During the 20^th century, Congress passed several laws thatThe Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An March 22, 2024 Overview Mark K. DeSantis Several long-standing statutes have established a framework for federal historic Analyst in Natural preservation activities. The most comprehensive of these statutes is the National Historic Resources Policy Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; P.L. 89-665). NHPA created a grant program for state historic preservation, established the federal National Register of Historic Places (NRHP(National Register) and the procedures by which historic properties are placed on the National Register, funded the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and designated a process for federal agencies to follow when their projects may affect a historic property (known as the Section 106 process). Congress also has amended and expanded NHPA multiple times since its passage, most recently in 2016.

In addition, with the most recent substantive amendments occurring in 2016. Congress often considers bills to designate specific properties or areas as historically important, under various designations. These designations include national monuments, national historical parks, national historic sites, national historic landmarks, and properties listed on the NRHPNational Register, to name a few. Such historic designations may bring few management changes to a site or may involve significant changes, depending on the individual designating laws and/or general authorities that may apply to a type of designation. Some historic designations are applied to federally owned lands (including lands already under federal administration and those that the designating law may authorize for federal acquisition), but many federal designations are conferred on lands that remain nonfederally owned and managed.

Because of these various legislative and oversight activities, historic preservation is of perennial interest to Congress. For example, some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate a federal governmentor reduce the federal government’s role in financing historic preservation programs, leaving such programs to be sustained by other levels of government or by private support. Others state that a federal role in supporting historic preservation should be maintained or expanded. In particular, lawmakers and presidential administrations pay significant attention to funding levels for various historic preservation programs that are subject to the annual appropriations process.

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) ishas been the primary source of funding for federal preservation. Appropriations for the HPF totaled $118.7 million in FY2020 (P.L. 116-94), a nearly 16% increase from the FY2019 appropriation (excluding emergency supplemental funding) and a roughly $86 million increase over the FY2020 Administration request. For FY2021, the Trump Administration requests a roughly 66federal funding source for historic preservation since it was first authorized in 1976. The HPF is funded through revenue generated by outer continental shelf oil and gas receipts, and deposits to the HPF have been periodically reauthorized by Congress. In 2016, Congress extended the authorization of the HPF to receive deposits of $150 million annually through FY2023. In October 2023, authorization for deposits into the HPF expired. On March 9, 2024, HPF deposits were reauthorized through FY2024 as part of the Interior appropriations law (P.L. 118-42, §122). The HPF deposits are available only to the extent appropriated by Congress in discretionary appropriations laws. Appropriations from the HPF have generally increased from FY2014 to FY2023 in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars. After inflation is accounted for, the FY2023 total HPF appropriation of $204.5 million (P.L. 117-328) reflects a roughly 13% increase from the FY2022 appropriation and a nearly threefold increase from the FY2014 funding level. For FY2024, Congress appropriated $188.7 million to the HPF, a roughly 10% reduction in funding for the HPF compared with FY2020 levels. This request includes no fiscal support for many of the federal grant programs available to states, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations for historic preservation.

FY2023 levels in inflation-adjusted dollars. Congressional Research Service link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 25 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 17 link to page 23 link to page 26 link to page 35 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background on Federal Historic Preservation Legislation .............................................................. 1 Antiquities Act of 1906 ............................................................................................................. 2 Historic Sites Act of 1935 ......................................................................................................... 2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 .............................................................................. 3 Selected Historic Preservation Programs and Entities .................................................................... 3 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation .............................................................................. 4 Historic Preservation Fund ........................................................................................................ 4 State Historic Preservation Office Program ........................................................................ 5 Tribal Historic Preservation Office Program ...................................................................... 6 Certified Local Government Program................................................................................. 6 National Register of Historic Places ......................................................................................... 6 National Historic Landmarks Program ..................................................................................... 7 National Natural Landmark Program ........................................................................................ 8 World Heritage Program ........................................................................................................... 8 National Trust for Historic Preservation ................................................................................... 9 Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program ............................................................. 9 National Heritage Areas Program ........................................................................................... 10 Historic Federal Property Disposal Programs ......................................................................... 10 Historic Surplus Property Program .................................................................................... 11 National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act Program ................................................... 11 National Historic Networks ...................................................................................................... 11 Federal Historic Preservation Grant Programs .............................................................................. 12 National Historic Designations...................................................................................................... 12 Federal Funding for Historic Preservation .................................................................................... 17 HPF: Actual FY2014-FY2023 and Enacted FY2024 Appropriations ..................................... 17 NR&P: Actual FY2014-FY2023 and Enacted FY2024 Appropriations ................................. 21 Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 25 HPF Funding Levels ............................................................................................................... 25 Authorization for Deposits into the HPF ................................................................................. 26 Section 106 and Federal Projects ............................................................................................ 27 Other Congressional Considerations ....................................................................................... 28 Tables Table 1. Characteristics and Examples of Selected Historic Designations .................................... 13 Table 2. Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Appropriations .......................................................... 19 Table 3. NPS’s National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) Account Appropriations ............. 22 Table A-1. Selected Federal Grant Programs for Historic Preservation ........................................ 31 Congressional Research Service link to page 34 link to page 43 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Appendixes Appendix. Selected Federal Grant Programs for Historic Preservation ........................................ 30 Contacts Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 39 Congressional Research Service link to page 34 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Introduction Historic preservation is the practice of protecting and preserving sites, structures, objects, landscapes, and other cultural resources of historical significance. Various federal, state, and local government programs, as well as privately funded activities, support historic preservation in the United States. This report provides an overview of the federal role in historic preservation, including background and funding information for some of the major preservation programs authorized by Congress. In addition to establishing national policies governing historic preservation, Congress considers the federal government'’s role in financing many of these programs through the annual appropriations process. Some programs also periodically come before Congress for reauthorization.

Additionally, Congress often considers bills to designate specific properties or areas as historically important, under various designations. As a result, issues related to historic preservation are of perennial interest to Congress. Some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate or reduce the federal role in historic preservation, leaving such programs to be sustained by other levels of government or by private support. Other Members feel federal support for historic preservation should be maintained or increased. The heavy toll of recent natural disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Michael and Irma on historic resources has contributed to increased support for incorporating preservation needs in federal disaster relief planning and aid.¹

1 This report includes a summary of the federal government'’s role in historic preservation activities, from its early efforts in the late 1890s to today. The report contains a list of many of the federal grant programs funded through the annual appropriations process (seesee Appendix). It also includes overviews of historic preservation grants for tribal historic preservation, African American civil rights, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Japanese American confinement sites (JACS), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) programs, the Save America'’s Treasures grant program, and the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). The appendixAppendix includes eligibility requirements, matching fund guidelines, and statutory authorization for each program. It also includes an overview of federal funding trends for historic preservation activities from FY2016 to FY2020FY2014 to FY2023, along with requested totals for FY2021the most recently enacted totals for FY2024. Finally, the report outlines some potential issues facing the 116^th118th Congress in determining whether and how to address historic preservation needsactivities at the federal level.

Background on Federal Historic Preservation Legislation

Legislation The federal role in historic preservation was limited for much of the country'’s early history, with no formal federal policy in place. The two most significant early efforts at federal historic preservation came in the 1890s. First, Congress passed laws intended to protect ancient Puebloan sites in the American Southwest.²2 Soon thereafter, Congress acquired authorized the acquisition of 1 For example, see Annie Christoff, “House of the Setting Sun: New Orleans, Katrina, and the Role of Historic Preservation Laws in Emergency Circumstances,” 95 Georgetown Law Journal (2006), and Linda Poon, “Why Historic Preservation Needs to Be Part of Disaster Planning,” Bloomberg, April 8, 2016, at https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/04/why-historic-preservation-needs-to-be-part-of-disaster-planning/477318/. Both the 115th (P.L. 115-123) and 116th (P.L. 116-20) Congresses provided emergency supplemental appropriations to the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) in the aftermath of natural disasters. 2 Richard West Sellars, “A Very Large Array: Early Federal Historic Preservation—The Antiquities Act, Mesa Verde, (continued...) Congressional Research Service 1 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview thousands of acres of private land to establish five Civil War national battlefield parks to be administered by the Department of War.³3 These two distinct federal efforts—commemorating very different moments in American history—are often marked as the genesis of the United States'States’ federal preservation program.⁴4 In the 20^th20th century, a legislative campaign for a comprehensive historic preservation policy bolstered these efforts.

Antiquities Act of 1906⁵

19065 The Antiquities Act of 1906 provided the executive branch with authority to identify and protect cultural resources on federal lands in an expeditious manner.⁶6 Prior to its passage, federal law provided no means to preserve national cultural and historic resources that had not received specific legislative authorization from Congress. The Antiquities Act authorized the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain "“historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest."⁷”7 The law also established guidelines around the future excavation of objects of antiquity found on land owned or controlled by the federal government.⁸8 Since its passage in 1906, the Antiquities Act has been used to create more than 150160 national monuments.

