THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

AND

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

A HISTORY

by

Barry Mackintosh
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

A HISTORY

by

Barry Mackintosh

History Division
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.

1986
 CONTENTS

PREFACE v

GETTING (RE)ORGANIZED 1

EXPANDING THE REGISTER 20

AIDING PRESERVATION 58

PROTECTING PROPERTIES 79

AN APPRAISAL 92

APPENDIX
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 97
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation,
original organization chart, 1967 103
First National Register publication (front matter
and sample portion), 1969 105
National Register listings by year and state Ill
Grants-in-aid funding history 113
National Historic Preservation Act as amended 115

iii
 PREFACE

The 20 years after World War II witnessed unprecedented transforma-

tion of the American environment. Economic depression followed by war

had subdued and then diverted the nation's energies; relative peace and

prosperity unleashed them upon the landscape. In the words of Jerry L.

Rogers, "America was on a public-funded development binge":

Interstate highways were plowing through where land could be

bought for less, usually older neighborhoods and parklands. Using
urban renewal funds, cities were busily leveling the buildings and
districts that distinguished them from all other cities, assembling
lands into larger parcels, and urging developers to put up redundant
and undistinguished new buildings. River and harbor improvements
and water impoundments destroyed or inundated countless archeo-
logical sites, rescuing data from a haphazardly selected few. The
tax code of the United States encouraged the destruction of historic
buildings by rewarding the construction of new ones on their
sites....1

This destruction produced the inevitable reaction. Representatives

from a range of bodies involved with or sympathetic to historic preserva-

tion began to discuss ways of seeing that historic features obtained some

recognition in public project planning.

In September 1963 the National Trust for Historic Preservation

and Colonial Williamsburg staged an international seminar at Williams-

burg that had been proposed by Ronald F. Lee, National Park Service

regional director and secretary of the National Trust's board of trustees.

A resulting statement called for a national inventory of historic proper-

ties and machinery for considering their protection. In November 1964 a

lM
National Historic Preservation Act—A Retrospective," CRM Bulletin.
February 1986, p. 1.

v
presidential task force on the preservation of natural beauty repeated

these recommendations and advocated federal loans and matching grants

to state and local governments for preservation, tax deductions for

preservation expenses, and a $2,000,000 annual appropriation to the

National Trust to be matched by private donations. President Lyndon B.

Johnson endorsed the general position of the task force in a subsequent

message to the Congress:

In almost every part of the country citizens are rallying to save

landmarks of beauty and history. The Government must also do its
share to assist these local efforts which have an important national
purpose. We will encourage and support the National Trust for
Historic Preservation.... I shall propose legislation to authorize
supplementary grants to help local authorities acquire, develop, and
manage private properties for such purposes.2

Of particular consequence was the Special Committee on Historic

Preservation sponsored by the United States Conference of Mayors with

Ford Foundation support, formed in the summer of 1965. It was chaired by

Albert Rains, a former Alabama congressman and chairman of the House

housing subcommittee, and included selected members of Congress and the

Cabinet. The National Trust and National Park Service were represented

on the committee, with the Trust supplying its staff. The committee

studied preservation in America and Europe and published its findings and

recommendations in a book, With Heritage So Rich, early in 1966.

This report called for a "new preservation" integrated with rather

than isolated from contemporary life:

If the preservation movement is to be successful.. .it must go

beyond saving occasional historic houses and opening museums. It
must be more than a cult of antiquarians. It must do more than
revere a few precious national shrines. It must attempt to give

2
"Natural Beauty of Our Country," H. Doc. 78, 89th Congress, Feb..8,
1965.

vi
 a sense of orientation to our society, using structures and objects
of the past to establish values of time and place....
[T]he new preservation must look beyond the individual building
and Individual landmark and concern itself with the historic and
architecturally valued areas and districts which contain a special
meaning for the community....
In sum, if we wish to have a future with greater meaning,
we must concern ourselves not only with the historic highlights, but
we must be concerned with the total heritage of the nation and all
that is worth preserving from our past as a living part of the
present.3

