regional-, and national-levels for NPS reporting
purposes, and includes:
--a summary of the Qualifying Undertaking;
--the APE;
--information on Kick-Outs, and their applicability;
--a summary of the applicability of the MPDF and National Register
criteria and any associated guidance;
--a summary of any Temporary Effects and how they were minimized;
--the ERP package or IRP package including the finding of effects,
comments and objections, and resolution summaries, as applicable;
--any other relevant internal or external comments or objections and
their resolution or next steps planned or taken.
--in cases when the undertaking is not substantively executed as
documented in the ERP or the IRP, and consultation must occur with
Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team to determine whether the matter
can be resolved and documented in the Consultation Record, such
documentation or information on how the matter was addressed;
--the date the PEPC file was closed.
VIII. Mitigation
A. Collective Mitigation. NPS will provide mitigation for
collective adverse effects to Mission 66-era historic properties at the
national level, rather than park-/undertaking-specific approaches. The
list below is a Mitigation Menu which consists of measures which may be
employed alone or combined, and may be accomplished at the park-,
regional-, or national- level(s), or some combination thereof. The Park
Superintendent will identify the selected measure to resolve adverse
effects to Mission 66-era historic properties that may occur when
Qualified Undertakings are completed in accordance with the Program
Comment:
[[Page 97640]]
--resource stewardship training;
--national-level inventory management;
--national-, park-, district-, and individual property-level National
Register documentation;
--development and publication of an Administrative History of NPS
Housing which will be completed as part of a partnership with the NPS
History Program and a public university, and which will be publicly
available by the spring of 2027;
--publication of an MPDF reference guide for internal and external
partners, to facilitate standardized use of the MPDF, within six months
of publication of the Program Comment in the Federal Register, and
--formal study of materials analysis and/or materials conservation or
development of a national-level Mission 66-focused interpretive plan
(as funds allow).
(The above list will be referred to as the Mitigation Menu and the
individual measures will be referred to as Mitigation Measure(s).)
In addition, utilizing materials generated from regular reporting
and Mitigation Measures, NPS national-level staff may endeavor to
conduct data (statistics) collection and perform associated analysis,
which may be described in the agency annual report (defined below).
For Qualifying Undertakings that pose adverse effects to historic
properties, the associated ERP package will reference associated
Mitigation Measure(s). The Park Superintendent will specify whether the
Mitigation Measure will be completed at the park-, regional-, or
national-level and who will be responsible for reporting on its status.
Mitigation Measures will be tracked by the FPO and deputy associate
directors at the national level. National-, regional- and park-level
progress must be detailed in the annual meeting and report, the
regional annual report, and the agency annual report and meeting
(defined below), segments of which must be posted on a public-facing
PEPC (or other publicly accessible) website as described in the section
X.
Within one (1) year of publication of the Program Comment in the
Federal Register, NPS will also develop a brief web-based on-demand
training for use by internal and external partners.
B. Changes to Mitigation Measures. Any change or modification to
the mitigation menu would require an amendment to this Program Comment.
IX. Park Suspension
A. Park Suspension Process. Park suspension from use of the Program
Comment, for a reasonable period of time, may occur if there are
repeated or egregious instances where the Qualified Undertaking was not
reasonably executed as documented in the IRP package or ERP package, or
for similar concerns as may be raised by Notified Parties, the ACHP,
NCSHPO, individual SHPOs, or Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations or
others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives, as noted
below and as determined by the FPO in consultation with regional
leadership, and with input from the respective Park Superintendent and
the Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM Team(s). It may also occur if a
park has a pattern of not complying with the terms of the Program
Comment when it was the selected Section 106 compliance method, with
such pattern documented in the Consultation Records or annual
reporting, also as determined by the FPO as described in this section.
The respective SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations or others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska
Natives may also offer comments in this regard to the Park
Superintendent and/or FPO at any time in writing.
B. Notification of Park Suspension. The ACHP, NCSHPO, and the
respective SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations
or others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives, will be
promptly notified, in writing, if a park has been suspended from using
the Program Comment and informed of the terms of such suspension. Those
parks suspended from use of the Program Comment will be listed in the
annual meeting and report (e.g., to close out the year for that park),
the regional annual report, and the agency annual report and meeting.
(Segments of certain reports must be posted on a public-facing PEPC or
other publicly accessible website, as described in the next section.)
