The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview

July 8, 2019 – March 22, 2024 R45800

The 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
(National Register) and the procedures by which historic properties are placed on the

National Register, funded the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 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 has amended and expanded NHPA
multiple times since its passage, 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 National 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 or 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 attention to
funding levels for various historic preservation programs that are subject to the annual appropriations process.
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) has been the primary federal 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 FY2023 levels in inflation-adjusted dollars.
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 natural disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Michael on
historic resources has contributed to increased support for incorporating preservation needs in
federal disaster relief planning and aid.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 (see 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, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
programs, the Save America’s Treasures grant program, and the American Battlefield Protection
Program (ABPP). The Appendix 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 FY2014 to FY2023, along with the most recently enacted
totals for FY2024. Finally, the report outlines some potential issues facing the 118th Congress in
determining whether and how to address historic preservation activities at the federal level.
Background on Federal Historic Preservation
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.2 Soon thereafter, Congress 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.3 These two distinct federal efforts—commemorating
very different moments in American history—are often marked as the genesis of the United
States’ federal preservation program.4 In the 20th century, a legislative campaign for a
comprehensive historic preservation policy bolstered these efforts.
Antiquities Act of 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.6 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 The law also
established guidelines around the future excavation of objects of antiquity found on land owned
or controlled by the federal government.8 Since its passage in 1906, the Antiquities Act has been
used to create more than 160 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.9 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.10 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

historic properties that exists today.11 (See “National Historic Landmarks Program” section for
more information on NHL designation.)
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
In the aftermath of World War II, the United States saw a 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 1935.12 In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson
convened a special committee on historic preservation in 1965.13 The following year, the
committee released its report, With Heritage So Rich, which called for a comprehensive national
historic preservation program.14 The same year, Congress passed the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which incorporated nearly every major recommendation
included in the report.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, with the most recent substantive amendments occurring in
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
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, as well as experts in historic preservation and members of the public.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.19 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.20 As an independent agency, ACHP receives funding as part of the “Related
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 1976.21
The HPF is funded through revenue generated by outer continental shelf oil and gas receipts, and
its funding has been periodically reauthorized by Congress. Since 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, 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. The 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 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.28 These activities may include surveys and
inventories, nominations to the National Register, preservation education, Section 106
consultations, community preservation planning, and physical preservation of historic buildings.
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.30 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).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 FY1996, NPS has awarded annual formula-based grants to THPOs.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.
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 CLGs.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” 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.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

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.38 NHPA requires the Secretary of the Interior
to maintain the National 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 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.40 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.41 As of March 2024,
more than 98,000 properties are listed on the National Register.
National Historic Landmarks Program
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”).42 The Historic Sites Act of 1935 created the
NHL program, and NHPA Amendments of 1980 clarified the role of NPS as the entity responsible
for overseeing the designation of NHLs.43 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, 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

agencies “take into account” the effects of an undertaking on historic properties, Section 110(f) of
NHPA, 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.”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 1949.53 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 NHPA. Federal funding for the trust
largely continued until FY1996, at which point the Interior Appropriations Act 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.”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.55 In FY2003, Congress appropriated an additional $2.0 million from the HPF for the
endowment and added $0.5 million more in FY2004.56 In FY2005, Congress stopped funding the
National Trust, and currently the organization’s funding comes largely from private donations.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.58 Some argued that
the law prior to 1976 encouraged the demolition and redevelopment of historic properties over
their preservation.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 structure while maintaining its historic character.60 Eligible buildings include those listed
on the National Register, 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.61 According to NPS, from FY1977
through FY2023, over 49,000 projects have been completed under the program, with more than
$131.71 billion leveraged in private investment for the rehabilitation of historic properties.62
National Heritage Areas Program63
Since 1984, Congress has designated 61 national heritage areas (NHAs) to recognize and assist
efforts to protect, commemorate, and promote natural, cultural, historic, and recreational
resources that form distinctive landscapes.64 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.
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 and providing uniform standards for their funding and management.
Previously, particulars for each area were provided in each NHA’s enabling legislation, with no
system-wide guidelines for how newly designated NHAs were to be administered and managed.
Historic Federal Property Disposal 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

address the disposal of historic properties under federal ownership: the Historic Surplus Property
Program and the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (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.66 When federally owned historic buildings are
no longer needed by their respective agencies, GSA declares the buildings to be surplus.67
Applicants interested in obtaining these properties—which must be listed, or eligible for listing,
in the National Register—submit an application to GSA. Eligible applicants include states,
counties, municipalities, tribes, and similar governmental entities.68 NPS then makes a formal
recommendation to GSA (or the Department of Defense, in the case of military properties) to
affect 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.69
National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act Program
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
NHLPA, an amendment to NHPA.70 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 USCG to issue a Report of Excess for historic light stations to 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 four such networks: the National
Underground Railroad Network to Freedom (P.L. 105-203), the African American Civil Rights
Network (P.L. 115-104), the Reconstruction Era National Historic 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, provide technical assistance to network sites, and
develop an official symbol or logo for use across the network.
Federal Historic Preservation Grant Programs
The federal government supports historic preservation through a variety of grant programs. The
largest source of funding for federal historic preservation programs is the HPF, which 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 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 remains, and preservation and acquisition grants for American battlefields. For a
list of some of these programs and their guidelines, refer to the Appendix.
National Historic Designations
Table 1 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, 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-
structures, or other objects of historic or
320303)
scientific interest. The President is to reserve
“the smallest area compatible with the
proper care and management of the objects
to be protected” (54 U.S.C. §320301(b)).
•
Allowed uses vary according to the
establishing law or proclamation and the
management framework of the administering
agency.
National Historical
Congress
Individual statutes
NPS
•
Preserve sites related to events or people of
Blackstone River Valley National
Park
national historical significance.
Historical Park (RI), P.L. 113-
•
291, §3031

