HPS






YOUR COMMENTS ARE REQUESTED

ON

DRAFT PRINCIPLES

OF

PRESERVATION PLANNING


 

The Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service has been conducting a project to identify best practices in historic preservation planning to provide guidance for future planning activities. A draft project report, "Principles of Preservation Planning," is available for review, below.

We invite you to review these draft Principles and to share your viewpoints by responding to the following questions:

  1. Do these Principles (any or all) generally characterize the preservation planning or cultural resource management planning that you do or are familiar with? If not, why not?

  2. More detailed guidance may be developed for applying each Principle. On what topic(s) would guidance be most helpful to you?

  3. What specific planning example(s) or case study(ies) can you recommend as being helpful to illustrate one or more of the Principles.

We welcome your input. Please send your replies and comments or suggestions us via e-mail at presplanning@nps.gov, or by regular mail to Historic Preservation Planning Program, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW (2255), Washington, D.C. 20240.

Thank you very much for your contribution to this important project!



National Park Service
National Center for Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnership Programs
Heritage Preservation Services
Historic Preservation Planning Program


DRAFT
PRINCIPLES
of
PRESERVATION PLANNING¹


Guidance for Local, State, Tribal, and Federal
Preservation Planning Efforts
March 2000



PROJECT GOAL:    To identify best practices [or guiding principles] in historic preservation planning at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to help guide future planning activities.


INTRODUCTION

As we move into the 21st century, the National Historic Preservation Planning Program has reached an important milestone in planning for the preservation of valued historic and cultural resources. The preservation environment of today is very different from what it was 15 or even 10 years ago. We have expanded our focus beyond a primary concern with understanding the nature and significance of our historic and cultural resources, to a focus on integrating historic preservation into broader planning and decision-making arenas. An important feature of this focus is making preservation relevant to other social, economic, and public policy goals.

This expanded focus is clearly evident in the increasing level and sophistication of preservation planning activity occurring all across the country:

  • Over the last five to eight years, State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) have produced statewide historic preservation plans that serve as important statements of public policy, and as guides for effective decision-making about valued historic and cultural resources.

  • There has been a steady growth of preservation planning efforts in local communities, supported in part by Certified Local Government subgrants from SHPOs.

  • Federal agencies are building upon and strengthening their preservation planning efforts, as reinvention, downsizing, and base closures challenge their historic preservation programs.

  • Indian Tribes are doing more planning for economic development, transportation, and other community programs in the context of living cultural traditions, as well as preparing historic preservation and/or cultural resource management plans to help protect valued heritage.

One of the by-products of all this activity has been a large number of questions raised about the relevance of the Secretary of the Interior's "Preservation Planning Standards." Issued originally in 1983², these Standards represent the Secretary's "best advice" on the practice of preservation planning, and read as follows:

  • Standard I - Preservation planning establishes historic contexts.

  • Standard II - Preservation planning uses historic contexts to develop goals and priorities for the identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties.

  • Standard III - The results of preservation planning are made available for integration into broader planning processes.

These Standards are now seen as being out-of-step with, and possibly even unrelated to, the preservation planning that most are doing today. It's not that the Standards are irrelevant - they are - but there's so much more to preservation planning than these three Standards would suggest. Clearly, the Secretary's "Preservation Planning Standards" need to be modernized in a way that reflects current practice.

This is why the National Park Service is carrying out this project - to identify "best practices" in preservation planning that will build on the successes of current preservation planning efforts at the federal, tribal, state, and local levels.

Project Approach

It is not the intent of this project to define the "right" way to do preservation planning, because there isn't any "right" way to do it. There are, however, in general terms, more effective ways and less effective ways to do planning. This project, therefore, attempts to identify those more effective ways, in all their variations. For purposes of this project, "best" practice means "effective" practice. This could be measured by how well the goals of the planning process and the plan are generally achieved, and progress is made toward improving preservation and protection of historic and cultural resources. Participants in the project's November 1999 meeting offered another definition of "best practices" as "those characteristics that distinguish successful, recognizable outcomes, that are implementable, whose strategies may not produce the expected outcome but achieve goals, that focus on individuals to implement, and that serve as a model for others."

Project Activities

The project began with an Issues Identification Meeting in Washington, D.C., in March 1998. Representatives from local communities, SHPO Offices, and federal agencies (see participant list, below) provided broad guidance and direction to the project by identifying major issues and topics to be addressed during the project. Results of that meeting were incorporated into the next phases of the project.