Historic Sites Act of 1935

With the passage of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Congress established a national policy on historic preservation.⁹9 The act outlined a policy to "“preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States"” while also providing the Secretary of the Interior the authority to develop a program aimed at identifying and evaluating cultural resources.¹⁰10 It placed the primary responsibility for administering federal historic preservation activities with the National Park Service (NPS). Efforts to survey and evaluate cultural resources of national historical significance eventually led to the designation of national historic landmarks (NHLs)—a federal recognition for and the National Park Service Act,” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 47, no. 2 (2007): 267-328, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/24889175. Hereinafter referred to as Sellars, “A Very Large Array.” 3 Richard West Sellars, “Pilgrim Places: Civil War Battlefields, Historic Preservation, and America’s First National Military Parks, 1863-1900,” CRM, vol. 2, no. 1 (winter 2005), 22-52. The five national battlefield parks were Chickamauga and Chattanooga (administratively combined by the establishing legislation), Antietam, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Vicksburg. 4 Sellars, “A Very Large Array.” 5 For a more complete discussion of the history and authorities granted by the Antiquities Act, see CRS Report R41330, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act, by Carol Hardy Vincent. 6 John M. Fowler, “Federal Historic Preservation Law: National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11593, and Other Recent Developments in Federal Law,” Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 12, no. 1 (Spring 1976), pp. 31-74, at https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/wflr12&id=35&collection=journals&index=. 7 54 U.S.C. §320301. A presidentially proclaimed monument must occupy “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” 8 54 U.S.C. §320302. 9 Charles M. Elliott, “Historic Preservation,” Colorado Lawyer, vol. 5, no. 2 (February 1976), pp. 151-156, at https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.barjournals/cololaw0005&i=155. 10 August 21, 1935, ch. 593, 49 Stat. 66. The text of the law had been codified at 16 U.S.C. §461. It was recodified pursuant to P.L. 113-287 to 54 U.S.C. §320101. Congressional Research Service 2 link to page 11 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview eventually led to the designation of national historic landmarks (NHLs)—a federal recognition for historic properties that exists today.¹¹ (See "11 (See “National Historic Landmarks Program" section” section for more information on NHL designation.)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States saw an unprecedenteda transformation of the natural and built environment, thanks in part to a rapid growth in federal infrastructure projects. The construction of interstate highways, urban renewal projects, and large-scale development led to the destruction of numerous historic buildings, archaeological sites, and cultural resources not previously protected under the Historic Sites Act of 1935.¹²12 In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson convened a special committee on historic preservation in 1965.¹³13 The following year, the committee released its report, With Heritage So Rich, which called for a comprehensive national historic preservation program.¹⁴14 The same year, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which incorporated nearly every major recommendation included in the report.¹⁵

15 Broader than its two predecessors, NHPA is the most comprehensive piece of legislation addressing federal historic preservation. Among its many provisions, the law established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the procedures by which historic properties are placed on the register, funded the National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust), created a grant program for state and tribal historic preservation, required federal agencies to manage and preserve their historic properties, and created a process for federal agencies to follow when their projects may affect a historic property. Congress has amended and expanded NHPA multiple times since its passage, most recently in with the most recent substantive amendments occurring in 2016.16 2016.¹⁶

Selected Historic Preservation Programs and Entities

Various federal programs and federally established entities support historic preservation across the United States. Many of these programs and entities were established in NHPA and its subsequent amendments; however, Congress has authorized through separate legislation several other programs that also support activities related to historic preservation. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to discuss all federal programs and entities that support historic preservation, selected major programs and entities are highlighted.

11 Jess R. Phelps, “Preserving National Historic Landmarks?” New York University Environmental Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 2 (2016), pp. 137-200, at https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nyuev24&i=146. 12 Barry Mackintosh, The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Park Service: A History (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986), at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mackintosh5/index.htm. See also S.Rept. 89-1363: “Already, nearly half the buildings recorded in the Historic American Buildings Survey are gone or mutilated. Significant buildings or historic settings of lesser importance are experiencing a still higher casualty rate.” 13 National Park Service (NPS), “National Historic Preservation Act,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/national-historic-preservation-act.htm. 14 United States Conference of Mayors Special Committee on Historic Preservation, With Heritage So Rich (New York: Random House, 1966). Also see Mark P. Nevitt, “The National Historic Preservation Act: Preserving History, Impacting Foreign Relations,” Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol. 32, no. 2 (2014), pp. 388-444, at https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein. journals/berkjintlw32&i=407. 15 P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915. The text of the law had been codified at 16 U.S.C. §§470 et seq. It was recodified pursuant to P.L. 113-287 at 54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq. 16 P.L. 114-289, Title VIII, December 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1494. Congressional Research Service 3 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Created by NHPA, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent agency consisting of 24 statutorily designated members representing federal, state, and tribal government members, as well as experts in historic preservation and members of the public.¹⁷ ACHP oversees the Section 106 review process, a process federal 17 The ACHP is headed by a Senate-confirmed Chairman who serves for a term of four years, with the ability to be reappointed for a second four-year term.18 Among its various responsibilities, ACHP serves as the federal policy advisor to the President and Congress on matters relating to historic preservation, recommending administrative and legislative improvements and providing guidance on interagency coordination. ACHP also oversees Section 106 review, a process that federal agencies must follow when their projects may affect a historic property.¹⁸19 Federal agencies are required to review the potential impacts of their actions on historic sites, a process that is to be concluded before federal funding is provided or a federal license is issued. Section 106 applies only to federal or "“federally assisted"” undertakings, such as those receiving federal funding or a federal permit.¹⁹20 As an independent agency, ACHP receives funding as part of the "“Related Agencies"Agencies” portion of the annual Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Historic Preservation Fund

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) —administered by NPS—is the primary source of funding for federal preservation awards to states, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. Although federal funding for historic preservation was available under the 1966 NHPA and subsequent amendments in 1970 and 1973, Congress did not officially establish the HPF to carry out the activities specified in NHPA until 1976.²⁰ 21 The HPF is funded through revenue generated by outer continental shelf mineraloil and gas receipts, and itits funding has been periodically reauthorized by Congress. Most recently, in 2016, Congress authorized the HPF to receive deposits of $150 million annually through FY2023.²¹ The fundingSince its creation, the HPF has been authorized to receive deposits of $150 million annually, subject to congressional reauthorization. In 2016, Congress authorized the HPF through FY2023.22 In October 2023, funding authorization for the HPF expired; however, on March 9, 2024, funding was reauthorized through FY2024 as part of the annual Interior appropriations law.23 17 54 U.S.C. §§304101. The 24 statutorily designated members can be found at 54 U.S.C. §304101(a). 18 54 U.S.C. §§304101(e). Prior to 2017, the President was able to appoint the Chairman without Senate confirmation. In 2016, Congress amended the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; P.L. 89-665) to require Senate confirmation and make the office a full-time salaried position (P.L. 114-289, Title V, §501(a)–(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1489). 19 The Section 106 review process is so called because it was established in Section 106 of NHPA (54 U.S.C. §306108). 20 54 U.S.C. §306108 and 36 C.F.R. §800.16(y). Under Section 106, agencies must “take into account” the effects of such undertakings on any historic properties, including properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The law and its implementing regulations require a review and consultation process if any historic properties may be affected, but they do not require the agencies to take an action that avoids adverse effects. To learn more about the Section 106 process, see CRS Report R47543, Historic Properties and Federal Responsibilities: An Introduction to Section 106 Reviews, by Mark K. DeSantis. 21 P.L. 94-422, Title II, §201(4), September 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1320. 22 Congress reauthorized funding for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) through FY2023 under P.L. 114-289, Title VIII, §802, December 26, 2016, 130 Stat. 1494. 23 P.L. 118-42, §122. Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 21 link to page 34 link to page 10 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Funding derived from the HPF is available only to the extent appropriated by Congress in discretionary appropriations laws. Since the HPF's establishment, Congress has never appropriated the full $150 million for the fund in a single fiscal year.²²

The HPF ’s establishment, annual appropriations from the account have typically been less than the deposited amount; however, appropriations have increased over the past decade and in FY2022 and FY2023 exceeded the annual deposit.24 For more information on HPF funding, see “Federal Funding for Historic Preservation” below. The HPF typically funds historic preservation activities in two ways: (1) formula-based apportionment grants and (2) competitive grant programs.25 Most HPF appropriated funds are used to provide formula-based matching grants-in-aid to state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) and tribal historic preservation offices (THPOs) and sub-grants to certified local governments (CLGs). Congress also has provided appropriations for additional competitive grant programs that fund specific historic preservation activities. TheThe Appendix to this report provides an overview of the various grant programs that have been funded through the HPF, eligibility requirements, and program goals.