The committee recommended a comprehensive "National Register" admin-

istered by the Park Service and developed from federal and state historic

property surveys, the latter assisted by federal grants; an Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation broadly representing governmental and

private interests, its concerns to include the review and resolution of

conflicts between federal programs affecting preservation; Internal Rev-

enue Code amendments favoring preservation; requirements for identifying

and considering historic properties in advance of federal and federally

aided projects; federal matching grants and loans for public acquisition,

rehabilitation, and restoration of historic structures; new loan programs

for acquisition and rehabilitation by private parties; and a scholarship

and training program for architects and technicians in historic preserva-

tion. Other recommendations addressed grants to the National Trust and

actions that could be taken by state and local governments.

In March 1966 Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall sent a

bill to Congress incorporating many of the Special Committee's proposals.

Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington and Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall of Colorado,

chairmen of the Senate and House Interior and Insular Affairs committees,

promptly introduced the legislation. Sen. Edmund S. Muskie of Maine and

3
Wlth Heritage So Rich (New York: Random House, 1966), pp. 207-08.

vii
Rep. William B. Widnall of New Jersey, both members of the Special

Committee, sponsored similar bills. Following committee hearings and

amendments, the House and Senate passed a measure pleasing most interested

parties. President Johnson signed it into law on October 15.^

The preamble to the National Historic Preservation Act affirmed the

"new preservation" articulated in With Heritage So Rich, declaring "that

the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved

as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a

sense of orientation to the American people." The act authorized the

Secretary of the Interior—in practice, the National Park Service—to

"expand and maintain a national register of districts, sites, buildings,

structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture,

archeology, and culture" and to dispense matching grants-in-aid to the

states for historical surveys, preservation plans, and the acquisition

and development of historic properties. Matching grants were also

authorized to support the National Trust in carrying out its responsibil-

ities. In specific response to the destruction wrought by federal

projects, Section 106 of the act ordered federal agencies to consider

the effects of their undertakings on National Register properties and

permit the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established by the

act to comment on such undertakings.

The passage of two decades affords opportunity for historical

perspective on the 1966 act and its consequences. Ernest Allen Connally,

TThe National Historic Preservation Act was one of a trilogy of laws,

with the Department of Transportation Act and the Demonstration Cities Act,
that earned the 89th Congress the sobriquet "The Preservation Congress."

viii
a foremost player in implementing its provisions, published a lucid

summary of the events leading to its enactment in the February and April

1986 issues of the Park Service's CRM Bulletin. James M. (Mike) Lambe's

Legislative History of Historic Preservation Act of 1966 traces the

progress of the legislation through Congress; it is no less valuable

today for having been compiled in 1967. A dissertation in progress

by James A. Glass, a doctoral student at Cornell, promises to be the

definitive work on the national preservation program resulting from

the act.

In view of these and other contributions to the historical record,

the present work is distinctly limited in scope. Essentially, it is

concerned with key decisions and directions taken by the National Park

Service in implementing the 1966 act and successive amendments to it.

It does not address the Advisory Council after its Service ties were

severed in 1976, therefore, nor other preservation-related legislation in

the past 20 years beyond the tax provisions that so heavily influenced

the programs under the act. It gives short shrift to both the operational

details of these programs and their major accomplishments. For the

comprehensive treatment that the broad topic warrants, we must await the

Glass dissertation and the book expected from it.

Many people assisted in the preparation of this account, a few of

whom deserve special mention. Ernest Connally and Jerry Rogers opened

their files and were especially generous with their time in interviews.

Robert M. Utley shipped his personal collection of relevant documents

from Santa Fe to Washington for use in the research and responded patiently

to numerous telephone inquiries. Robert R. Garvey, Jr., and William J.

ix
Murtagh contributed recollections from the pivotal roles they played

in implementing the act. Stephen D. Newman provided papers and fielded

questions on the grants program. And Beth M. Grosvenor of the National

Register staff made available the many records she has carefully preserved

throughout successive office reorganizations and moves. As usual in

assignments of this kind, consulting with and learning from such people

was the most rewarding aspect of the research.