Following this meeting, a Document Study involved a review of a wide variety of materials on planning theory, planning practice, and planning guidance, as well as an examination of preservation plans and other types of plans from local, state, tribal, and federal entities. Information from the American Planning Association, and material compiled by the National Park Service and the National Conference of SHPOs, was specifically included in this Document Study. This phase of the project produced a wealth of information on good, effective planning practice.

The Fact Finding phase was carried out concurrently with the Document Study. Information on best practices in preservation planning was solicited from practitioners all across the country through meetings, inquiries on the Internet, and direct correspondence. Again, a wide variety of very useful information was obtained.

The results of these information-gathering activities were compiled into over 100 pages containing more than 600 statements of good or best practice in preservation planning. This information was distilled down to a set of 44 "Preliminary Statements of Best Practice in Preservation Planning," available separately. Information supporting these preliminary statements is provided in the "Explanatory Information" report, also available separately. Sources of this information are listed in the "Best Practices Sources" section at the end of this draft.

At this point, an Evaluation Meeting was organized and held in November 1999 in Annapolis, Maryland. Local, state, and federal representatives were invited (see participant list, below) to examine the draft Best Practice Statements from their planning perspectives, and to refine, add, delete, and modify the Statements so they will be more manageable and useful. Facilitated by Noré Winter of Winter and Company, this meeting was very productive and resulted in a set of redefined "Principles of Preservation Planning," as the participants preferred to call them. These Principles were then further refined for phrasing consistency and are presented below.

Applicability of the Principles

These Principles of Preservation Planning address both historic preservation planning and cultural resource management planning. Because these phrases take on different meanings in different settings, it must be understood that the Principles deal with the planning carried out for the preservation and management of historic and cultural resources. In addition, as general national level guidance, the Principles are unable to address all manner of preservation planning that is carried out. Therefore, the following distinctions are made to clarify those situations in which the Principles are applicable, and those where they are not.

The Principles of Preservation Planning are applicable in the following situations:

  • Facility, park, campus, or protected lands planning where the plan-maker has control over the planning area (e.g., military base, park agency, private landowner).

  • Area or district planning, or for a group of resources in a bounded area where the plan-maker does not have control over the planning area (e.g., historic district).

  • Jurisdiction-wide or large area planning where the plan-maker does not have control over the planning area (e.g., city or county planning).

  • Regional or multi-jurisdictional planning where the plan-maker does not have control over the planning area (e.g., multi-county regional planning offices, multi-state entities).

  • Statewide planning where the plan-maker does not have control over the planning area (e.g., SHPO planning).

  • Policy planning, applicable in nearly all situations, that consists of broad, general statements of policy rather than specific details of actions to be taken; plan-maker does or does not have control over the planning area.

  • Resource-specific planning, applicable in nearly all situations, that is long-term, not project-specific; should be historic-context-based (e.g., archaeology protection plan, shipwreck management plan, architectural preservation plan).

Situations for which the Principles of Preservation Planning are not applicable include those listed below. If the Principles are applicable, it is only in a very general sense, because these types of planning and plans are considered to be implementation tools, and the Principles do not address the level of detail that these situations require.

  • Project-specific treatment plans, maintenance plans, individual property/building management, internal organizational management planning.

  • Certain kinds of short-term, project-specific planning that has a definite bounded time frame, a start and finish, with no revision expected (e.g., survey or rehab project where the plan-maker has control over the resource and the project).

  • "Functional" planning that is long-term, not project-specific, on various scales; plan-maker either has or doesn't have control (e.g., research plan; interpretation plan, collections management plan).

Guidance for Using the Principles

Since the Principles of Preservation Planning are designed to be applicable across a wide range of situations by a diverse group of users, they are of necessity general statements. So that they may be more easily applied in specific situations, more detailed guidance will be developed based, in part, on the information already collected during this project, and on comments received on this draft.



DRAFT

PRINCIPLES OF PRESERVATION PLANNING

March 2000

Definition

The following definition for preservation planning was proposed by the participants of the November 1999 meeting:

Preservation planning establishes a future direction or vision for historic and cultural resource preservation, and establishes and promotes specific ways to achieve that vision in a clear, concise fashion appropriate to its audience.

The Principles of Preservation Planning are organized into three categories, based on three major components of the overall preservation planning process - the Planning Process itself, the Plan Document, and Plan Implementation.