Generally extend beyond a single building or
property.
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park (VA),
P.L. 107-373
National Historic Site
Congress or (for
Congressional
NPS, FS,
•
Most sites feature buildings of historical
Little Rock Central High School
earlier sites) the
designations: individual
nonfederal
interest, such as the homes of notable
National Historic Site (AR), P.L.
Secretary of the
statutes
entitiesd
individuals, public buildings where significant
105-356
Interiorc
Secretarial designations:
events occurred, or military forts.
Grey Towers National Historic
Historic Sites Act of 1935
Site (PA), P.L. 108-447, §348
(54 U.S.C. §§320101 et
seq.)
National Historic Trail Congress
National Trails System
NPS, FS, BLM,
•
Identify and protect travel routes of national
Oregon National Historic Trail
Act of 1968, as amended
nonfederal
historic significance.
(ID, KS, MO, NE, OR, WY), P.L.
(16 U.S.C. §§1241-1251),
entitiese
•
95-625
plus individual statutes

Can include land or water segments, marked
highways paralleling the route, and sites that
CRS-13

link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20
Authority for
Administering
Designation
Authorizing Entity
Designationa
Agencyb
Selected Characteristics
Examples
together form a chain or network along the
Star-Spangled Banner National
historic route.
Historic Trail (DC, MD, VA),
P.L. 110-229
National Heritage
Congress
National Heritage Area
Nonfederal
•
Congress has established national heritage
Appalachian Forest National
Area
Act (P.L. 117-339);
entities
areas in support of community-centered
Heritage Area (MD, WV), P.L.
individual statutes
initiatives to preserve historical, cultural, and
116-9, §6001
natural resources.
Mississippi Delta National
•
Areas remain under state, local, and/or
Heritage Area (MS), P.L. 111-11,
private control while receiving financial and
§8008
technical aid from NPS.
National Historic
Congress, Secretary
Historic Sites Act of 1935 Mainly nonfederal •
There are more than 2,600 national historic
Medgar and Myrlie Evers House
Landmark
of the Interior
(54 U.S.C. §§320101 et
entitiesf
landmarks, selected for exceptional value or
National Historic Landmark
seq.)
quality in illustrating or interpreting the
(MS) (designated 2017)
heritage of the United States.
Deer Medicine Rocks National
•
Most national historic landmarks are
Historic Landmark (MT)
nonfederal properties that remain in
(designated 2011)
nonfederal ownership and management. NPS
Juliette Gordon Low Historic
provides technical but not financial assistance.
District (GA) (designated 1965)
Properties may qualify for historic
preservation grants and historic tax credits.
•
Under Section 110(f) of NHPA (54 U.S.C.
§306107), prior to approving any federal
undertaking that may directly and adversely
affect a national historic landmark, federal
agencies must engage in planning and action
to minimize harm to the landmark.
•
Under NHPA, all national historic landmarks
are also added to the National Register of
Historic Places.
National Natural
Congress, Secretary
Historic Sites Act of 1935 Mainly nonfederal •
There are more than 600 national natural
Dinosaur Trackway (CT)
Landmark
of the Interior
(54 U.S.C. §§320101 et
entitiesg
landmarks that contain significant examples of (designated 1968)
seq.)
the nation’s biological and/or geological
Rock City (KS) (designated
features.
1976)
CRS-14

link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20
Authority for
Administering
Designation
Authorizing Entity
Designationa
Agencyb
Selected Characteristics
Examples
•
Designation does not impact land ownership,
Lanphere and Ma-le'l Dunes
and participation in the program is entirely
(CA) (designated 2021)
voluntary on the part of the landowner. No
new land use restrictions are imposed as a
result of designation.
World Heritage Sites
Secretary of the
Convention Concerning
Mainly NPSi
•
Roughly 1,200 properties listed on the World Yellowstone National Park
Interior, UNESCO
the Protection of the
Heritage List, including 25 sites located within (WY, MT) (designated 1978)
World Heritage
World Cultural and
the United States.
Statue of Liberty (NY)
Committeeh
Natural Heritage as
•
(designated 1984)
approved by the Senate

Cultural and natural heritage sites of
“outstanding universal value.”
Pueblo de Taos (NM)
54 U.S.C. §307101
•
Countries that are party to the Convention
(designated 1992)
agree to protect listed sites and monuments
within their borders and refrain from actions
that might harm such sites in other countries.
National Register of
Congress, Secretary
National Historic
Mainly nonfederal •
More than 98,000 properties are listed on the Daniel Pratt Historic District
Historic Places
of the Interior
Preservation Act (54
entitiesj
National Register. Properties are selected
(AL) (designated 1984)
U.S.C. §§300101 et seq.)
based on their significance in American
Nathaniel Irish House (PA)
history, architecture, archeology, engineering,
(designated 1972)
and culture.
Mountain Meadows Massacre
•
Most are nonfederal properties that remain in Site (UT) (designated 2011)
nonfederal ownership and management. NPS
Oakland City Auditorium (NE)
provides technical but not financial assistance.
(designated 2019)
Properties may qualify for historic
preservation grants and historic tax credits.
•
Under Section 106 of NHPA (54 U.S.C.
§306108), prior to approving any federal
undertaking that may directly and adversely
affect a property listed on the National
Register, federal agencies must engage in
planning and action to minimize harm to the
property.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes:
a. In addition to these statutory authorities for designation, the agencies more broadly administer lands under their “organic acts” and other statutory authorities.
CRS-15

b. BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FS = U.S. Forest Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service. The column lists the agency or
agencies that typically serve as primary administrators for each type of area. Although an agency serves as the overall administrator for a given area, some parcels of
land within the area’s boundaries may be owned and/or managed by another federal agency; by states, tribes, or localities; or by private owners.
c. The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to designate national historic sites under the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (54 U.S.C. §§320101 et seq.). However, this
authority was limited in 1992 by an amendment to the Historic Sites Act stipulating that Congress must authorize the appropriation of any funds used to carry out
secretarial designations (P.L. 102-575). Since then, only Congress has established national historic sites.
d. NPS administers 76 national historic sites and one international historic site (St. Croix Island on the Canadian border). FS manages one national historic site (Grey
Towers National Historic Site in Pennsylvania). An additional nine national historic sites are nonfederally owned and administered but are NPS “affiliated areas,”
receiving technical and/or financial assistance from NPS.
e. For national historic trails, a single federal agency typically serves as the overall administrator, but lands along the trails may be owned and managed by multiple
federal agencies, state and local governments, private groups, and individuals. For a more detailed discussion on the National Trails System, see CRS Report R43868,
The National Trails System: A Brief Overview, by Mark K. DeSantis.
f.
Some national historic landmarks are on federal lands and are managed by the federal agency that controls the land.
g. According to NPS, approximately 52% of national natural landmarks are administered by public agencies (which include federal agencies), more than 30% are entirely
privately owned, and the remaining 18% are owned or administered by a mixture of public agencies and private owners.
h. NPS administers the U.S. World Heritage Program, and nominations of new World Heritage sites are put forth by the Department of the Interior’s Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Nominations and listing are ultimately considered by the World Heritage Committee, which is composed of 21 members
elected by the parties to the Convention for six-year terms and oversees implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
i.
Both federal and nonfederal properties may be nominated and listed as World Heritage sites; to date, the majority of U.S. World Heritage sites are under federal
ownership (primarily units of the National Park System). For nonfederal property, the owner(s) must agree in writing before the property can be considered for
inclusion.
j.
Some properties listed on the National Register are on federal lands and are managed by the federal agency that administers the land.

CRS-16

link to page 23 link to page 26 link to page 23 The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview

Federal Funding for Historic 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.74 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 programs. Funding for historic preservation programs is not limited to these two
accounts, nor does Congress exclusively fund historic preservation grant programs as part of the
Interior appropriations bill.75 Table 2 and Table 3 provide FY2014-FY2023 appropriations
figures for programs funded as part of the HPF and NR&P accounts, 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-FY2023 were taken from the volume published two
years following the fiscal year in question (e.g., for FY2016, figures are from the FY2018 document) and reflect actual totals. Figures for FY2024 reflect enacted totals.
Figures in parentheses reflect totals adjusted for inflation (shown in 2014 dollars) 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/.
Notes: Figures may not sum to exact totals shown because of rounding. An em dash (“—”) indicates that no federal funding was provided or requested for a given
program.
a. Figures for FY2014-FY2023 reflect actual totals. FY2024 figures reflect enacted totals.
b. SHPO funding includes the statutorily required 10% pass-through to certified local governments.
c. Tribal Heritage Grants are funded through moneys reallocated from the Tribal Preservation Office line item.
d. As part of the FY2020 funding bill, Congress provided funding for a new grant program that would “preserve and highlight the sites and stories associated with
securing civil rights for All Americans, including women, American Latino, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ Americans” (H.Rept. 116-
100). In subsequent years, Congress has provided funding for this program under the moniker, “History of Equal Rights program” (e.g., see the joint explanatory
statement for P.L. 117-328).
e. In FY2022, FY2023, and FY2024, Congress provided funding for certain individual projects in annual appropriations laws as community project
funding/congressionally directed spending (sometimes referred to as “earmarks”).
f.
In FY2018, Congress appropriated $50 million for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria pursuant to the Further
Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-123).
g. In FY2019, Congress appropriated $50 million for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricanes Florence and Michael and Typhoon Yutu pursuant
to the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-20).

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 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 NHAs. Appropriations for the NR&P
account generally increased from FY2014 to FY2023 in both nominal and inflation-adjusted
dollars. After inflation is accounted for, the FY2023 total NR&P appropriation of $92.5 million
(P.L. 117-328) reflects a 20% increase from the FY2014 funding level. Enacted FY2024
appropriations totaled $91.2 million, a 1% decrease from FY2023 levels. For more information
on NR&P appropriations trends, see Table 3.
The largest activity in the NR&P account is Cultural Programs, which supports a variety of
cultural resource, historic preservation, and other financial assistance programs. This includes
administration of the National Register, grantmaking under NAGPRA, and operation of the
National Center for Preservation, Technology and Training. Overall funding for the Cultural
Programs activity rose by 25% in inflation-adjusted terms from FY2014 to FY2023; however,
some of this increase can be attributed to the funding of additional programs within the Cultural
Programs activity rather than increased funding for existing programs. This includes the transfer
of the Grants Administration line item to the Cultural Programs activity, approved by Congress in
FY2020. Prior to FY2020, Grants Administration was funded as a separate line item. Funding
trends for other individual programs within the Cultural Programs activity varied over the same
time period. For example, adjusted for inflation, funding for National Register programs; the
National Center for Preservation, Technology and Training; and the ABPP Assistance grants
decreased by 16%, 18%, and 31%, respectively, over the course of the decade. Enacted FY2024
appropriations for the Cultural Programs activity remained unchanged from FY2023 levels,
totaling $39.3 million.
In addition, in FY2022, FY2023, and FY2024, Congress provided funding for certain
congressionally directed spending projects under the Statutory and Contractual Aid activity. Total
appropriations for FY2022, FY2023, and FY2024 were $3.5 million, $2.9 million, and $1.6
million, respectively. Projects that were selected dealt with beach conservation, trail connectivity,
community park development, and more.

Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28
Table 3. NPS’s National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) Account Appropriations
($ in millions)
(Figures in parentheses reflect inflation-adjusted dollars)

FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2024a
Natural Programsb
13.5
13.6
13.6
13.6
14.2
14.2
15.8
16.0
16.5
18.6
18.6
(13.5)
(13.4)
(13.3)
(13.1)
(13.3)
(13.1)
(14.4)
(14.1)
(13.6)
(14.6)
(14.3)
International Park Affairs
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
Environmental Compliance and
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Review
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
Heritage Partnership Programsc
18.3
20.3
19.8
19.8
20.3
20.3
21.9
22.9
27.1
29.2
29.2
(18.3)
(20.1)
(19.4)
(19.1)
(19.1)
(18.8)
(20.0)
(20.2)
(22.4)
(23.0)
(22.5)
Grants Administrationd
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
—
—
—
—
—
(1.7)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.9)
—
—
—
—
—
Cultural Programs
24.7
24.6
24.6
24.6
25.1
25.6
31.1
31.9
34.4
39.3
39.3
(24.7)
(24.3)
(24.1)
(23.7)
(23.6)
(23.6)
(28.4)
(28.1)
(28.4)
(30.9)
(30.2)
National Register Programs
16.6
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.6
16.8
17.2
17.7
17.7
(16.6)
(16.6)
(16.5)
(16.2)
(15.8)
(15.5)
(15.1)
(14.8)
(14.2)
(13.9)
(13.6)
National Center for Preservation,
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
Technology, and Training
(2.0)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.6)
Native American Graves Protection
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.2
3.4
3.4
and Repatriation Grants
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.8)
(2.7)
(2.6)
(NAGPRA)e
Japanese American Confinement
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.4
4.7
4.7
Site Grants
(3.0)
(2.9)
(2.8)
(2.8)
(2.7)
(2.7)
(2.9)
(2.8)
(2.8)
(3.7)
(3.6)
American Battlefield Protection
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Program (ABPP) Assistance Grantsf
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(0.9)
American Indian and Native
—
—
—
—
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.5
2.8
2.8
Hawaiian Art and Culture Grantsg
—
—
—
—
(0.5)
(0.9)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(2.1)
9/11 Memorial Grantsh
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.0
2.5
2.8
4.0
4.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
(1.8)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(3.1)
(3.1)
CRS-22

link to page 27 link to page 28

FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2024a
Oklahoma City Endowmenti
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(0.8)
—
—
Grants Administration
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.6
3.6
—
—
—
—
—
—
(2.6)
(2.7)
(2.6)
(2.8)
(2.8)
Statutory and Contractual Aid
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3.5
2.9
1.6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(2.9)
(2.3)
(1.3)
TOTAL NR&P
60.8
63.1
62.6
62.6
63.6
64.1
71.2
74.2
83.9
92.5
91.2
(60.8)
(62.4)
(61.4)
(60.3)
(59.9)
(59.2)
(64.8)
(65.4)
(69.2)
(72.7)
(70.1)
Source: CRS, with data from the annual NPS Budget Justifications for FY2016-FY2025. Figures for each of FY2014-FY2023 were taken from the volume published two
years following the fiscal year in question (e.g., for FY2016, figures are from the FY2018 document) and reflect actual totals. Figures for FY2024 reflect enacted totals.
Figures in parentheses reflect totals adjusted for inflation (shown in 2014 dollars) 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/.
Notes: Figures may not sum to exact totals shown because of rounding. An em dash (“—”) indicates that no federal funding was provided or requested for a given
program.
a. Figures for FY2014-FY2023 reflect actual totals. FY2024 figures reflect enacted totals.
b. Prior to FY2018, the Federal Lands to Parks program was funded under a separate line item—Recreation Programs. Since FY2018, this program has been
consolidated under the Natural Programs sub-activity. Amounts for FY2014-FY2017 include funding for Federal Lands to Parks.
c. Heritage Partnership Programs includes both direct commissions and grants to national heritage areas as well as administrative costs for the program. Its
appropriations grew over the decade by 26% in inflation-adjusted dollars; however, some of these increases are attributable to Congress increasing funding because
of the establishment of new heritage areas. Of the existing 61 national heritage areas, 13 were established since 2019.
d. The FY2020 and FY2021 budget requests propose a transfer of the Grants Administration line item to the Cultural Programs sub-activity. Congress approved this
transfer in FY2020. The sub-activity funding is listed under Cultural Programs for both FY2020 and FY2021.
e. NAGPRA funding under the NR&P account is intended for the NAGPRA grant program, not general operating support for the larger NAGPRA program, which is
traditionally funded as part of the Operations of the National Park System line item under the Resource Stewardship sub-activity. The grant program was authorized
by Congress in 1990 as part of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601). For more information on NAGPRA, see CRS In Focus
IF12523, Repatriation of Native American Remains and Cultural Items: Requirements for Agencies and Institutions, by Mark K. DeSantis and Nik Taylor.
f.
ABPP Assistance Grants under NR&P are only for the ABPP Planning Grant Program. The ABPP Land Acquisition Grant Program, Battlefield Interpretation
Modernization Grant Program, and the Battlefield Restoration Grant Program receive appropriations under the Land Acquisition and State Assistance line item from
Land and Water Conservation Fund funds. Congress authorized this program in 1996 with the American Battlefield Protection Act (P.L. 104-333, Div. I, Title VI,
§604) and has subsequently reauthorized and expanded the program multiple times. For more information on the ABPP, see CRS In Focus IF11329, American
Battlefield Protection Program, by Mark K. DeSantis.
g. Congress provided funding for this program in FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 pursuant to the authority granted in the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native
Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act, as amended (P.L. 99-498). Per the accompanying joint explanatory statement for the FY2018 Interior appropriations
CRS-23