Barry Mackintosh
August 1986

x
 GETTING ( REORGANIZED

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Historic Pres-

ervation Act on October 15, 1966, planning for its implementation was

already underway within the National Park Service. That May Director

George B. Hartzog, Jr., had appointed a special committee on historic

preservation to consider both the bureau's existing preservation responsi-

bilities—mostly within the National Park System—and its anticipated

responsibilities beyond the parks under the pending legislation. The

distinguished committee comprised Dr. John Otis Brew, a prominent arche-

ologist and director of Harvard's Peabody Museum, who had served on the

Secretary of the Interior's national parks advisory board; Dr. Ernest

Allen Connally, professor of architectural history at the University of

Illinois, who had participated in several Historic American Buildings

Survey and historic structure restoration projects for the Service; and

Ronald F. Lee, a former National Park Service chief historian and regional

director and then special assistant to Hartzog, who had been instrumental

in founding the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Historic preservation had been a major activity of the Park Service

since the 1930s, when it acquired most of the government's historical

parks and monuments in a 1933 executive branch reorganization. The

Historic Sites Act of 1935 charged it with implementing "a national

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." Ever since the reorganization most units of the

1
 2

Park System had been historical or archeological. Yet the great natural

parks—the Yellowstones and Yosemites—still predominated in the public

image of the System and in the minds and hearts of Service management.

This traditional bias, the committee perceived, was detrimental to

historic preservation in the inevitable competition for funding, person-

nel, and management attention within the organization. During considera-

tion of the Historic Sites Act legislation, some had foreseen the problem

and advocated a separate historic sites agency. In his 1935 report on

the expanded program envisioned by the act, J. Thomas Schneider implicitly

favored this course, but since the act specified the National Park Service,

Schneider fell back to urging, an autonomous historic sites branch within

the Service.^ Such a branch was created, but it lacked the recommended

autonomy and did not survive successive bureau reorganizations.

Reporting to Director Hartzog in September 1966 as the new legisla-

tion was en route to enactment, the Brew-Connally-Lee committee echoed

Schneider's concern about the subordination of historic preservation in

the Park Service. "We are deeply aware that in most European nations...

the preservation of historic and architectural monuments is the special

responsibility of a separate bureau, or department created solely for this

purpose," it wrote. "We sense that within the Government of the United

States, and specifically within the National Park Service, there is a

need to bring professional preservation work into sharp focus, and to

conduct it at a very high level."2

^Report to the Secretary of the Interior on the Preservation of

Historic Sites and Buildings (Washington: U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior, 1935), pp. 154-56.

^"Report of Special Committee on Historic Preservation," Sept. 30,

1966, p. 2.
 3

The committee went on to specific complaints:

The professional staffs in history, archeology, and historical

architecture are now subdivided, and in our view, fragmented, under
four of the six Assistant Directors. These fragmented staffs func-
tion at a regrettably low level in the Service organization. This...
makes communication of staff professional viewpoints within the
Service, and outside the Service, both difficult and often ineffec-
tive.

As a result of this fragmentation, the committee felt, historic restora-

tion work in the parks sometimes suffered.^

The committee's prescription for the problem was an "Office of

Archeology and Historic Preservation" whose chief would report directly

to the director. The office would consolidate the Service's top-level

historians, archeologists, and historical architects, although some would

retain their duty stations in the regional offices, archeological centers,

and three existing planning and service centers. The committee recommend-

ed that the office be headed by a historical architect, "partly because

we foresee rapidly increasing national need for experts who have special-

ized in historic buildings, and also because this side of Service profes-

sional work is most in need of further strengthening and development."4

Hartzog adopted in large measure the committee's recommendations.