Planning Process

  1. The preservation planning process is innovative, flexible, and carefully designed to respond to the scale, audience, and needs of the specific planning area.

  2. Preservation planning involves the public in plan development, implementation, and revision, and tailors an approach to public participation that is appropriate for the varying identities and roles of the plan-maker and planning participant.

  3. Preservation planning assesses the status of the full range of historic and cultural resources in the planning area, or that are affected by the plan-making entity, and examines the factors that affect the resources and their preservation.

  4. Preservation planning uses historic contexts and, as appropriate, other special planning studies to help support conclusions and findings in the plan, to help identify critical issues, and to develop goals and priorities for the identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties.

  5. Preservation planning establishes goals and objectives that address the preservation needs of historic and cultural resources in the planning area, as well as the critical issues, threats, and opportunities facing those resources.

  6. Preservation planning produces a preservation plan that documents the findings and conclusions reached during the planning process, and that is distributed to its intended audience, and to others as appropriate.

  7. Preservation planning is timely and dynamic, accommodating change and providing for revision and updating when needed.

    Plan Document

  8. The preservation plan is understandable and usable by its intended audience(s).

  9. The preservation plan explains how it was developed and by whom.

  10. The preservation plan describes historic and cultural resources in the planning area and explains the issues that affect them and their preservation.

  11. The preservation plan sets forth clear goal statements and provides guidance for implementation.

  12. The preservation plan has a specific and explicitly stated time frame, after which it is reaffirmed, substantially revised, or a completely new plan is developed.

  13. The preservation plan's level of technical detail and its format, length, and appearance are guided by the extent to which these will serve the plan's purpose(s) and the needs of its audience(s).

    Plan Implementation

  14. The preservation plan is implemented.

  15. Preservation planning, the plan, and plan implementation are integrated and coordinated with other planning and decision-making processes in the planning area.

  16. Preservation plan implementation has access to realistic strategies and legally sound tools that are appropriate for achieving plan goals and policies.

  17. 17. Preservation plan implementation includes ongoing evaluation, monitoring, and review of changing conditions and progress toward achievement of plan goals and policies.


ISSUE IDENTIFICATION MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Washington, D.C. - March 1998

Ron Anzalone, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Britta Bloomberg, Deputy SHPO, Minnesota
Susan Collins, Deputy SHPO, Colorado
Mary Edmonds, Deputy SHPO, South Carolina
Peter Hawley, Policy Coordinator, American Planning Association
Kevin Kilcullen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Toni Lee, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service
Vincent Marsh, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Board, and Preservation Planner, San Francisco, California
Bob Puschendorf, Deputy SHPO, Nebraska
Sue Henry Renaud, Project Manager, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service
Connie Ramirez, U.S. General Services Administration
Gail Rothrock, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Advisor, and Preservation Planner, Maryland National Park and Planning Commission
Pat Tiller, Chief, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service


EVALUATION MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Annapolis, Maryland - November 1999

Ron Anzalone, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Britta Bloomberg, Deputy SHPO, Minnesota
Glenn Coyne, Director, American Institute of Certified Planners, American Planning Association
Mary Edmonds, Deputy SHPO, South Carolina
James Hamrick, Deputy SHPO, Oregon
Donna Hole, Chief, Preservation Planning, Annapolis, Maryland
Nancy Miller, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
Sue Henry Renaud, Project Manager, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service
Ted Sanderson, Deputy SHPO, Rhode Island
Brad White, Preservation Consultant, and National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Advisor
Noré Winter, Winter & Co., National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Advisor, and Meeting Facilitator


BEST PRACTICES SOURCES

RESPONDENTS to e-mail inquiry

Abilene, Texas - Larry W. Abrigg, AICP [abrigg1@abilenetx.com 8/12/98]

Alaska SHPO - Jo Antonson, Historian [joa@dnr.state.ak.us 8/2/99]

Arlington, Massachusetts - Honorable Mention for Outstanding Planning Plan or Project from the Massachusetts Chapter APA 1998 for Civic Block Master Plan [Bob Mitchell, Chapter President, Robtmitchl@aol.com 8/11/99]

Baumgardt, Kenneth, Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, MD [Kenneth.Baumgardt@nab02.usace.army.mil 6/23/99] - watershed area CRMPs

Bellingham, Washington - Jackie Lynch, Landmark Review Board [jlynch@cob.org 6/25/99]