State Historic Preservation Office Program

Program26 HPF grants are awarded annually to SHPOs of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and the territories.27 SHPOs are appointed officials responsible for administering and managing federal funds to conduct historic preservation activities.²³28 These activities may include surveys and inventories, nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, preservation education, architectural planning, historic structure reportsSection 106 consultations, community preservation planning, and physical preservation of historic buildings, among others.

. NPS allocates grants to SHPOs according to a needs-based formula determined by the agency.29 States conducting these activities are statutorily required to provide a 40% match to the funds provided by the HPF.²⁴30 Guidelines allow each state the flexibility to design and shape its historic preservation program as long as the program meets the overall responsibilities outlined by NHPA. Typically, SHPOs do not use these funds to issue sub-grants to other entities for individual historic preservation projects; rather, SHPOs generally use these funds for their own operational and administrative costs, as well as programmatic activities (listed above) carried out directly by the SHPO. Under federal regulations, at least 10% of the allocations to SHPOs are sub-granted to assist CLGs with local preservation needs (see " “Certified Local Government Program" below).²⁵ Congress appropriated $49.7 million in FY2019 and $52.7 million in FY2020 for SHPO grants-in-aid.²⁶

” below).31 24 Although total appropriations for FY2019 were $152.7 million, this reflects both regular appropriations and an additional $50 million in supplemental emergency appropriations. Without these supplemental funds, HPF appropriations for FY2019 would be less than the authorized amount. 25 Congress has, at times, also provided funding for certain individual projects in annual appropriations laws as community project funding/congressionally directed spending (sometimes referred to as “earmarks”). For example, in FY2023, Congress appropriated $29.12 million for 56 historic preservation projects across the country. To learn more about what constitutes an earmark, see CRS Report R45429, Lifting the Earmark Moratorium: Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch. 26 Each state historic preservation office is headed by a state historic preservation officer. In this report, the abbreviation “SHPO” is used interchangeably to refer to both the office and the appointed officer. 27 There are a total of 59 SHPOs, representing every state as well as the territories and the District of Columbia. 28 Under NHPA, SHPOs for each state or territory are designated and appointed by the governor—or “the chief elected official”—of that state to administer the state’s historic preservation program (54 U.S.C. §302301(1)). 29 54 U.S.C. §302902(c). In July 2022, NPS published revisions to the apportionment formula following a comprehensive review of the formula that had been in place since 2002. Allocations based on the revised formula were first made in FY2023. 30 54 U.S.C. §302902(b)(3). The matching share is 40% of the total budget, not 40% of the federal award amount. 31 54 U.S.C. §302902(c)(4). Congressional Research Service 5 link to page 29 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Tribal Historic Preservation Office Program Since FY1996Tribal Historic Preservation Office Program

Since 1996, NPS has awarded annual formula-based grants to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).²⁷THPOs.32 Eligibility for grants under the THPO grant program is limited to federally recognized tribes that have signed agreements with NPS designating them as having an approved THPO.33 To become an approved THPO, a tribe submits a request to assume responsibilities from the SHPO and provides a program plan demonstrating how SHPO duties will be conducted. Once a program plan is completed and approved, an agreement between the tribe and the Secretary of the Interior is executed and the THPO becomes eligible for HPF grant support.

In 1996, the first year of the program, 12 tribes had approved THPOs. Since then, the number of approved THPOs has increased, and as of 2022 (the most recent year for which NPS has reported data), there were 208 approved THPOs. Similar to SHPO grants, the THPO grant program requires at least a 40% nonfederal match. Activities funded through the program include staff salaries, archeological and architectural surveys, review and compliance activities, comprehensive preservation studies, National Register nominations, educational programs, and other preservation-related activities. Grants are not awarded competitively but instead are determined according to a formula in consultation with tribes.34 For more discussion regarding THPO funding levels, see “HPF Funding Levels” below. tribes.²⁸ Congress appropriated $11.7 million in FY2019 and $13.7 million in FY2020 for THPO grants-in-aid.²⁹

Certified Local Government Program

NHPA requires that at least 10% of the annual HPF funding provided to each SHPO be sub-granted to local government entities known as certified local governments (CLGs).³⁰CLGs.35 A CLG is a unit of local (town, city, or county) government that has undergone a certification process administered by NPS and the respective state SHPO, involving demonstration of a commitment to historic preservation. Under this certification process, local governments must meet NPS guidelines that include the establishment of a "qualified"“qualified” historic preservation commission, inventory maintenance and surveys of local historic resources, and enforcement of state or local historic preservation laws, as well as additional requirements that may be established at the state level.

Although CLGs receive at least 10% of the total annual apportionment from their respective SHPOs, states may provide more than the required minimum 10% pass-through should they choose to do so. States typically award grants to individual CLGs through a competitive application process established by the SHPO.³¹

36 National Register of Historic Places

The National Register of Historic Places (or National Register) stands as the United States' "’ “official list"” of properties significant in "“American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture."³² 32 In 1992, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Tribal Preservation Program (P.L. 89-665, Title I, §101(e)(5), as amended by P.L. 102-575, Title XL, §4007(2), October 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4758). Funding for the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) grant program was first provided in FY1996. 33 As of 2024, there are 574 federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States, according to the annual list published by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. For more information, see CRS Report R47414, The 574 Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the United States, by Mainon A. Schwartz. 34 Of the total annual appropriations provided to the THPO program, approximately 80% are divided equally among all THPOs, and the remaining 20% are apportioned based on the area of tribal lands as defined in NHPA. 35 Regulations regarding the transfer of funds to certified local governments (CLGs) can be found at 36 C.F.R. §61.7. 36 Regulations at 36 C.F.R. §61.7(b) clarify that “[e]ach CLG is eligible to receive funds from the 10 percent (or greater) CLG share of the State’s total annual HPF grant award. However, the SHPO need not award funds to all CLGs.” Congressional Research Service 6 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview and culture.”37 The National Register is maintained by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and in particular by NPS under the authority of NHPA, as amended.³³.38 NHPA requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the registerNational Register, develop guidelines and regulations for nominations, consider appeals, make determinations of eligibility of properties, and make the National Register accessible to the public. NPS has developed standards and guidelines to help federal, state, and local governments prepare nominations for the register.³⁴

National Register.39 SHPOs, THPOs, or federal historic preservation offices typically coordinate nominations for the National Register. Property owners, historical societies, preservation organizations, government agencies, and other interested parties work through these offices to determine whether a given property meets the requisite criteria for listing, at which point a completed nomination and recommendation are submitted to NPS for review. NPS is to decide whether a property should be listed within 45 days after receiving a completed nomination.³⁵40 Benefits of listing on the National Register include honorary designation, access to federal preservation grant funds for planning and rehabilitation activities, possible tax benefits, and required application of Section 106 review should a federal or federally assisted action affect the property. Listing of a property places no restrictions on what nonfederal owners may do with their property, up to and including destruction of the property. Under federal regulations, should a property no longer meet the criteria for listing, the property shall be removed from the National Register.³⁶ Currently, 41 As of March 2024, more than 9498,000 properties are listed on the National Register.

National Historic Landmarks Program

The National Historic Landmarks (NHL) The NHL program—like the National Register—is a federal recognition program administered by NPS. The agency is responsible for overseeing the nomination process for new NHLs and providing technical assistance to existing landmarks. NHLs are places of national significance to the history of the United States (as opposed to National Register properties, which, according to NPS, "“are primarily of state and local significance").³⁷”).42 The Historic Sites Act of 1935 created the NHL program, and the National Historic Preservation ActNHPA Amendments of 1980 clarified the role of NPS as the entity responsible for overseeing the designation of NHLs.³⁸43 All NHLs are also listed in the National Register. Funding for the NHL program falls under the National Register program, and NHLs are eligible for federal investment tax credits, technical assistance, and consideration in federal undertakings, similar to other properties on the National Register. With regard to federal undertakings, however, NHLs have a higher standard for protection than properties listed on the National Register. Whereas Section 106 of NHPA, (applicable to properties on the National Register,) requires only that 37 54 U.S.C. §302101. 38 54 U.S.C. §§302101-302108. 39 For more information, see NPS, “National Register of Historic Places,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/index.htm. 40 Regulations for the National Register can be found at 36 C.F.R. §60. In March 2019, NPS issued a proposed rule that would modify nomination procedures for the National Register (84 Federal Register 6996, March 1, 2019). Among other provisions, the proposed changes would extend the timeline for the Keeper of the National Register to respond to appeals and ensure that if the owners of a majority of the land area in a proposed historic district object to listing, the proposed district will not be listed over their objection. In the report language for the FY2020 Interior Appropriations bill, both the House and Senate expressed concern regarding these proposed changes, indicating that such modifications “are not required” and that NPS “failed to appropriately conduct meaningful” consultation with appropriate stakeholders (H.Rept. 116-100 and S.Rept. 116-123). 41 36 C.F.R. §60.15(a)(1). 42 NPS, “National Historic Landmarks: Frequently Asked Questions,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/faqs.htm. 43 P.L. 96-515, Title II, §201(a), December 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2988. Congressional Research Service 7 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview requires only that agencies "“take into account"” the effects of an undertaking on historic properties, Section 110(f) of the lawNHPA, applicable to NHLs, requires that agencies "“to the maximum extent possible undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to the landmark."³⁹