law, P.L. 115-141, Congress appropriated $500,000 in funding for “the purpose of supporting programs for Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native culture and arts
development” (Joint Explanatory Statement on H.R. 1625, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164, part 2, March 22, 2018, p. H2615). The committee directed
the Department of the Interior to “consider funding the Northwest Coast arts program as outlined by the memorandum of agreement between the Institute of
American Indian Arts and the Sealaska Heritage Institute.” The FY2019 appropriations law included an additional $500,000 for a total of $1 million program cost. In
the accompanying conference report, Congress directed these funds to be “utilized consistent with the direction outlined in the explanatory statement
accompanying P.L. 115-141” (H.Rept. 116-9). The FY2020 joint explanatory statement provided $1.5 million for this grant program (Joint Explanatory Statement on
H.R. 1865/P.L. 116-94, p. 597).
h. Congress first provided funding for this program in FY2020, as authorized by the 9/11 Memorial Act (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 118th Congress. Some Members of Congress
support proposals to eliminate or 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.77
HPF Funding Levels
The majority of federal programs for historic preservation receive funding through the annual
appropriations process. Members of Congress as well as current and past Administrations have
expressed various opinions as to how federal funding for these programs should be allocated and
at what levels. In 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 discretionary appropriations for the HPF, providing no funding for African
American civil rights grant programs, grants to underrepresented communities, the Save
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 for federal agencies.91 According to a
study commissioned by the National Trust 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.92 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 to adequately protect cultural and
historic sites.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.94 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

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.96 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-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.”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

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. Other 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. For example, in
the 116th Congress, P.L. 116-9 included provisions that designated three new historical sites as
units of the National Park System and six new NHAs, as well as stand-alone provisions that
recognized the historical importance of sites across the United States.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 provides 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 preservation activities.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
funded in a particular fiscal year, despite some programs having congressional authorization to
administer grants. In addition, some programs authorized or funded for the first time in recent
years may not be listed below. This may be due, in part, to NPS not publishing eligibility
requirements or funding guidelines for newly authorized programs by the time of publication.
Information on eligibility may be subject to changes from year to year for certain grant programs,
particularly those authorized in annual appropriations laws. Such programs are generally not
codified and therefore may not have statutorily defined eligibility or funding parameters.

105 Other federal grants programs provide funding for a variety of activities that may include historic preservation but
are not explicitly authorized for that purpose.
Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40
Table A-1. Selected Federal Grant Programs for Historic Preservation
Match
Requirement
[Federal:
Program
Authorization
Type
Nonfederal]
Eligible Entities
Program Details
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND (HPF) PROGRAMS
State Historic Preservation
54 U.S.C. §302902
Formulaa
3 : 2b
SHPOs of 50 states plus the District of
Activities may include surveys and inventories,
Office (SHPO) Grants
Columbia and territories.
National Register nominations, preservation
education, architectural planning, historic
structure reports, community preservation
planning, and physical preservation of historic
buildings, among others.
Typically, SHPOs do not use HPF funds to issue
sub-grants for individual historic preservation
projects or entities but rather fund their own
operational and administrative costs and
programmatic activities.
Tribal Historic Preservation
54 U.S.C. §302907
Formulac
Variousd
Federally recognized tribes that have
Activities funded through the program include
Office (THPO) Grants
signed agreements with the National Park
staff salaries, archeological and architectural
Service (NPS) designating them as having
surveys, review and compliance activities,
an approved THPO.
comprehensive preservation studies, National
Register nominations, educational programs, and
other preservation-related activities.
Certified Local
54 U.S.C.
Formula
Various
CLGs, which are units of local (town, city,
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Government (CLG) Grants
§302902(c)(4)
or county) government that have
(NHPA) requires that at least 10% of the annual
undergone a certification process
HPF funding provided to each SHPO be sub-
involving demonstration of a commitment
granted to CLGs.e
to historic preservation.
States typically award grants to individual CLGs
through a competitive application process
established by the SHPO.
Specific requirements and eligibility for CLG
grants are defined by individual SHPOs.
Tribal Heritage Grants
54 U.S.C. §302907
Competitive
Not requiredf
Federally recognized Indian tribes, Alaska
Funding is provided as part of the THPO line
Natives, and Native Hawaiian
item.
organizations.
CRS-31