Early in 1967 the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation—quickly

dubbed OAHP—was formed in the Service's Washington headquarters. Ernest

Connally, trained as an architect as well as an architectural historian,

accepted Hartzog's offer to head it.5 With his university background,

3lbid., p. 7.
4
Ibid., pp. 10-11.

^Connally could not leave his academic post to report for duty until
June 1967; meanwhile he communicated regularly on office matters with
Robert M. Utley, who acted as chief in the interim.
 4

Connally sought to organize and staff OAHP in a manner that would gain

it academic respectability and professional standing equivalent to the

foreign government offices charged with similar responsibilities. He

envisioned it as "a kind of scholarly institute" benefiting from frequent

personnel exchanges with academic departments in related fields.6

In line with these objectives, the disciplines of archeology, his-

tory, and historic architecture formed the primary divisions of the

office. Chief Historian Robert M. Utley, who had risen through the

Service organization and combined professional and bureaucratic skills to

an uncommon degree, was chief of the Division of History. Under him were

the Branch of Park History Studies, which conducted research for preserva-

tion and interpretation within the National Park System, and the Branch

of Historical Surveys, which studied properties outside the System for

designation as national historic landmarks. The Division of Archeology

was headed by Dr. John M. Corbett, another Service veteran, who supervised

a Washington staff, archeologists stationed in several of the regional

offices, and the Southeast and Southwest archeological centers. Whereas

these divisions predated OAHP in the Washington headquarters organization,

the Division of Historic Architecture was a new amalgamation of functions

and staff. It comprised the Branch of Restorations, which planned and

supervised Park System projects, and the Historic American Buildings

Survey (HABS), whose recording work transcended the System. Joseph

Watterson, a newcomer to the Service, was appointed chief of the division

in November.

Most of the duties and many of the personnel of these disciplinary

6
Interview with Connally, Apr. 21, 1986.
 5

divisions had been with the Service for years. In contrast, the National

Register branch was an innovation stemming directly from the National

Historic Preservation Act. It would carry out the act's directive "to

expand and maintain a national register of districts, sites, buildings,

structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture,

archeology, and culture." It was also charged with establishing and

administering the new program of grants-in-aid to the states and National

Trust for Historic Preservation authorized by the act.

The Register unit, which did not become a "division" until 1972, was

headed by Dr. William J. Murtagh, an architectural historian who had been

director of program with the National Trust. Murtagh was styled "Keeper

of the National Register" rather than registrar, because Ernest Connally

foresaw that the states would ultimately be doing most of the registering

and that OAHP would be merely "keeping" the register.7 The first National

Register employee was Russell V. Keune, an architect from HABS, who acted

as keeper until Murtagh's arrival in August and remained as assistant

keeper until departing for the National Trust in January 1969. Next came

Jerry L. Rogers, a newly hired historian who arrived the same day as

Connally in June, succeeded Keune as assistant keeper, became chief of

the new Division of Grants in October 1973 when that function separated

from the National Register Division, rose to head OAHP in 1976, and after

1983 oversaw the historic preservation responsibilities of the National

Park Service as its associate director for cultural resources.