National Trust for Historic Preservation

”44 As of March 2024, more than 2,600 NHLs have been designated.45 National Natural Landmark Program NPS administers the National Natural Landmark Program, which “identifies and preserves natural areas that best illustrate the biological and geological character of the United States, enhances the scientific and educational values of preserved areas, strengthens public appreciation of natural history, and fosters a greater concern for the conservation of the nation’s natural heritage.”46 Then- Secretary of the Interior, Steward Udall, established the program in 1962 pursuant to authority provided by the Historic Sites Act of 1935.47 Designation is primarily for recognition purposes—it does not impose any new land use restrictions nor does it provide any federal funding for a site, unless otherwise provided. Since the program began, more than 600 sites have been designated as national natural landmarks. World Heritage Program The World Heritage Program is an international listing program for recognizing natural areas and cultural sites of exceptional ecological, scientific, or cultural importance.48 The program was established pursuant to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“the Convention”), an international treaty adopted in November 1972 by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).49 The treaty was subsequently approved by the U.S. Senate in 1973, and Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to direct the United States’ participation in the Convention as part of amendments to NHPA in 1980.50 In accordance with NHPA and its implementing regulations, the Secretary—acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks—is responsible for periodically nominating sites of international significance to the World Heritage Committee on behalf of the United States.51 Under the Convention, participating countries agree to protect listed sites and monuments within their borders and refrain from actions that might harm such sites in other 44 54 U.S.C. §§306107 and 306108. 45 NPS, “National Historic Landmarks,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/index.htm. 46 36 C.F.R. §62.1. 47 54 U.S.C. §320101. Congress has, at various times, recognized the National Natural Landmark program by including specific references to national natural landmarks in law. For example, the National Park System General Authorities Act of 1970, as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an annual report to the Congress identifying all landmarks that exhibit known or anticipated damage or threats to the integrity of their resources (54 U.S.C. §100507(e)). 48 Specifically, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“the Convention”) states that such sites should be of “outstanding universal value,” defined to mean “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.” The Convention lists the criteria under which such determinations should be made. These criteria are similarly listed in the implementing regulations found at 36 C.F.R. §73.9. 49 For more information on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Heritage Convention, see CRS Report R42999, The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), by Luisa Blanchfield and Marjorie Ann Browne. 50 P.L. 96-515, Title IV, §402, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3000; codified at 54 U.S.C. §307101. 51 54 U.S.C. §307101. Implementing regulations are found at 36 C.F.R. Part 73. Congressional Research Service 8 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview countries. Ultimately, however, participation in the Convention does not give the United Nations authority over any World Heritage sites or related land-management decisions. As of January 2024, there were roughly 1,200 properties on the World Heritage List, including 25 sites located within the United States.52 National Trust for Historic Preservation Congress chartered the National Trust for Historic Preservation (or National Trust) in 1949.53Congress chartered the National Trust for Historic Preservation (or National Trust) in 1949.⁴⁰ It is a private nonprofit corporation, responsible for encouraging the protection and preservation of historic American sites, buildings, and objects that are significant to the cultural heritage of the United States. The trust provides technical and educational services, promotes historic preservation activities, and administers several historic preservation grant programs.

Congress authorized federal funding for the National Trust in the NHPA of 1966NHPA. Federal funding for the trust largely continued until FY1996, at which point the Interior Appropriations billAct conference report stated that the managers agreed "“to a 3-year period of transition for the National Trust for Historic Preservation to replace federal funds with private funding."⁴¹”54 From FY1998 through FY2001, there was no federal funding for the National Trust. In FY2002, Congress appropriated from the HPF $2.5 million to use as an endowment to maintain and preserve National Trust historic properties.⁴²55 In FY2003, Congress appropriated an additional $2.0 million from the HPF for the endowment, and added $0.5 million more in FY2004.⁴³56 In FY2005, Congress stopped funding the National Trust, and currently the organization'’s funding comes largely from private donations.⁴⁴

57 Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program

In 1976, Congress passed the Tax Reform Act, which provided tax incentives for owners of historic structures to consider rehabilitation and preservation over demolition.⁴⁵58 Some argued that the law prior to 1976 encouraged the demolition and redevelopment of historic properties over their preservation.⁴⁶

59 Since then, tax law has continued to evolve into what is now the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, which includes historic tax credits (HTCs) administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and NPS in partnership with SHPOs. The HTC program encourages private investment in historic preservation and rehabilitation initiatives by providing a 20% federal tax credit to property owners who undertake substantial rehabilitation of a certified 52 For a full list of U.S. World Heritage sites, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/US/. 53 P.L. 81-408, ch. 755, §1, 63 Stat. 927. 54 H.Rept. 104-402. 55 P.L. 107-63. H.Rept. 107-103 indicates that Congress provided funding for the establishment of a National Trust Historic Sites Fund “to assist in the perpetual care and maintenance of the historic sites of the National Trust.” The report language also established terms for the endowment account, including spending rates and record-keeping requirements. Congress has not appropriated federal funds to the endowment fund since FY2004, but the Trust continues to issue matching grants from the fund in support of historic properties. 56 P.L. 108-7 and P.L. 108-108, respectively. 57 The National Trust is still authorized to receive grants at the Secretary of the Interior’s discretion (54 U.S.C. §302903). 58 P.L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1525. 59 Stephen F. Weber, “Historic Preservation Incentives of the 1976 Tax Reform Act: An Economic Analysis,” National Bureau of Standards, Technical Note 980, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1979, at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/TN/nbstechnicalnote980.pdf. Congressional Research Service 9 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview historic structurefederal tax credit to property owners who undertake substantial rehabilitation of a certified historic structure, while maintaining its historic character.⁴⁷60 Eligible buildings include those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or architecturally contributing to a National Register district, that are rehabilitated for income-producing purposes. The program previously included a separate 10% rehabilitation credit for the rehabilitation of nonhistoric, nonresidential buildings built before 1936; however, the 2017 tax revision repealed this credit.⁴⁸ Since 1976, over 4461 According to NPS, from FY1977 through FY2023, over 49,000 projects have been completed under the program, with more than $96$131.71 billion leveraged in private investment for the rehabilitation of historic properties.⁴⁹

62 National Heritage Areas Program⁵⁰

Program63 Since 1984, Congress has designated 5561 national heritage areas (NHAs) to recognize and assist efforts to protect, commemorate, and promote natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources that form distinctive landscapes.⁵¹64 NHAs are partnerships among NPS, states, and local communities, in which NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance. Congress has established heritage areas for lands that are regarded as distinctive because of their resources, their built environment, and the culture and history associated with the land and its residents. In a majority of cases, NHAs have had a fundamental economic activity as their foundation, such as agriculture, water transportation, or industrial development.

No comprehensive statute establishes The National Heritage Area Act (P.L. 117-339), enacted in January 2023, established the National Heritage Area System. This act was the first comprehensive statute outlining formal criteria for designating NHAs or providesand providing uniform standards for their funding and management. RatherPreviously, particulars for each area arewere provided in the area's enabling legislation. Congress designates a management entity, usually nonfederal, to coordinate the work of the partners. NHAs are not part of the National Park System, in which lands are primarily federally ownedeach NHA’s enabling legislation, with no system-wide guidelines for how newly designated NHAs were to be administered and managed. and managed.