link to page 40 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41
Match
Requirement
[Federal:
Program
Authorization
Type
Nonfederal]
Eligible Entities
Program Details
NPS reallocates a portion of these moneys to
support project grants under the program.
Activities funded include planning, development,
and research projects for preservation of tribal
cultural resources, including surveys, inventories,
oral histories, educational programs, architectural
services, historic structure reports, preservation
plans, and more.
African American Civil
No authorizing
Competitive
Not required
SHPOs, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Program to preserve the sites and stories of the
Rights Grants
legislationg
Natives, and Native Hawaiian
civil rights movement.
organizations, local governments
Grant funds are awarded through two separate
(including CLGs), and nonprofits.
application processes: one for physical
preservation projects and another for historical
projects aimed at surveying, documenting, and
interpreting significant sites and moments of the
civil rights movement of the 20th century.
History of Equal Rights
No authorizing
Competitive
Not required
SHPOs, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Program to preserve and protect sites associated
Grants
legislationh
Natives, Native Hawaiian organizations,
with efforts to achieve equal rights.
CLGs, and nonprofits.
Grants are not limited to any specific group and
are intended to include the broadest possible
interpretation of equal rights for any American.
Underrepresented
Not authorizing
Competitive
Not required
SHPOs, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Program aimed at surveying and documenting
Community (URC) Grants
legislationi
Natives, Native Hawaiian organizations,
historic properties associated with communities
CLGs, and nonprofits.j
underrepresented on the National Register of
Historic Places and in the National Historic
Landmark Program.k
Paul Bruhn Historic
No authorizing
Competitive
Not required
SHPOs, THPOs, CLGs, special district
Program supports the physical preservation and
Revitalization Grants
legislationl
(sub-grant
governments (except school districts), and rehabilitation of properties listed on—or eligible
Program
programs may
nonprofits.
for listing on—the National Register that are
require match)m
located within rural communities.
CRS-32

link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41
Match
Requirement
[Federal:
Program
Authorization
Type
Nonfederal]
Eligible Entities
Program Details
For the purposes of this program, rural is defined
according to Bureau of the Census parameters as
populations under 50,000.
The rehabilitation projects are awarded through a
sub-grant program, whereby the applicant serves
as a pass-through entity—or prime recipient—
administering funds to eligible sub-recipients in its
jurisdiction.
Grants are intended to be distributed to multiple
rural preservation projects; therefore, individual
grants are not allowed to be awarded to only one
sub-grantee.
Historically Black Colleges
54 U.S.C. §302101
Competitive
Not requiredo
Accredited HBCUs.
Funds physical preservation of historical buildings,
and Universities (HBCU)
noten
sites, and structures, as well as pre-preservation
Preservation Grants
studies, architectural plans, and reports.
Funds may be awarded only for preservation
projects that address buildings or structures
already listed in the National Register of Historic
Places as of the application deadline.
Save America’s Treasures
54 U.S.C. §3089p
Competitive
1 : 1
State, local, or tribal governments, tribal
Program provides funding for two programs: one
organizations, school districts, educational for preservation projects administered by NPS
institutions, nonprofits, and federal
and one for nationally significant collections
agencies with the exception of NPS.q
administered by the Institute of Museum and
Library Services.
For NPS-administered preservation projects,
funding is limited to properties listed in the
National Register of Historic Places for national
significance (not state or local significance) or
designated a national historic landmark. The
property may be listed either individually or as
contributing to a nationally significant district.
CRS-33

link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42
Match
Requirement
[Federal:
Program
Authorization
Type
Nonfederal]
Eligible Entities
Program Details
Individual properties or collections that received
a Save America’s Treasures grant in the past are
not eligible for additional funding
Semiquincentennial
No authorizing
Competitive
1 : 1
Local governments, nonprofits,
Program provides funding for restoring and
Preservation Grants
legislationr
educational institutions, and tribes.
preserving sites and structures listed on the
National Register of Historic Places that
commemorate the founding of the nation.s
For the purposes of this grant program, the
“founding of the nation” is defined as the period
ending December 31, 1800.
NATIONAL RECREATION and PRESERVATION (NR&P) GRANTS
Japanese American
P.L. 109-441t
Competitive
2 : 1u
Private nonprofits; educational
Preservation and interpretation of U.S.
Confinement Site (JACS)
institutions; state, local, and tribal
confinement sites where Japanese Americans
Grants
governments; and other public entities
were detained during World War II.
working to preserve World War II
The initial bill expressly identified 10 internment
Japanese American confinement sites and
sites eligible for the program, while also making
their history.
other confinement sites eligible if determined to
be historically significant by the Secretary of the
Interior.v
Native American Graves
25 U.S.C. §3008
Competitive and
Not required
Museums with possible NAGPRA
NPS administers two types of NAGPRA grant
Protection and Repatriation
noncompetitivew
collections, Native Hawaiian
awards: Consultation/Documentation grants and
Act (NAGPRA) Grants
organizations, and Indian tribes as defined
Repatriation grants.
in NAGPRA.
Consultation/Documentation grants support the
Under NAGPRA, Indian tribe means any
efforts of museums, Indian tribes, and Native
tribe, band, nation, or other organized
Hawaiian organizations to consult on and
group or community of Indians, including
document NAGPRA-related human remains and
any Alaska Native village (as defined in the cultural items in nonfederal collections.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43
Repatriation grants are intended to assist in the
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.]).
cost associated with the packing, transportation,
contamination removal, reburial, and/or storage
of NAGPRA-related human remains and cultural
items.
CRS-34