Another unit responding directly to the 1966 act constituted staff

to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established by the act,

7
Interview with Jerry L. Rogers, Feb. 5, 1986. Bob Utley coined the
title.
 6

which specified the director of the National Park Service or his designee

as executive director of the Council. Robert R. Garvey, Jr., who had

worked actively for the legislation as executive director of the National

Trust, left that post in July 1967 to assume the full-time staff respon-

sibility of executive secretary to the Council. Although Garvey did not

remain within OAHP officially after 1969, his office was housed with OAHP

until 1973, and like the National Register unit it drew heavily on the

resources of the established disciplinary divisions. After Council

review of a controversial Park Service undertaking—permitting access to

a privately built tower next to Gettysburg National Military Park—raised

conflict of interest questions, Director Ronald H. Walker (Hartzog's

successor) delegated his executive directorship to Garvey in 1973 in an

effort to give the Council staff a greater measure of autonomy within the

Service. The potential for conflict remained until 1976, when legislation

amending the National Historic Preservation Act reconstituted the Council

as an independent federal , agency to which Garvey and his staff were

transferred.8

A January 1968 report on the first year's progress in implementing

the act restated the prospect of OAHP becoming "an American equivalent of

the 'monuments offices* that European and Latin American countries have

long maintained to guard the national patrimony."' Achieving this goal

would have required an accretion of preservation responsibility, including

line authority over the cultural areas and resources of the National Park

8
P.L. 94-422, Sept. 28, 1976.

""The National Historic Preservation Program: Report of the Director

of the National Park Service to the Secretary of the Interior on Progress
during 1967," National Register files. The report was prepared by Bob
Utley.
 7

System. Instead, OAHP became less comprehensive as some of its initial

responsibilities were withdrawn in successive Service reorganizations.

The separation of the Advisory Council support function has been

noted. The first removal of traditional Service responsibilities placed

under OAHP came in early 1970, when park-related historical and architec-

tural research and restoration project supervision were reassigned to

the Eastern and Western service centers (combined as the Denver Service

Center in the fall of 1971) and when the Southeast and Southwest archeo-

logical centers were placed under the respective regional offices.

Several factors motivated the transfers. Under pressure to reduce Wash-

ington overhead, management needed to show fewer people assigned to the

headquarters office. There was hope for improved collaboration among the

historians and historical architects and the planners and other profes-

sionals in the service centers. Finally, Director Hartzog seemed con-

cerned that OAHP might amass too much power and break away, with or without

the historical parks—perhaps to the rival Smithsonian Institution.10

Hartzog supported historic preservation, but his primary devotion was to

the integrity and expansion of his bureau, and the implications of the

"monuments office" concept did not arouse his enthusiasm.

In 1971 OAHP moved down a notch in the Service organization: Ernest

Connally now reported to an associate director for professional services

instead of the director. The following year Connally became the associate

director for professional services and Bob Utley was elevated to head

OAHP, so the proximity of preservation to the director was restored in

fact if not name.

10
Telephone interview with Robert M. Utley, Apr. 21, 1986.
 8

Soon after: the last reshuffle, the Conservation Foundation published

National Parks for the Future to coincide with the centennial of Yellow-

stone National "Park's establishment In 1872. Arguing that the natural

and historical parks would both be better served by separate administra-

tion, the report called for divesting the latter from the Service. Pre-

dictably, Hartzog opposed this recommendation; but he was fired at the

end of 1972 and replaced by Ronald Walker, an advance man from the Nixon

White House who did not share Hartzog's instinctive aversion to narrowing

the bureau's scopes

Walker formed a committee of Service managers to recommend further

organizational changes. Their report proposed that OAHP be dismantled.

It reflected the widespread lack of sympathy for the office's non-park

activities among those who had risen through the traditional park ranger

and administrative ranks ("smoky bears" to Cbnnally), as well as animos-

ity toward its perceived elitism, academic pretensions, and separatist

tendencies. Connally and Utley persuaded Walker to reject most of the

committee's recommendations for OAHP and to adopt an alternate scheme,

effected in September 1973.

" - - OAHP was pared down to those programs that were basically external to

the National Park System. It consisted of the National Register Division

under Bill Murtagh, the Grants Division under Jerry Rogers, the Historical

and Architectural Surveys Division (the Historic American Buildings

Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, and National Historic

Landmarks Program) under Cornelius W. Heine, and the Interagency Services

Division for archeology under Rex Wilson. In charge as assistant direc-

tor for OAHP was Dr. A. Russell Mortensen, a former University of Utah

history professor who had succeeded Bob Utley as chief historian. What
 9

remained of the history, archeology, and historic architecture divisions

(under Dr. Harry W. Pfanz, Dr. Robert H. Lister, and Henry A. Judd re-

spectively) was placed under Bob Utley, who became assistant director for

park historic preservation.