Historic Federal Property Disposal Programs⁵²

Programs65 Real property disposal is the process by which federal agencies identify and then transfer, donate, or sell real property they no longer need. The federal government has several programs that enable state, county, and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, to acquire at no cost properties deemed excess to the needs of a federal agency. Two programs in particular 60 26 U.S.C. §47. 61 P.L. 115-97, Title I, §13402(a), (b)(1), Dec. 22, 2017, 131 Stat. 2134. 62 NPS, “Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023,” March 2024. 63 For a more complete discussion of national heritage areas (NHAs), see CRS Report RL33462, National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress, by Mark K. DeSantis. 64 NPS reports 62 NHAs; see NPS, “National Heritage Areas,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/index.htm. This is because NPS historically has provided funding to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District through the NPS Heritage Partnership Program budget account alongside the 61 components of the newly established NHA System. However, in establishing the new system under P.L. 117-339, Congress defined the components to include NHAs, National Heritage Corridors, National Heritage Canalways, Cultural Heritage Corridors, National Heritage Routes, and National Heritage Partnerships established before or on the date of enactment of the law. This definition appears to exclude the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District; however, NPS has indicated it intends to continue providing financial and technical support to the district through the Heritage Partnership Program, unless otherwise directed (communication between NPS, Office of Legislative Affairs, and the Congressional Research Service, January 2023). 65 For a general discussion of federal property disposal programs, see CRS Report R44377, Disposal of Unneeded Federal Buildings: Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress, by Garrett Hatch. Congressional Research Service 10 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview cost properties deemed excess to the needs of a federal agency. Two programs in particular address the disposal of historic properties under federal ownership: the Historic Surplus Property Program and the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act Program.⁵³

(NHLPA) Program. Historic Surplus Property Program

The NPS Historic Surplus Property Program is administered in partnership with the General Services Administration (GSA) and was authorized under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.⁵⁴66 When federally owned historic buildings are no longer needed by their respective agencies, the GSA declares the buildings to be surplus.⁵⁵ 67 Applicants interested in obtaining these properties—which must be listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register—submit an application to the GSA. Eligible applicants include state and public agencies, tribal entities, and nonprofit organizations.states, counties, municipalities, tribes, and similar governmental entities.68 NPS then makes a formal recommendation to the GSA (or the Department of Defense, in the case of military properties) to effectaffect the transfer of property. Once conveyed, a property must be managed and maintained in accordance with the terms of the transfer and the Secretary of the Interior'’s Standards for Rehabilitation.⁵⁶

69 National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act Program

The NPS also administers a program to oversee the transfer of surplus historic lighthouses under federal ownership. Federal lighthouses and light stations were previously transferred to eligible entities through the Historic Surplus Property Program. In 2000, however, Congress passed the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA)NHLPA, an amendment to NHPA.⁵⁷70 The NHLPA provides a mechanism for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to dispose of historic lighthouses that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the National Register. Similarly to other historic federal properties deemed to be excess, the NHLPA directs the USCG to issue a Report of ExcessReport of Excess for historic light stations to the GSA, which then releases a notice of availability. At this point, interested parties looking to acquire the light station in question—at no cost—work with NPS to submit a formal application, which is then reviewed by an internal NPS review committee that makes a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior and the GSA Administrator.71 If there are no interested parties—or if no applicant meets the requirements set forth by the review committee—the property is offered for sale by competitive bid or auction.

National Historic Networks

Congress occasionally has passed legislation authorizing NPS to establish national networks aimed at coordinating the preservation and education efforts of various places, museums, and interpretive programs associated with specific historical moments or movements in U.S. history. To date, Congress has authorized the establishment of threefour such networks: the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom (P.L. 105-203), the African American Civil Rights Network (P.L. 115-104), and ), the Reconstruction Era National Historic Network (P.L. 116-9). Legislation in the 116^th Congress (H.R. 1179 and S. 2827) would establish a fourth network, the African-American Burial Grounds Network.P.L. 116-9), and the 66 P.L. 81-152, 63 Stat. 377 (codified in scattered sections of 40 U.S.C., 41 U.S.C., and 50 U.S.C.). 67 In the case of military base closures, surplus determinations are made by the U.S. Department of Defense. 68 Private and nonprofit organizations cannot acquire property under this program, but they are permitted to enter into long-term leases with recipients of historic surplus properties, provided the lease is approved by NPS. 69 36 C.F.R. §67.7. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are the regulatory criteria used to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a certified rehabilitation for the purposes of various federal programs. 70 P.L. 106-355, 54 U.S.C. §§305101–305106. 71 Eligible entities include federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit corporations, educational agencies, and community development organizations (54 U.S.C. §305101(2)). Congressional Research Service 11 link to page 34 link to page 17 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview World War II Heritage Cities Network (P.L. 116-9).72 These laws have provided that network sites can include federal, state, local, and privately owned properties, although inclusion in the network requires consent from property owners. Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to produce and disseminate educational materials and, provide technical assistance to network sites, and to develop an official symbol or logo for use across the network.

Federal Historic Preservation Grant Programs

The federal government currently supports historic preservation through a variety of grant programs. The largest source of funding for federal historic preservation programs is the HPF, which currently funds has funded state, tribal, and local historic preservation,; African American civil rights grant programs,; grants to underrepresented communities,; tribal heritage grants,; the Save America'’s Treasures program, ; disaster recovery grants,; historic revitalization grants, and grants to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

; and grants to HBCUs. Several other federal historic preservation grant programs are funded through annual appropriations under other NPS accounts or are jointly administered by other executive agencies with NPS. These programs include grants for Japanese American confinement sites, historic vessel rehabilitation and interpretation, the protection of Native American gravesites and repatriation of remainsappropriations under other NPS and non-NPS accounts rather than through the HPF. These programs include grants for Japanese American confinement sites, Native American grave protection and repatriation, and preservation and acquisition grants for American battlefields. For a complete listlist of some of these programs and their guidelines, refer to thethe Appendix.

National Historic Designations

Table 1, below, compares highlights selected designations used by Congress and the executive branch for historic properties and sites. The table provides information on the entity that confers each designation (e.g., Congress, the President, the Interior or Agriculture Secretary);, statutory authorities for the designation;designation, the agency or agencies that administer each type of area (also noting designations for which the area typically is under nonfederal management);, selected characteristics of the areas; , and examples of each type of area. Designations for nonfederally owned and managed sites are listed according to the agency with administrative responsibility for the designation (e.g., responsibility for evaluating site qualifications and providing technical and/or financial assistance to designated sites). 72 Legislation in the 116th Congress (H.R. 1179 and S. 2827) would have established another network, the African-American Burial Grounds Network. This bill did not become law; however, in 2022, Congress passed and the President signed the African American Burial Grounds Preservation Act (P.L. 117-328). This program, administered by NPS, is authorized to provide grants to federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; other public entities; educational institutions; historic preservation groups; and private nonprofit organizations for the purposes of identifying, preserving, and interpreting African American burial grounds. The law also authorized $3 million in federal funding for the program for each of FY2023-FY2027. Congressional Research Service 12 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 Table 1. Characteristics and Examples of Selected Historic Designations Authority for Administering Designation Authorizing Entity Designationa Agencyb Selected Characteristics Examples National Monument Congress, President Congressional NPS, BLM, FS, • Sites include both natural areas and areas of Petroglyph National Monument designations: individual FWS, other cultural, historical, and archaeological (NM), P.L. 101-313 statutes agencies significance. Pullman National Monument Presidential • Presidentially proclaimed monuments must (IL), Presidential Proclamation proclamations: be on federal lands that contain historic no. 9233 Antiquities Act of 1906 landmarks, historic and prehistoric (54 U.S.C. §§320301- to designated sites).

Federal Funding for Historic Preservation

Preservation73 The federal government supports historic preservation through direct appropriations for federally protected sites and grants to nonfederal entities. Grant funding is typically provided to NPS-administered accounts within the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.⁵⁸74 These accounts provide technical and financial assistance to state, local, and tribal governments,; educational institutions,; and nonprofit organizations with the goal of protecting cultural resources and promoting historic preservation activities across the United States. The majority of the funding is split between two NPS accounts: the HPF account, the primary source of funding for federal historic preservation programs, and the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) account, which provides funding for a variety of other congressionally authorized grant programs. Funding for historic preservation programs is not limited to these two accounts, however, nor does Congress exclusively fund historic preservation grant programs as part of the Interior appropriations bill.⁵⁹75 Table 2 andand Table 3 provide FY2016-FY2020FY2014-FY2023 appropriations figures figures and the FY2021 budget request for programs funded as part of the HPF and NR&P accounts.