link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42
Match
Requirement
[Federal:
Program
Authorization
Type
Nonfederal]
Eligible Entities
Program Details
National Center for
54 U.S.C. §305304
Competitive
Not required
Universities, nonprofit organizations, and
Program funds research into new technologies or
Preservation Technology
government agencies.
into improving existing technologies to preserve
and Training Grants
cultural resources.
Grant recipients undertake innovative research
and produce technical reports.
American Battlefield
54 U.S.C. §308102
Competitive
Not required
Groups, institutions, organizations, or
ABPP planning grants support projects that
Protection Program (ABPP)
governments (local, state, and tribal)
include site identification and documentation,
Planning Grants
sponsoring preservation projects at
planning and consensus-building projects, and
historic battlefields.
educational programs.
Any battlefield on American soil is eligible
Planning grants are not awarded for land
for this grant.
acquisition or capital improvements.
ADDITIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANTS
American Battlefield
54 U.S.C. §308103
Competitive
1 : 1
State and local governments.
Grants for fee simple acquisition of eligible
Protection Program
Eligible sites are limited to Revolutionary
battlefield land or the acquisition of permanent,
Battlefield Acquisition
War, War of 1812, or Civil War
protective interests (easements) in battlefield
Grants
battlefield land.x
land.
Funding for the program is appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.y
American Battlefield
54 U.S.C. §308104
Competitive
1 : 1
State and local governments.
Grants for projects and programs that deploy
Protection Program
Eligible sites are limited to Revolutionary
technology to modernize battlefield
Battlefield Interpretation
War, War of 1812, or Civil War
interpretation and education.
Modernization Grants
battlefield land.x
Funding for the program is appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.y
American Battlefield
54 U.S.C. §308105
Competitive
1 : 1
State and local governments.
Grants for projects that restore day-of-battle
Protection Program
Eligible sites are limited to Revolutionary
conditions on land preserved under the
Battlefield Restoration
War, War of 1812, or Civil War
battlefield acquisition grant program.
Grants
battlefield land.x
Funding for the program is appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.y
National Maritime Heritage
54 U.S.C. §308703
Competitiveaa
1 : 1
SHPOs, THPOs, local governments,
Grants for education and preservation projects
Grant Programz
nonprofits.
aimed at preserving maritime resources and
CRS-35

link to page 42
Match
Requirement
[Federal:
Program
Authorization
Type
Nonfederal]
Eligible Entities
Program Details
increasing awareness and appreciation for the
maritime heritage of the United States.
The grant program is administered by the
National Maritime Heritage Program of NPS in
partnership with the Maritime Administration
(MARAD).bb
Funding for the program is provided, as available,
through MARAD’s Vessel Operations Revolving
Fund from proceeds generated by the sale or
scrapping of obsolete vessels of the National
Defense Reserve Fleet.
Project funds are disbursed directly to SHPOs
who make subgrants to applicants.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Notes:
a. The apportionment formula for state, tribal, and local government historic preservation programs was developed by NPS in accordance with NHPA and regulations
at 36 C.F.R. §61. 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.
b. 54 U.S.C. §302902(b)(3). The nonfederal matching share is 40% of the total budget, not 40% of the federal award amount. In accordance with 48 U.S.C. §1469a,
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Freely Associated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Republic of Palau, and the Virgin Islands are not required to contribute nonfederal share for HPF grants, unless the matching share required exceeds $200,000 for a
grant.
c. According to NPS, of the total annual appropriation provided to the THPO program, approximately 80% is divided equally among all THPOs and the remaining 20%
is apportioned based on the area of the tribal lands as defined in NHPA.
d. Matching fund requirements may vary. Federal funds may be used as matching funds for the purposes of THPO grants.
e. Regulations regarding the transfer of funds to CLGs can be found at 36 C.F.R. §61.7.
f.
A nonfederal match is not required as part of the application process; however, according to the FY2024 application guidance issued by NPS, “non-federal matching
… may be considered as part of the evaluation process.” NPS, “Tribal Heritage Grant Application Information,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/
historicpreservationfund/thg-grant-info.htm.
g. In FY2016, Congress directed NPS to establish a competitive grant program “to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights movement” as part of the annual
Interior appropriations bill (P.L. 114-113, Div. G, Title I, December 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2532). Funds have been appropriated for this program every year since
FY2016.
CRS-36