X. Reporting and Meetings
A. Park Annual Report and Annual Meeting. For parks using or
planning to use the Program Comment, the Park Superintendent will
develop a park annual report and hold an annual meeting with consulting
parties each year, initially occurring at least within eight (8) months
of the issuance of the Program Comment or in conjunction with biannual
meetings already occurring to meet requirements of other program
alternatives (e.g., the 2008 PA), whichever is earlier, either
virtually, in-person, or via telephone.
Primary invitees include the SHPO, THPO, Indian Tribes and Native
Hawaiian organizations or others in the Native Hawaiian Community or
Alaska Natives, and a reasonable effort will be made, by the Park
Superintendent, to accommodate their schedules. Other invitees may
include other consulting parties, lessees, historic societies, gateway
communities, Qualified Personnel and/or CRM Teams. Other stakeholders
may also be invited.
The Park Superintendent will provide the park annual report to
invitees concurrently with the annual meeting invitation via email,
hard-copy letter through mail or other shipping service, or an
alternative method arranged in advance and agreed to in writing by the
sending and receiving parties. The annual reports will include:
--updates to inventories of Mission 66-era historic properties and non-
historic properties, including new determinations of National Register
eligibility;
--a summary of undertakings that were completed which utilized the
Program Comment (if applicable);
--information about undertakings that are ongoing or are planned and
the status of any relevant objections on an ERP package;
--park-level mitigation status;
--problems with implementation of the Program Comment;
--training administered;
--relevant NPS contact information; and
--any park suspension status.
The park will hold the annual meeting no less than thirty (30) days
after the park has transmitted the invitation and park annual report.
Meeting minutes will be distributed by the park to all attendees,
the Regional Director and Regional Section 106 Coordinator, and the
Park 106 Coordinator, within thirty (30) days after the meeting. The
park will also provide a summary on public-facing PEPC (or other
publicly-accessible website) including meeting highlights, within that
same period.
If a THPO, Indian Tribe and/or Native Hawaiian organizations or
others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives has informed
a Park Superintendent of an area of interest or concern due to the
location of a property of religious and cultural significance to them,
and a Mission 66-era facility has any geographic overlap with that area
of interest or concern, the Park Superintendent will individually write
to the respective THPO, Indian Tribe and/or Native Hawaiian
organizations or others in the Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska
Natives, (i.e., via email, hard-copy letter through mail or other
shipping service, or an alternative method arranged in
[[Page 97641]]
advance and agreed to in writing by the sending and receiving parties)
in parallel with the park annual reporting, to inform them of the
inventory and any updates. Park Superintendents will comply with all
confidentiality requirements as applicable.
B. Regional, Agency, and Wrap-Up Reports. For regions that include
parks using or planning to use the Program Comment, a regional annual
report must be provided to the FPO within one (1) month before the end
of the fiscal year and include a summary and compilation of:
--PEPC data;
--inventories of Mission 66-era historic properties and non-historic
properties including new determinations of National Register
eligibility;
--a summary of undertakings that were completed which utilized the
Program Comment (if applicable);
--undertakings that are ongoing or are planned;
--park- and regional-level mitigation status;
--problems with implementation of the Program Comment including any
park suspension(s) or overarching objections to multiple ERP packages;
--training administered; and
--NPS contact information.
Any disagreements between Park Superintendents, Qualified
Personnel, and/or a CRM Team, and their resolution, must also be listed
in summary fashion.
The FPO's summary and compilation of all the regional annual
reports, as well as a summary of national-level mitigation status will
comprise the agency annual report. It will include an executive summary
that will be posted by the FPO on a public-facing PEPC (or other
publicly accessible) website by the end of the fiscal year. The ACHP
and NCSHPO will be notified of the posting in writing.
At the written request of the ACHP and/or NCSHPO, an annual meeting
may occur to review implementation of the terms of the Program Comment
and determine whether an amendment is needed. In the event that a
meeting on the agency annual report is held by NPS, ACHP and NCSHPO
will both be invited and it will occur no less than thirty (30) days
after the agency annual report was posted on a PEPC (or other publicly
accessible) website.
Three (3) years before the end of the duration of the Program
Comment, the FPO will send a report to the ACHP and NCSHPO detailing
progress made with the Program Comment, Mitigation Measures completed,
National Register nomination status, challenges encountered, and the
NPS's plans for the final two and a half (2.5) years of the Program
Comment's duration. This will be known as the Program Comment wrap-up
report.