HPF Appropriations: FY2016-FY2020 and FY2021 Request

, as well as the most recently enacted totals for FY2024. HPF: Actual FY2014-FY2023 and Enacted FY2024 Appropriations In 2016, Congress reauthorized deposits of $150 million annually into the HPF for FY2017 through FY2023. In October 2023, this authorization expired; however, on March 9, 2024, the authorization of deposits was extended through FY2024 as part of the Interior appropriations law. Historically, annual appropriations from the account have been less than the $150 million deposited amount; however, appropriations from the HPF have generally increased from FY2014 to FY2023 in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars, and in FY2022 and FY2023, the appropriated amount exceeded the annual deposit to the HPF.76 After inflation is accounted for, the FY2023 total HPF appropriation of $204.5 million ($160.8 million in inflation-adjusted terms) reflects a nearly threefold increase from the FY2014 funding level. On March 9, 2024, Congress passed and the President signed P.L. 118-42, enacting full-year FY2024 appropriations for NPS. This included $188.7 million in HPF funding, reflecting an 8% reduction in nominal terms from FY2023 levels and a 10% reduction in inflation-adjusted terms. For more information on HPF appropriations trends, see Table 2. Historically, the largest portion of funding from the HPF account has been allocated to grants-in-aid to SHPOs and THPOs. Funding for SHPOs rose by 32% in nominal dollars and 4% in inflation-adjusted dollars from FY2014 to FY2023. Annual appropriations for THPO grants-in-aid nearly tripled from FY2014 to FY2023 in nominal dollars and more than doubled in inflation- 73 For more information on appropriations to NPS accounts, see CRS Report R42757, National Park Service (NPS) Appropriations: Ten-Year Trends, by Laura B. Comay. 74 At times, Congress also has provided funding as part of supplemental emergency appropriations legislation, such as in the aftermath of natural disasters. 75 For example, Battlefield Acquisition grants for the American Battlefield Protection Program are funded from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF; 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.). The LWCF is a mandatory fund, although appropriators have a role in the allocation of the funding. For more information on the LWCF, see CRS In Focus IF12256, Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent. As another example, the Maritime Heritage Grant program receives funding through the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration. 76 Inflation-adjusted figures are calculated using the GDP Chained Price Index from the White House Office of Management and Budget, “Historical Tables, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables—1940-2029,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/. Congressional Research Service 17 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview adjusted dollars. For FY2024, Congress appropriated $62.15 million for SHPO grants-in-aid and $23.00 million for THPO grants-in-aid, consistent with FY2023 levels. From FY2014 to FY2023, Congress also increased funding for various competitive grant programs and—since FY2022—appropriated additional funding for congressionally directed spending projects. In FY2014, Congress appropriated $500,000 in funding for one competitive grant program to support surveying and documenting historic properties associated with communities underrepresented on the National Register and in the National Historic Landmark Program. Since then, Congress has provided funding for a variety of other grant programs that support sites associated with the African American civil rights movement, grants to preserve the history of equal rights, and grants to celebrate the Semiquincentennial of the United States in 2026, among others. In FY2023, Congress appropriated $90.25 million for multiple grant programs, as well as an additional $29.12 million for community project funding/congressionally directed spending. Enacted appropriations for FY2024 saw a roughly 7% reduction from FY2023 levels for competitive grant program funding ($83.75 million) and a 32% reduction for community project funding/congressionally directed spending ($19.77 million). Congressional Research Service 18 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Table 2. Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Appropriations ($ in millions $) (Figures in parentheses reflect inflation-adjusted dollars) FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024a State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)b 46.9 46.9 46.9 47.9 48.9 49.7 52.7 55.7 57.7 62.2 62.2 (46.9) (46.4) (46.0) (46.2) (46.1) (45.9) (48.0) (49.1) (47.5) (48.9) (47.7) Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 9.0 9.0 10.0 10.5 11.5 11.7 13.7 15.0 16.0 23.0 23.0 (THPOs)c (9.0) (8.9) (9.8) (10.1) (10.8) (10.8) (12.5) (13.2) (13.2) (18.1) (17.7) Competitive Grants 0.5 .05 8.5 13.5 13.5 15.3 18.8 21.1 27.6 30.3 30.3 (0.5) (0.5) (8.3) (13.0) (12.7) (14.1) (17.1) (18.6) (22.8) (23.8) (23.2) African American Civil Rights — — 8.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 15.5 16.8 21.8 24.0 24.0 — — (7.8) (12.5) (12.2) (13.4) (14.1) (14.8) (17.9) (18.9) (18.4) History of Equal Rights Grant Programd — — — — — — 2.5 3.4 4.6 5.0 5.0 — — — — — — (2.3) (3.0) (3.8) (3.9) (3.8) Underrepresented Communities 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization Grant — — — — 5.0 5.0 7.5 7.5 10.0 12.5 10.0 Program — — — — (4.7) (4.6) (6.8) (6.6) (8.2) (9.8) (7.7) Historically Black Colleges and Universities — — — 4.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 Grants — — — (3.9) (4.7) (7.4) (9.1) (8.8) (8.2) (8.7) (8.4) Semiquincentennial Preservation Grants — — — — — — — 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 — — — — — — — (8.8) (8.2) (7.9) (5.4) Save America’s Treasures — — — 5.0 13.0 13.0 16.0 25.0 26.5 26.5 25.5 — — — (4.8) (12.2) (12.0) (14.6) (22.0) (21.8) (20.8) (19.6) Congressionally Directed Spendinge — — — — — — — — 15.3 29.1 19.77 — — — — — — — — (12.6) (22.9) (15.2) Supplemental Appropriations — — — — 50.0f 50.0g — — — — — — — — — (47.1) (46.1) — — — — — TOTAL HPF 56.4 56.4 65.4 80.9 146.9 152.7 118.7 144.3 173.1 204.5 188.7 (56.4) (55.8) (64.1) (77.9) (138.3) (140.9) (108.1) (127.2) (142.7) (160.8) (144.9) CRS-19 Sources: CRS, with data from annual NPS Budget Justifications for FY2016-FY2025. Figures for each of FY2014-FY2023through FY2023. Congress has never appropriated the full $150 million for the HPF since its establishment; however, regular appropriations to NPS's HPF account increased each year from FY2016 to FY2020.⁶⁰ The FY2021 budget justification for NPS requests $40.7 million for HPF—a roughly 66% reduction in funding from FY2020 enacted amounts.⁶¹ This request would provide funding only for the core grant-in-aid programs to SHPOs ($26.9 million) and THPOs ($5.7 million), as well as $8 million for grants to HBCUs.⁶² It would not provide funding for additional competitive or non-formula-based grant programs.

National Recreation and Preservation Appropriations: FY2016-FY2020 and FY2021 Request

). CRS-20 link to page 26 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview NR&P: Actual FY2014-FY2023 and Enacted FY2024 Appropriations In addition to grant funds through the HPF account, Congress provides funding to other NPS-administered historic preservation grant programs under the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P)NR&P account. This account provides for a broad range of activities related to historic and cultural preservation, as well as programs for recreational activities, natural resource conservation, environmental compliance, operations of the Office of International Affairs, and national heritage areas. Administration of grants funded through the NR&P account and HPF grant administration are included within the NR&P account under the "Cultural Programs" line item and the sub-activity "Grants Administration."⁶³ Congress appropriates direct funding for NPS-administered grant programs under the Cultural Programs line item. The Administration requested $33.9 million for NR&P in FY2021—a roughly 52% reduction from FY2020 enacted amounts.

Selected Issues for the 116^th Congress

P.L. 115-413), which provides support for the operation, security, and maintenance of memorials commemorating the events of, and honoring the victims of, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, at the site of the attacks. i. Congress provided $1.0 million in one-time funding to the endowment for the nonprofit Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation that owns and operates the Oklahoma City National Memorial. The Oklahoma City National Memorial Act Amendments of 2003 (P.L. 108-199) authorized appropriations of $5.0 million for the Oklahoma City Memorial endowment fund. The endowment had previously received $4.0 million from the General Services Administration appropriations (FY2005 and FY2010). The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283) authorized an appropriation for the endowment from NPS’s NR&P account. CRS-24 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Issues for Congress Historic preservation programs are of perennial interest to Congress and have been the subject of congressional oversight and legislation in the 116^th118th Congress. Some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate aor reduce the federal government’s role in both administering and financing historic preservation programs, leaving such programs to be sustained by other levels of government or by private support. Others feel that a federal role in supporting historic preservation should be maintained or expanded. Similarly, some advocates believe there may be an inherent or increased tension between preservationist goals and federally controlled or licensed infrastructure projects.⁶⁴