Cambridge, Massachusetts - Sally Zimmerman, Preservation Planner [Szimmerman@CI.Cambridge.MA.US 7/20/99]

Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park, Pat Reed, Superintendent [pat_reed@nps.gov 7/3/99] - park planning: related lands study & special resource study

Cottage Grove, Minnesota - Robert Vogel, City Historic Preservation Planner [letter 7/19/99]

Cullinane, John [jcullinane@earthlink.net 6/23/99 & 6/24/99] - ICRMPs (military plans)

Deiss, Ron, Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, IL [Ronald.W.Deiss@mvr02.usace.army.mil 6/23/99] - HPMP information

Durango, Colorado - Design Guidelines for the City of Durango East Third Avenue Historic District, award from Colorado Chapter APA 1999 [Nickole Stoner, CO APA Award Committee Chair, Nstoner@co.adams.co.us 8/16/99]

Frink, Douglas, Archaeology Consulting Team, Inc. [DSFrink@aol.com 7/6/99] - CRMP for Green Mountain Power Company & FERC

Henderson, Mark [mhenders@idsely.com 6/21/99]- project specific input (Ely, NV)

Hawaii -- Vincent Shigekuni, Senior Associate, PBR Hawaii [vshigekuni@pbrhawaii.com] -- incorporating traditional uses into Kaho'olawe Use Plan.

Kaufmann, Kira, Iowa SHPO [kkaufma@max.state.ia.us 7/9/99 (no longer with the IASHPO as of 8/29/99)] - 106 process

Kelly, Roger, CRM Team, Pacific West Regional Office, NPS [Roger_Kelly@nps.gov 7/16/99] - park planning

Keweenaw National Historical Park, Joseph Balachowski, Historical Architect [Joseph_Balachowski@nps.gov 7/22/99] - bldg rehab planning

Look, David and Stephanie Toothman, Pacific West Regional Office, NPS [David_W_Look@nps.gov, Stephanie_Toothman@nps.gov 7/14,15/99] - NPS planning

Madison, Wisconsin - Katherine Rankin, Historic Preservation Planner [krankin@ci.madison.wi.us 6/25/99]

Napa County, California - Historic Planning Landmark Award, California Chapter APA 1994 [Juli Blassingame, S/G Associates, sgassoc@email.msn.com, fax 7/29/99 & 8/2/99]

Newton County, TX - Bonnie Smith, Chair, Newton County Historical Commission [fax 7/12/99]

North Dakota SHPO - Walter Bailey, Preservation Planner [wbailey@state.nd.us 7/23/99]

Poetis10is@aol.com (Jim) - NPS rehab project (6/27/99)

Prescott, Arizona - Nancy L. Burgess, Preservation Specialist (letter 10/19/98)

Provencher, Shaun, Pacific West Regional Office, NPS [Shaun_Provencher@nps.gov 7/15/99] - building rehab planning

Puerto Rico SHPO - Lilliane D. López, SHPO [letter & fax 7/23/99]

Redondo Beach, California - Teresa Gianos, Associate Planner and Preservation Liaison [teresa.gianos@redondo.org 6/24/99]

Santa Fe, New Mexico - Roy Wroth, Research Associate, Railyard Planning Project [redevelopment project planning]

Smithsonian Institution, Amy Ballard, Architectural History and Historic Preservation Office [ballaam@soe.si.edu 7/23/99] - building management, maintenance, repair planning

Stankowski, Cindy, Director, San Diego Archaeological Center [letter 7/6/99] - long-term care & management of the resource

Stapp, Darby, Cultural Resources Project Manager [Darby.Stapp@pnl.gov 6/26/99] - Hanford, WA DOE facility

U.S. Department of State, Robert J. Mack, Director, Office of Real Property Management [letter 7/16/99] - historic building management [contact is James R. Slager, slagerjr@state.gov]

USGS, Allan L. Montgomery, Museum Property Program Analyst [amontgom@usgs.gov 7/2/99] - museum management plans, collection storage plans, emergency plans

VAPA - Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association, Honorable Mention award for Franklin County's preservation plan, VAPA Newsbrief, May-June 1998

Walton, Beth, Walton Entrprises [sparrowh@gte.net 6/22/99] - project-specific input

Wanderer, Bridget, NPS-SERO [bridget_wanderer@nps.gov] -resource treatment project planning

Williss, Frank, Denver Service Center, NPS [Frank_Williss@nps.gov, 7/15/99] - park planning

Wilmington, North Carolina - Kaye Graybeal (preservation planner?) [Kaye.Graybeal@ci.wilmington,nc.us 7/22/99]

SOURCES FOR LITERATURE REVIEW

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP]. 1994. Defense Department Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act: Section 202(a)(6) Evaluation Report. Prepared in partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program, Cultural Resource Program Development Task Area, Washington, D.C.