This segregation of "in-house" and "out-house" preservation responsi-

bility was in part a response to the criticism that park needs had been

subordinated within the former organization. The assistant directorate

for park historic preservation was announced as a corrective to that drift.

Not announced was Connally's and Utley's other agenda for the reorganiza-

tion: an OAHP divested of its Park System functions would be easier to

remove from the Park Service to more sympathetic custody.*•*•

Connally's grand design was outlined in a paper he and Walker pre-

sented to Walker's boss, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel P.

Reed, on October 31. It noted that cultural responsibilities in the

federal government were dispersed inefficiently among the Smithsonian,

the arts and humanities endowments, and the Park Service. Historic

preservation was a peripheral concern in the Interior Department, and it

would be even more so in the Department of Energy and Natural Resources

that the Nixon Administration was planning to supersede Interior. Con-

nally's ultimate solution was a new independent agency, an Administration

of Cultural Affairs, that would encompass both OAHP and the Service's

historical parks along with the Smithsonian, the endowments, the National

Archives, and performing arts administration. As an intermediate step,

he proposed that OAHP be transferred (with its 98 positions and $15 million

^Memorandum, Director Ronald H, Walker to Regional Directors,

"Historic Preservation," Dec. 18, 1973, History Division files; Utley
interview.
 10

budget) from the Service to the departmental level.12

Reed had previously come out against the Conservation Foundation

recommendation for the historical parks, and he refused to endorse either

the grand design or the OAHP transfer. Realizing that Interior's top

officials were unlikely to favor anything aimed at removing responsibility

from the department, Connally gained Walker's support for a more modest

proposal in August 1974. It would place the historical parks and OAHP in

a separate Historic Sites and Monuments Service under Reed's assistant

secretariat. Walker's memorandum with this proposal (prepared by Connally)

cited the differences between historical and natural park management and

the greatly increased extramural responsibilities of OAHP as justification

for the new bureau. But Reed again thwarted the separation.13

When Walker was replaced by Gary Everhardt, a Park Service careerist,

in January 1975, there was no further prospect of advancing such proposals

through the bureau's leadership. Rather than seeking to reconcile OAHP

and its outside constituency to its Service tie, however, the Everhardt

administration seemed bent on proving that the preservation program

beyond the parks could not prosper in a park management organization.

When the water system at Crater Lake National Park broke down, Everhardt

slashed OAHP's fiscal 1977 grants-in-aid budget request in half (from

$20 million to $10 million) for the money to repair it. Connally

denounced this action at the 1976 spring meeting of state historic

preservation officers, winning their applause but incurring Everhardt's

12"Historic Preservation: A Brief Analysis and Preliminary Pro-

posal," Oct. 31, 1975, Ernest A. Connally office files.

^Memorandum, Walker through Reed to Secretary of the Interior Rogers

C. B. Morton, "Historic Sites and Monuments Service, Department of the
Interior—A Proposal," Sept. 30, 1974, Connally files; Utley interview,
 11

and Reed's displeasure.

The state representatives now spoke out for divorcing OAHP, if not

the historical parks, from the Service. After the meeting Truett Latimer

of Texas, president of the National Conference of State Historic Preserva-;

tion Officers, wrote Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington, chairman of the

Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee:

When a choice must be made between identifying, preserving, and

protecting historic resources across the country and upgrading park
sanitation systems, it is time for the two to be separated. The
majority of SHPOs who have expressed opinions on this issue favor
the creation of a "Bureau of Historic Preservation" within the
Department of the Interior, with organizational status equal to that
of other Departmental bureaus. *•*

Chairman Carlisle H. Humelsine and President James Biddle of the

National Trust for Historic Preservation signed another letter to Jackson

on the subject:

[W]e have recently suggested to the Assistant Secretary of Interior

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks [Reed]..., in view of the disastrous
consequences to historic preservation reflected in the President's
1977 budget request, flowing from its competition for funding avail-
able for other worthy National Park Service undertakings, that it is
timely to consider transfer of historic preservation responsibilities
from the National Park Service to an organizational entity reporting
directly to the Departmental Secretary level....
Alternatively, and perhaps even preferably, we believe that
serious consideration should be given to action by the Congress to
divest, entirely, from the Department of the Interior, responsibility
for carrying out the national historic preservation policy, reassign-
ing that responsibility to a Federal entity where the primary thrust
is in the direction of achieving compatible goals. We believe that
such an entity exists in the National Foundation for the Arts and
Humanities.... 15

Another Service reorganization just, afterward, in May 1976, removed

Bob Utley's assistant directorate for park historic preservation from

^Letter, Latimer to Jackson, April 1976, Connally files.

^Letter, Humelsine and Biddle to Jackson, Apr. 13, 1976, Connally

files.
 12

Connally and reduced it with its three disciplinary divisions to a single

Cultural Resources Management Division, under the assistant director for

park operations and associate director for management and operations.

Connally, retitled Associate Director, Preservation of Historic Proper-

ties, and retaining only OAHP, was left isolated from Park System concerns.

The progressive retreat from the original concept of OAHP as a central

unit consolidating the bureau's preservation professionals was complete.

The change of administrations in January 1977 raised the hopes of

many in the preservation community that OAHP and its programs might at

last be liberated from Park Service shackles. The following month Rep.

John F. Seiberling of Ohio, chairman of the public lands subcommittee of

the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, introduced a bill titled

"The National Historic Preservation Policy Act of 1977."16 Drafted in

collaboration with the newly independent Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, the bill would transfer OAHP's functions to the Council.

Bob Utley, who had come to the Council as deputy executive director

after his descent in the last Service reorganization, helped prepare a

staff paper supporting the transfer. It traced the fate of the preserva-

tion program in the Service and catalogued the disadvantages of leaving

it there: "Past record with the program, including deficiencies in man-

agement of historic resources of the National Park System, subordination

of historic preservation budget and personnel needs to other priorities,

delays in issuance of needed regulations caused in part by perceived

inconvenience to Interior land managers, lack of interest in or under-

standing of historic preservation by key management officials, continuing

16
H.R. 3602, 95th Congress, Feb. 16, 1977; superseded by identical
H.R. 6163, Apr. 6, 1977, with 24 cosponsors.
 13

inability after forty years to adopt original principles urged by historic

preservation specialists."*"

In April Council staff met at Williamsburg with representatives of

the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the

National Trust, and the Defense, Treasury, and Transportation departments

to consolidate support for the Seiberling bill. The group's report,

favoring the bill, was adopted by the full Council in May. Interior was

asked but declined to participate in the Williamsburg meeting, and

Director Everhardt persuaded the Secretary of the Interior's Advisory

Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments to

strongly oppose divestiture of the OAHP programs.^

The progress of the Seiberling bill was overtaken by other events.

Following President Jimmy Carter's environmental message to the Congress

in May, Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus appointed a National.

Heritage Trust Task Force to consider the preservation of natural and

cultural resources and the provision of recreational opportunities.

The 100-member group, representing some 50 public agencies and private

organizations concerned with these matters, labored throughout the summer

to define problems and propose solutions, including organizational rea-

lignments. But the outcome reflected the influence of Interior's Bureau

of Outdoor Recreation under its Carter-appointed director, Chris T.

Delaporte, more than the input of most other interests.^^

10
"Staff Paper on Federal Historic Preservation Programs," March
1977.

1'Everhardt remarks before Advisory Board, Apr. 18, 1977, and memo-
randum, Linden C. Pettys to Secretary of the Interior, Apr. 20, 1977,
Connally files.