In the final six (6) months of the ninth year of Program Comment's
duration, regardless of the status of an amendment (if pursued), the
FPO will submit an agency report to ACHP and NCSHPO detailing progress
made and providing links to completed mitigation. NPS will also
promptly post a summary of the agency report for public review on a
public-facing PEPC (or other publicly accessible) website.
XI. Administrative Clauses and Discoveries
A. Duration and Amendment. The Program Comment will remain in
effect until November 4, 2034 unless, prior to that time, the ACHP
withdraws the Program Comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6).
Following such expiration or withdrawal, NPS will be required to comply
with Section 106 through the process in 36 CFR part 800, or an
applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14.
During the first six (6) months of the ninth year of the issuance
of the Program Comment, and at the time the wrap-up report is supposed
to be issued, NPS and the ACHP will meet to determine whether the ACHP
should consider an extension to its term via an amendment.
The Program Comment may be amended by the ACHP's Executive Director
when the NPS, NCSHPO, or the ACHP's Executive Director proposes an
amendment in writing to the other parties. In deciding whether to amend
the Program Comment, the ACHP's Executive Director will consult with
NPS and NCSHPO, and other parties as appropriate. The ACHP will publish
notice in the Federal Register within thirty (30) days after the
Executive Director's decision to amend the Program Comment, and also
provide written notification to NPS, NCSHPO, and other parties as
appropriate.
B. Discoveries. In the event that previously undocumented historic
properties are encountered during an undertaking for which review has
been completed under this Program Comment, the Park Superintendent will
stop work and notify the SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribe(s), and/or Native
Hawaiian organizations and the Native Hawaiian Community, as
appropriate, within 48 hours, or as soon as reasonably possible. The
Park Superintendent in consultation with Qualified Personnel and/or the
CRM Team, will notify the parties of the park's proposed eligibility
assessment for the property(ies) and any proposed measures to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic property(ies), if
present. The SHPO/THPO, Tribes, NHOs and Native Hawaiian Community will
have 48 hours from receipt of the notice to provide the Superintendent
with any comments on the proposal. The Superintendent will take into
account any timely comments, in consultation with Qualified Personnel
and/or the CRM Team, in implementing the proposal and proceed with the
undertaking.
In the event the discovery includes human remains, funerary
objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, the Park
Superintendent will comply with the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.). Pursuant to an
applicable NAGPRA Plan of Action or as otherwise required, the Park
Superintendent will ensure that any human remains are left in situ, are
not exposed, and remain protected while the park complies with relevant
provisions of applicable Federal, State, and/or local laws.
When applicable, the Park Superintendent will consider the
principles within the ACHP's Policy Statement on Burial Sites, Human
Remains, and Funerary Objects, dated March 1, 2023. In implementing the
Program Comment the NPS will fulfill its obligation to consult with
Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and the Native Hawaiian
Community consistent with all relevant Executive Orders, Secretary's
Orders, the Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, and NPS
Director's Orders and Related Guidance. NPS recognizes and considers
Indigenous Knowledge in the Section 106 review process in accordance
with the November 30, 2022 Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge issued by the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Quality and
the Departmental Manual (301 DM 7, Departmental Responsibilities for
Consideration and Inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge in Departmental
Actions and Scientific Research).
C. Emergencies. Emergency situations will be addressed via 36 CFR
800.12.
D. Section 106 Review for a Single Undertaking. Each proposed
undertaking to be subject to the Program Comment should be reviewed in
its entirety. Different program alternatives may not be used to fulfill
Section 106 review responsibility for a single undertaking. To clarify,
a Park Superintendent may not use more than
[[Page 97642]]
one program alternative to fulfill that park's Section 106 compliance
for a single undertaking.
E. Document Website. This document will initially be available at
<a href="http://www.achp.gov">www.achp.gov</a> and Park 106 Compliance--Section 106 Compliance Program
(U.S. National Park Service) (<a href="http://nps.gov">nps.gov</a>) \10\ and will continue to be
made available online by NPS as referenced in agency annual reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ <a href="https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/park-106-compliance.htm">https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/park-106-compliance.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(END OF DOCUMENT)
Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e).
Dated: December 2, 2024.
Javier Marqu[eacute]s,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-28519 Filed 12-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 9, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.