American Planning Association [APA]. 1997. Policy Guide on Historic and Cultural Resources.

American Planning Association. 1998. Growing Smart(SM) Legislative Guidebook, Phases I & II Interim Edition. [APA-GS]

Baer, William C. 1997. "General Plan Evaluation Criteria: An Approach to Making Better Plans." Journal of the American Planning Association 63(3):329-344.

Chandler, Michael. 1998. "The 21st Century Comprehensive Plan." Planning Commissioners Journal Issue 31, page 4, Summer.

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 1998. Shoreline Management Plan and Shoreline Use and Development Regulations, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, Washington.

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 1999. Integrated Resources Management Plan, Draft. Planning Department/Land Use Administrator, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, Washington.

HARP - see King et al 1997.

Henderson, Harold. 1998. "Planners Library." [book reviews] Planning magazine, American Planning Association, May, pp.28-29.

Henry, Susan L., compiler. 1993. "A Planning Companion..." Draft. National Park Service.

Innes, Judith E. 1996. "Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal," Journal of the American Planning Association 62, no. 4 (Autumn):460-472.

International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). 1999. "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation." Organization's web site www.pin.org, August 9, 1999.

Jones, Bernie. 1993. "A Primer on the Politics of Plan Implementation." Planning Commisioners Journal Issue 12, page 5, Fall. [available on the Web at www.webcom.com/~pcj/articles/ jon047.html]

Kaho'olawe Use Plan, Hawaii - Award for Outstanding Planning in Cultural and Environmental Restoration from the American Planning Association, 1997 (Planning magazine, April 1997, pp.12-13)

King, Thomas F. 1998. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

King, Thomas, Loretta Neuman and William Beckner. 1997. Historic and Archeological Resources Protection Planning Guidelines. US Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia. [available on the web at www.denix.osd.mil/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/Legacy/HARP/harp.html]

Morris, Stephen A. 1995. "Guidance on Developing a Plan." American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1997. "Director's Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline" Release No. 5, Chapter 3, Planning. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. [DO28]

National Park Service. May 1998. "Director's Order 2: Park Planning." National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. [DO2]

Neuman, Michael. 1998. "Does Planning Need the Plan?" Journal of the American Planning Association 64(2):208-220.

New Vision: The Preservation Plan for Georgia's Heritage. 1995. Edited by Karen Easter. Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. [GA Plan]

PBR Hawaii. 1995. Kaho'olawe Use Plan. [available on the web at www.state.hi.us/kirc/home.htm]

Pima County, Arizona. 1998. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. [Available on the web at www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/index.html]

Ramirez, Constance Werner. 1992. "Preservation Planning on Army Installations." CRM 15(3):17-18, 23.

Renaud, Susan L. Henry. 1997. "SHPO Planning Survey: Response Summary by Question" Draft. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Rouse, David. 1998. "A Values-Driven Approach to Comprehensive Planning." Revolutionary Ideas in Planning: Proceedings of the 1998 APA National Planning Conference, edited by Bill Pable and Bruce McClendon. Pp.29-42. American Institute of Certified Planners, AICP Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Rouse, David, Todd Michael Chandler, and Jon Arason. 1999. "The 21st Century Comprehensive Plan." Approaching the Millenium: Proceedings of the 1999 APA National Planning Conference, edited by William Kasson, Jr. and Ray Quay. American Institute of Certified Planners, Chicago, Illinois.

Smith, Thomas P. 1989. An Assessment of State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois.

South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO). n.d. Preparing the Historic Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Preservation Hotline #4) South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

Stipe, Robert E. 1989. What is a Preservation Plan. The Alliance Review, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, Fall.

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. 1996. The Swinomish Comprehensive Plan -- The Offical Land Use Comprehensive Plan for the Swinomish Indian Reservation, prepared jointly by the Swinomish Land Use Advisory Board, the Swinomish Office of Planning and Community Development, and the Skagit County Department of Planning and Community Development, La Conner, Washington.