h. As part of the FY2020 funding bill, Congress provided funding for a new grant program that would “preserve and highlight the sites and stories associated with
securing civil rights for All Americans, including women, American Latino, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ Americans” (H.Rept. 116-
100). In subsequent years, Congress has provided funding for this program under the moniker, “History of Equal Rights program” (e.g., see the joint explanatory
statement for P.L. 117-328).
i.
In FY2014, Congress directed NPS to establish 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 (joint explanatory statement on H.R. 3547,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Congressional Record, vol. 160, part 2 (January 15, 2014), p. H974). From FY2014 to FY2018, Congress appropriated
$500,000 annually for the URC program. In FY2019 and FY2020, funding was increased to $750,000.
j.
Nonprofit organizations became eligible for grant funding as of FY2023.
k. Prior to FY2014, less than 8% of the then-roughly 86,000 sites included on the National Register were associated with African American, American Latino, Asian
American, American Indian, and other minority communities, according to NPS.
l.
NPS has general authority to issue grants for the preservation of properties included on the National Register pursuant to 54 U.S.C. §302904. Congress first
directed NPS to administer a grant program for these specific purposes in FY2018 as part of the annual Interior appropriations bill (P.L. 115-141).
m. Matching funds on behalf of the prime recipient are not required under the application guidelines; however, the ability to provide a match may be considered as part
of the evaluation process.
n. In 1988, NPS established the HBCU Preservation Program to document, preserve, and stabilize historic structures on HBCU campuses. Congress authorized $29
million in funding for the program in 1996 as part of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 and later amended the law in 2003, authorizing
an additional $10 million in appropriations for each of FY2003 through FY2008 (P.L. 104-333, Div. I, Title V, §507, November 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4156-4157; and P.L.
108-7 , Div. F, Title I, §150, February 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 245). Although additional funding was authorized in 2003, Congress did not appropriate the full $10 million
in each of those years. Instead, Congress appropriated $0 in FY2003, $3 million in FY2004, $3.5 million in FY2005, $3 million in FY2006, and $0 in FY2007 and
FY2008 (figures based on enacted totals not actuals). Congress provided stand-alone appropriations in the amounts of $4 million and $5 million for the program in
FY2017 and FY2018, respectively. The program was again reauthorized in March 2019 as part of the John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation, Management, and Recreation
Act to receive $10 million for each of FY2019 through FY2025 (P.L. 116-9, Div. I, Title II, Subtitle E, §2402, March 12, 2019).
o. The FY2023 grant cycle did not require a nonfederal match; however, past iterations of the program have required varying levels of matching funds.
p. The program was initially created in 1998 as a public-private partnership between President Clinton’s White House Millennium Council and the National Trust for
Historic Preservation to protect “America’s threatened cultural treasures.” The White House Millennium Council was created under Executive Order 13072,
“White House Millennium Council,” 63 Federal Register 6041-6043, February 5, 1998. Congress later authorized the program as part of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009, which authorized $50 million in appropriations for each fiscal year, to remain available until expended. From FY1999 through FY2010,
annual appropriations fluctuated from a high of $35 million in FY1999 to a low of $20 million in FY2009. Congress did not provide appropriations funding for the
program from FY2011 through FY2016; the program has been funded every year since FY2017.
q. 54 U.S.C. §308901(2). According to NPS, these grants will not be available for work on sites or collections owned by NPS. Other federal agencies not funded by the
Interior appropriations bill that are collaborating with a partner may submit applications through a nonprofit partner.
r. Congress first provided funding for this program as part of the FY2021 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 116-260). Funding has been provided in each of the
subsequent years through the annual appropriations process.
s. Prior to FY2023, eligibility was limited to state-owned historic sites and structures pursuant to congressional direction provided in the accompanying explanatory
language to the FY2021 and FY2022 appropriations laws. In FY2023, NPS removed this requirement, although the accompanying explanatory statement for FY2023
appropriations did indicate that priority should be given to state-owned sites (https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-bk2.pdf).
CRS-37

t.
P.L. 109-441, December 21, 2006, 120 Stat. 3288. Previously codified at 16 U.S.C. §461 note.
u. The authorizing legislation for JACS grants requires a 50% nonfederal match, but NPS application guidelines require a 2:1 federal to nonfederal match.
v. The 10 sites identified in statute are Gila River, Granada, Heart Mountain, Jerome, Manzanar, Minidoka, Poston, Rohwer, Topaz, and Tule Lake. No additional sites
have been identified by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior.
w. Consultation/Documentation grants are competitive grants, awarded annually. Repatriation grants are noncompetitive and are considered on a rolling basis to the
extent that funds are available. Although NAGPRA Repatriation grants are considered noncompetitive, there is an evaluation process by which eligible applicants
(i.e., those that meet eligibility requirements and submit a complete application) are considered.
x. Only Civil War battlefields listed in the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields and Revolutionary War and War of
1812 battlefields listed in the 2007 The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic Preservation Study are eligible for this grant.
y. Prior to the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA; P.L. 116-152) in August 2020, funding was provided as discretionary appropriations in NPS’s
Land Acquisition and State Assistance account under the Federal Land Acquisition activity (although the grants are not for federal acquisition but for state and local
acquisition). Following GAOA’s passage, this funding was made mandatory, so there were no discretionary appropriations to this account for FY2021 and
subsequent years.
z. Congress authorized this program in 1994 as part of the National Maritime Heritage Act (P.L. 103-451, November 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4770). An initial round of
grants was awarded in 1998, but the program was discontinued the following year due to environmental and worker safety issues associated with the sale of
obsolete vessels. An amendment to the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act subsequently permitted the Administrator of the Maritime Administration to
divert Vessel Operations Revolving Fund proceeds “for use in the preservation and presentation to the public of maritime heritage property of the Maritime
Administration” (P.L. 111-84, Div. C, Title XXXV, §3509, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2721). Funding for the program returned in FY2014 and continued through
FY2018.
aa. Funds are distributed as direct grants to SHPOs, who administer the grant program at the state level and make funds available to applicants via sub-grants. These
sub-grants are awarded through a competitive process.
bb. MARAD is an agency of the Department of Transportation that supports the U.S. merchant marine, improves port efficiency, and maintains an adequate shipbuilding
and repair infrastructure.

CRS-38

The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview

Author Information

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45800 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
39

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 22, 2024

HTML · PDF

17% changed

Apr. 7, 2020

HTML · PDF

15% changed

Jul. 8, 2019

HTML · PDF

Metadata