77 HPF Funding Levels The majority of federal grant programs for historic preservation receive funding through the annual appropriations process. Members of Congress as well as both current and past Administrations have expressed various opinions as to how federal funding for these programs should be allocated and at what levels. Both the FY2020 and the FY2021 budget requests from NPSIn particular, funding both into and from the HPF has been of particular interest to both Members and stakeholders. Until FY2022, Congress had never appropriated the full annual deposit of $150 million for the fund in a single fiscal year (not counting emergency supplemental appropriations). During the Trump Administration, NPS budget requests for FY2020 and the FY2021 would have significantly reduced funding for the HPF and would providediscretionary appropriations for the HPF, providing no funding for African American civil rights grant programs, grants to underrepresented communities, the Save America'America’s Treasures program, or historic revitalization grants. Some Members of Congress expressed concern that the proposed reduction in grant funding would impact the ability of communities to protect and maintain culturally and historically important resources.78 Others—including some NPS officials—expressed the position that “core” NPS priorities such as infrastructure and the NPS maintenance backlog should take priority when considering the appropriation of federal funds.79 By contrast, the Biden Administration has requested funding that surpasses the annual deposit amount of $150 million in each fiscal year budget.80 In general, funding for the HPF has increased from FY2014-FY2023, with Congress expanding or authorizing new competitive grant programs and, in some years, providing funding for congressionally directed spending, among other increases. Despite these increases, some Members and stakeholders have raised concerns about the adequacy of funding for certain HPF programs, particularly grants-in-aid to SHPOs and THPOs. Proponents of increased funding have asserted that funding levels have not kept pace with the 77 For example, see Christopher Castaneda, “History Beneath the Surface: Natural Gas Pipelines and the National Historic Preservation Act,” The Public Historian, vol. 26, no. 1 (2004), 105-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2004.26.1.105. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Examining Impacts of Federal Natural Resources Laws Gone Astray, 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 18, 2017, H.Hrg. 115-16. 78 U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources, National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Examining the Spending Priorities and Mission of the National Park Service, 116th Cong., April 3, 2019. 79 Testimony of P. Daniel Smith of the National Park Service, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations, hearings, 116th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 3, 2019. 80 The Administration’s requests for FY2022-FY2025 were $151.8 million, $151.8 million, $177.9 million, and $151.4 million, respectively. See NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Congressional Research Service 25 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview increase in SHPO and THPO federally delegated responsibilities, including Section 106 project reviews.81 According to NPS estimates, SHPOs reviewed more than 106,000 federal undertakings in 2022, the most recent year for which data are available.82 Such proponents note that demands on SHPOs and THPOs may increase with implementation of projects pursuant to laws such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), enacted in 2021.83 THPO grant-in-aid funding has been of particular concern to some Members and stakeholders, particularly because of the increase in authorized THPOs for federally recognized tribes since the start of the program in 1996.84 Although THPO grants-in-aid nearly tripled from FY2014 to FY2023 in nominal dollars and more than doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars, some stakeholders have noted that such increases do not account for shortfalls in funding for prior years.85 Authorization for Deposits into the HPF Congress has, at various times, considered legislation to extend, increase, or otherwise amend the funding authorization for the deposits into the HPF. In 2016, Congress reauthorized deposits of $150 million annually into the HPF for FY2017 through FY2023. In October 2023, funding authorization for the HPF expired. On March 9, 2024, funding was reauthorized through FY2024 as part of the Interior appropriations law. In recent years, Congress has considered bills that would permanently authorize deposits into the HPF, make appropriations from the fund mandatory, and increase annual deposits above the current $150 million.86 Proponents for such changes contend that such proposals provide support and much needed certainty for states, tribes, and communities to properly carry out historic preservation activities.87 In addition, supporters note that the $150 million in annual deposits to the HPF has remained unchanged since its inception in 1976 and that increases may be needed to account for inflation and modern preservation needs.88 81 See Ramona M. Bartos, Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Statement for the Record before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, U.S. House of Representatives, April 28, 2022, available at https://ncshpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Statement-for-the-Record-Hearing-H.R.- 6589-HPEA.pdf. Hereinafter “Bartos (2022).” 82 NPS, Historic Preservation Fund Annual Report FY2022, http://npshistory.com/publications/preservation/hpf-ann-rpt/2022.pdf. 83 Bartos (2022). 84 Letter from Representatives Grijalva, Kamlager-Dove, Beyer, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, and Magazine, U.S. Congress, to Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, February 7, 2024, https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-02-07_moc_letter_to_sechaalandrequestingthposfundingincrease.pdf. See also, Valerie J. Grussing, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Statement for the Record before the House Appropriations Committee, Fiscal Year 2021 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, February 6, 2020, available at https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110491/witnesses/HHRG-116-AP06-Wstate-GrussingV-20200211.pdf. 85 For example, in the first year of congressional funding support for THPOs (FY1996), the original 12 THPOs each received an average of $80,000, while in FY2022, 208 THPOs received an average of $77,000, in nominal dollars. 86 For example, H.R. 3350 in the 118th Congress would increase annual deposits into the HPF from $150 million to $250 million. In the 117th Congress, H.R. 6589, the Historic Preservation Enhancement Act, would have permanently authorized the HPF, increased annual deposits to the HPF from $150 million to $300 million, and made such deposits available for expenditure without further appropriation. 87 See Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, “Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Holds Hearing on Rep. Leger Fernández’s Historic Preservation Enhancement Act,” press release, April 29, 2022, https://fernandez.house.gov/media/press-releases/subcommittee-national-parks-forests-and-public-lands-holds-hearing-rep-leger. See also National Trust for Historic Preservation, Statement for the Record before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, U.S. House of Representatives, April 28, 2022. Hereinafter “National Trust (2022).” 88 National Trust (2022). Congressional Research Service 26 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Some Members have objected to the proposed increases in authorized funding amounts because of broader concerns regarding the federal deficit.89 In addition, shifting HPF funding from discretionary spending to mandatory spending has raised concerns regarding how revenue generated by outer continental shelf mineral receipts should be used and whether mandatory funding for the HPF would impact other mandatory spending programs funded through these receipts.90 Shifting HPF funding to mandatory spending may also reduce the ability of Congress to conduct oversight. The appropriations committees in Congress control discretionary spending through the annual appropriations process and can modify discretionary appropriations on the basis of oversight or other considerations. In contrast, the amount and availability of mandatory—or direct—spending is generally not determined through annual appropriations acts and are more typically considered in legislation considered by authorizing committees. Section 106 and Federal Projects Concerns have been raised regarding the Section 106 process and its impact on both historic properties and federal projects. For instance, some have argued that the “stop, look, and listen” approach under Section 106 of NHPA does not provide adequate protection for historic resources, because the law establishes a procedural requirement only s Treasures program, or historic revitalization grants.

Other issues Congress may consider are specific to NHPA and current historic preservation laws and regulations. For instance, some have argued that the "stop, look, and listen" approach under Section 106 of NHPA does not provide adequate protection for historic resources, since the law only establishes a procedural requirement for federal agencies.⁶⁶for federal agencies.91 According to a study commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2010, NPS reported to Congress that only 2% of all SHPO reviews for Section 106 compliance included findings of adverse effects to historic properties.⁶⁷92 For those undertakings that are deemed to have an adverse effect on a given historic property, the agency in question is only required to consider these effects—with no explicit legal mandate requiring them to address these potential impacts. In other words, although agencies are compelled to consult with the SHPO/THPO to develop solutions to mitigate effects, agency officials are not required to pursue the solutions, regardless of any adverse effects. As a result, some preservation advocates have charged that NHPA fails in its purported mission toto adequately protect cultural and historic sites.⁶⁸

93 Others suggest that Section 106 compliance results in unnecessary and costly delays and have suggested that in some cases, opponents of specific federal projects may invoke Section 106 procedural steps in the hopes of delaying approval for a project—sometimes to the point of impacting a project'’s feasibility.⁶⁹94 Although federal regulations provide certain ways for agencies 89 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 6589, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., April 28, 2022. 90 Ibid. 91 Brody Hinds, “Twenty-Five Years Later: The Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act and Tribal Consultation,” American Indian Law Review, vol. 42, no. 1 (2017), pp. 141-71, at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26492275. Federal courts have referred to both NHPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as “stop, look, and listen” statutes. Their purpose is to establish a process of consideration for alternative solutions but not mandate that the permitting agency pursue a solution that might arise from this process. For more context on the “stop, look, and listen” principle, see Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Warwick Sewer Auth., 334 F.3d 161, 166 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). 92 Leslie E. Barras, “Summary” in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act: Back to Basics, 2010, p. 3, at https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.wustl.edu/dist/a/3075/files/2021/12/Section-106-Historic-Preservation-Summary-Report.pdf. 93 Amanda M. Marincic, “The National Historic Preservation Act: An Inadequate Attempt to Protect the Cultural and Religious Sites of Native Nations,” Iowa Law Review, vol. 103, no. 1 (2018), pp. 1777-1809, at https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/ILR-103-4-Marincic.pdf. 94 Thomas F. King, Saving Places That Matter: A Citizen’s Guide to the National Historic Preservation Act (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc., 2007), p. 18 (“The power of Section 106 is largely the power to delay a project and make it more costly than its proponents can tolerate.”). Congressional Research Service 27 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Although federal regulations provide certain ways for agencies to tailor the Section 106 process to their needs,95 some stakeholders have asserted that these options are time-consuming to implement and not flexible enough for undertakings that involve new or emerging technologies.⁷⁰96 Multiple bills have been introduced to exempt or limit NHPA reviews for certain projects, such as hazardous fuel removal projects on national forestlands, rail and transit infrastructure projects, and Federal Communications Commission construction projects for communications facilities following a major disaster.⁷¹