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) [UNCHS]. 1998 Best Practices Database [www.bestpractices.org]. The web site contains best practice information about solutions to common social, economic, and environmental problems of an urbanizing world. Submissions made to UNCHS are reviewed by an independent Technical Advisory Committee, which selects about 100 best practices and forwards up to 40 to an international Jury for final selection to receive "Awards for Excellence in Improving the Living Environment" sponsored by Tokyo and Dubai Municipalities. Summary information about award recipients and the 105 Best Practices can be found on the searchable Best Practices database. Best practices are not specific to historic preservation planning, but provide a wide range of information of innovative practices around the world.

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Grants Program [UPARR]. 1991. UPARR Recovery Action Planning for the 1990s: a Technical Assistance Handbook for the Urban Park and Recovery Grants Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Vogel, Robert. 1999. "The Language of Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plans." The Alliance Review, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, June/July, page 12.

White, Bradford J. and Richard J. Roddewig. 1994. Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 450). American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Wilson, Wenona. 1999. "Protecting Resources Through Planning," paper presented in the session "Protecting Indian Cultural Resources" at the National Planning Conference of the American Planning Association, April 24-28, Seattle.

Younger, Kristina. 1994. "Public Involvement Under ISTEA." ISTEA Planners Workbook, edited by Margaret Franko. Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C. [accessible through www.transact.org/pw/indexpw.htm]

Zaferatos, Nicholas Christos. 1998. "Planning the Native American Tribal Community: Understanding the Basis of Power Controlling the Reservation Territory." Journal of the American Planning Association vol. 64, no. 4 (Autumn), pp. 395-410.

Zaferatos, Nicholas C., AICP. [n.d.] "Tribal Planning as Strategic Policy Action: A Case Study of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community," paper handed out at "Mobile Workshop to the Swinomish Indian Reservation" at the National Planning Conference of the American Planning Association, April 24-28, Seattle, 1999.

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Notes from Best Practices Issues Identification Meeting, March 10, 1998. [1998 Notes]

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Preservation Planning. 1983. Part of Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, 48FR44716, September 29.

NPS Planning Guidance

  • NPS Guide 1 - Key Aspects of the Planning Concept (October 1991) [concept for revising the requirements for SHPO preservation planning program]

  • NPS Guide 2 - Preservation Planning Precepts (August 1990)

  • NPS Guide 3 - Plan Characteristics (July 23, 1991 "HPF Concept Paper," referring to State Plans)

  • NPS Guide 4 - Plan Characteristics (revised, from July 1991 "HPF Concept Paper" on State Plans)

  • NPS Guide 5 - Plans and Planning (excerpted from APA's 1989 SCORP Assessment [see Smith, above], with paraphrasing)

  • NPS Guide 6 - Suggested Elements of a State Historic Preservation Plan (July 23, 1991 "HPF Concept Paper" on State Plans)

  • NPS Guide 7 - Concept Paper - Historic Preservation Planning Process (March 1991)

  • NPS Guide 8 - Setting Directions for Preservation Planning in the 1990s (A Summary Report of a Meeting to Develop New Directions for National Register Programs, August 1990)

  • NPS Guide 9 - A Planning Companion: Suggestions for Designing and Implementing a State Preservation Planning Process (draft 1993; compiled from earlier NPS guidance with some new material added [see Henry, above)

  • NPS Guide 10 - Summary based on Draft Text on Preservation Planning for Draft Tribal Program Guidelines (August 1995)

NCSHPO Planning Guidance

  • NCSHPO Guide 1 - Planning Principles for Statewide Comprehensive Plans (NCSHPO NPS Committee, October 14, 1991; prepared as part of the deliberations associated with NPS revision of SHPO Planning Program Requirements)

  • NCSHPO Guide 2 - Summary Report of the NCSHPO Planning Committee Meeting (March 23-25, 1988, Washington, DC, by Paul Putz, Chairman; interior subtitle, Historic Preservation Planning: A Guide for State Preservation Programs)


Endnotes:

¹ This project was formerly called "Best Practices in Preservation Planning." Project participants felt that "practices" more accurately referred to specific activities, tasks, or tools applied in particular situations, while "principles" implied more general guidance statements more in keeping with the project's goal.

² Part of Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, which appeared in the Federal Register, September 29, 1983 (48FR44716).


RETURN TO
PLANNING HOMEPAGE
Back to Top


Search            Contact us

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior FOIA Privacy Disclaimer FirstGov