Many of the programs that directly or indirectly support historic preservation also have received attention in recent years-authorized communications projects.97 Other Congressional Considerations Other programs that directly or indirectly support historic preservation also have received attention in recent years. For example, Congress has considered the efficacy and usage of the HTC program, issues related to eligibility and listing for federal historic preservation programs, and proposals for new federal land designations for historic properties. In recent years, Congress has considered a number of bills that would amend the HTC program. These include proposals to permanently increase the rehabilitation credit from 20% to 30% for certain small-scale rehabilitation projects, lower the threshold for what constitutes “substantially rehabilitated” to allow for broader usage of the HTC, and make other changes aimed at encouraging more building reuse and redevelopment.98 Such proposals have been introduced as a result of perceived challenges that historic rehabilitation projects have faced, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which, according to some stakeholders, has resulted in increased costs and made access to capital for rehabilitation projects more difficult.99 Issues related to eligibility and standards for inclusion in federal historic preservation programs have also been of interest to Congress. For example, in 2013, the Federal Railroad Administration published a study that concluded "“there is no consistent approach on how to address the National Register eligibility of railroad corridors."⁷²”100 Although federal regulations outline the criteria for 95 Regulations promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) allow for program alternatives, which are alternative methods available to federal agencies to meet their obligations under Section 106. These program alternatives allow federal agencies to work with the ACHP to tailor the Section 106 process to meet their needs. The program alternatives vary in the extent to which they may substitute for the standard compliance procedures, which are found in 36 C.F.R. Subpart B. 96 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Examining Impacts of Federal Natural Resources Laws Gone Astray, 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 18, 2017, H.Hrg. 115-16 (Washington: GPO, 2017), p. 16. (Testimony from Amos J. Loveday, PhD: “While provisions for ‘tailoring’ of undertakings are available to agencies, taking advantage of them is often arduous and time consuming. For example, it required almost 5 years to craft the Nationwide Programmatic Agreements the [Federal Communications Commission] uses for towers. Moreover, the processes spelled out in 36 C.F.R. 800.14 are too cumbersome to be useful for undertakings that involve emerging technology, or industries subject to rapid change.”) 97 Recent examples include H.R. 2989 in the 118th Congress, which would have exempted certain hazardous fuel reduction projects in Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument, Sierra National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest from NHPA review; H.R. 4141 in the 118th Congress, which would have exempted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) communications projects from NHPA review; H.R. 5378 and S. 2576 in the 115th Congress, which would have required the FCC to make a determination whether certain activities by licensees are considered “undertakings” under NHPA; and S. 769 in the 114th Congress, which would have exempted improvements to, maintenance, and rehabilitation of railroad or rail transit lines from (among other requirements) Section 106 review. 98 In the 118th Congress, see the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act of 2023 (H.R. 1785, S. 639). Similar versions of these bills were considered in the 117th and 116th Congresses. 99 Sen. Earl Blumenauer, “Introduction of the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act of 2021,” Extensions of Remarks, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 167, part 59 (April 1, 2021), p. E324. 100 Federal Railroad Administration, “Streamlining Compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Federally Funded Railroad Infrastructure Repair and Improvement Projects,” March 2013, at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04483. Congressional Research Service 28 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Although federal regulations outline the criteria for inclusion of a property on the National Register, the report states that inconsistent standards still abound, due to the multitude of entities conducting National Register evaluations. Another program of congressional interest has been the National Heritage Areas program. Legislation has been introduced in recent Congresses to establish a National Heritage Areas System governing the designation, management, and funding of NHAs, to replace the stand-alone approach currently in place.⁷³ Additionally, some Members—as well as past and current Administrations—have expressed interest in ensuring that NHAs eventually become financially self-sufficient and in limiting the federal funding for long-standing areas.⁷⁴

In addition, Congress oftenOther issues relate to NPS efforts to address underrepresentation of diverse American groups and their stories within the historical and cultural resources that NPS helps to protect. This includes the roughly 2,600 properties that NPS has designated as national historic landmarks, along with the larger group of some 98,000 properties the agency has listed on the National Register. Although estimates vary, it is believed that less than 10% of all properties listed on the National Register relate to underrepresented cultural, ethnic, or identity communities.101 Congress has supported NPS efforts to address these gaps primarily through appropriations to the HPF.102 Congress also regularly considers bills to designate specific properties or areas as historically important, under various designations. Although many of the programs described in this report provide for properties to receive historical designation administratively, Congress has at times conferred individual designations in law. Certain programs or designations require congressional action to establish new areas or to designate properties as historically significant. important, under various designations. For example, in the 116ththe 116^th Congress, P.L. 116-9 included provisions that designated three new historical sites as units of the National Park System and six new national heritage areasNHAs, as well as stand-alone provisions that recognized the historical importance of sites across the United States.⁷⁵ Although many of the programs described in this report provide for properties to receive historical designation administratively, Congress has at times conferred individual designations in law. Certain programs or designations require congressional action to establish new areas or to designate properties as historically significant.

Appendix. 103 The 117th Congress passed legislation to add the New Philadelphia National Historic Site in Illinois (P.L. 117-328) and the Blackwell School National Historic Site in Texas (P.L. 117-206) to the National Park System and added seven new heritage areas to the newly authorized National Heritage Area System (P.L. 117-339).104 101 In 2013, NPS estimated that less than 8% of the total listings of national historic landmarks and National Register properties represented African American, Latino American, Asian American, Native American, and Native Hawaiian sites (NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2014, p. HPF-10). See also Linn-Tynen, Erin. “Reclaiming the Past as a Matter of Social Justice: African American Heritage, Representation and Identity in the United States,” in Critical Perspectives on Cultural Memory and Heritage: Construction, Transformation and Destruction, ed. Veysel Apaydin (UCL Press, 2020), pp. 255–68, at https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13xpsfp.21. 102 For example, since FY2014, Congress has provided funding through the HPF for a grant program aimed at surveying and documenting historic properties associated with communities underrepresented on the National Register of Historic Places and in the National Historic Landmark Program. 103 P.L. 116-9, §§2301-2303, designated the Medgar and Myrlie Evers Home National Monument, Mill Springs Battlefield National Monument, and the Camp Nelson Heritage National Monument as units of the National Park System; §2301 designated the Appalachian Forest NHA, Maritime Washington NHA, Mountains to Sound Greenway NHA, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta NHA, Santa Cruz Valley NHA, and Susquehanna NHA; and §9008 recognized the historical importance of the Quindaro Townsite by designating it as a National Commemorative Site. Other portions of the law recognized sites such as the Nordic Museum in Seattle, WA, and the National Comedy Center in Jamestown, NY, as historically significant. 104 The seven new NHAs are the Alabama Black Belt NHA, Bronzeville-Black Metropolis NHA, Downeast Maine NHA, Northern Neck NHA, St. Croix NHA, Southern Campaign of the Revolution National Heritage Corridor, and the Southern Maryland NHA. Congressional Research Service 29 link to page 35 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview Appendix. Selected Federal Grant Programs for Historic Preservation

Table A-1 isprovides an overview of selected federal historic preservation grant programs. This overview focuses on programs with the primary mission of historic preservation and is not a complete representation of all federal grant programs that support historic preservation activities.⁷⁶ 105 As one example, the 9/11 Memorial Grant program is not listed below as the program is intended to support the operation, maintenance, and security of memorials and museums associated with an event in the recent past. For the purposes of this report, these activities are not generally considered to be related to historic preservation work. Most of the programs listed here are subject to annual appropriations and therefore may not be currently fundedfunded in a particular fiscal year, despite some programs having congressional authorization to administer grants. ProgramsIn addition, some programs authorized or funded in FY2020 for the first time in recent years may not be listed below. For example, as part of the FY2020 funding bill (P.L. 116-94), Congress provided funding for a new civil rights grant program that would preserve and highlight the sites and stories associated with women, American Latino, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ Americans.⁷⁷ NPS has not yet published eligibility requirements or program guidelines. P.L. 116-94 also authorized two new grant programs as part of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP): a battlefield interpretation modernization grant program and a battlefield restoration grant program.⁷⁸ As these new programs have yet to receive appropriations from Congress, they are not listed below.