*°Rogers interview.
 14

On January 25, 1978, Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus

ordered reconstitution of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation as the Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service. HCRS would be "the focal point

within the Federal government for planning, evaluating, and coordinating

the protection and preservation of the Nation's cultural and natural

heritage, and for assuring adequate recreation opportunities for all its

people."19 The order transferred both OAHP and the Park Service's Natural

Landmarks Program to the new bureau. Ernest Connally retained his asso-

ciate directorship in the move, Jerry Rogers remained under him as OAHP

chief, and subordinate personnel kept their positions as well.

Historic preservationists who had looked for better times ahead were

soon disillusioned by the new regime. HCRS, dominated by the outdoor

recreation interests of its predecessor, seemed no more hospitable to the

concerns of OAHP than the Park Service had been. A month after its estab-

lishment Bruce K. Chapman, a National Trust trustee and Advisory Council

member, attacked OAHP's shift to HCRS in a Washington Post column:

This will create an organizational mishmash, reminiscent of comedian

Shelley Berman's old skit about the "Grace L. Ferguson Non-Scheduled
Airline and Storm Door Company."
Worse, it suggests little comprehension of the new concept of
preservation as an urban activity.
While disappointing historic preservationists, the new plan is
not likely to satisfy those who are primarily concerned with saving
endangered natural areas. They, too, expected more innovation from
the five-month-long policy review that followed the president's
environmental message last May.
I think President Carter is missing a major opportunity. In-
stead of consigning historic preservation to an inappropriate niche,
he should make it the core of his forthcoming urban policy....20

As HCRS director, Chris Delaporte seemed unresponsive and even

l^Order No. 3017, "Establishment of a Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Service," Jan. 25, 1978.
20
"A Better Way to Save Our Cities" (op-ed column), Feb. 28, 1978.
 15

hostile on occasion to his preservation constituency. After the presi-

dent of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

questioned the legality of HCRS under the secretarial order and urged

that it be disbanded, Delaporte announced in mid-1979 that grants funds

could no longer be used for dues to the organizational The decision may

have been correct, but its timing suggested retaliation. Simultaneously,

Delaporte proceeded with plans to relocate much OAHP business to the

bureau's eight regional offices by transferring positions and personnel

from Washington. This was part of an overall scheme under which basic

program operations would be delegated to the states as much as possible,

the regional offices would perform essential federal operations and

provide guidance, and the Washington office would be trimmed to a policy,

budgeting, and evaluation center. But regionalization met resistance

inside and outside the organization: program leaders foresaw that staff

would be spread too thinly if dispersed without augmentation, while state

historic preservation officers disliked having to deal with another

bureaucratic layer.22

Matters were not helped by Delaporte's failure to develop good per-

sonal relationships with the preservation establishment in and outside his

organization. Ernest Connally and Bill Murtagh found him unsympathetic

to their somewhat academic management styles. Following a period of heavy

pressure to reform office operations, Murtagh left the National Register

to head the preservation program at Columbia University in May 1979.

^Letter, Larry E. Tise to Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus,

June 1, 1979, Jerry L. Rogers office files; letter, Delaporte to State
Historic Preservation Officers, July 3, 1979, ibid.
22
Memorandum, Jerry L. Rogers to OAHP Division Chiefs, Aug. 20, 1979,
Rogers files; Rogers interview.
 16

Cohnally stayed on the rolls but relinquished his associate directorate

in November to devote himself to his other duties as secretary general of

the International Council on Monuments and Sites. The departures of

these widely respected leaders, generally perceived as forced, further

diminished Delaporte's image beyond the bureau.

Displeased with the fate of preservation under HCRS, Representative

Seiberling introduced another bill on August 2 titled "National Historic

Preservation Amendments of 1979."23 This second Seiberling bill proposed

an independent Historic Preservation Agency, headed by an Administrator

for Historic Preservation. The agency would assume all OAHP functions.

The Advisory Council would receive new membership but would remain a

separate body. The independent agency was dropped from a later version

of the bill enacted as the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments

of 1980.

On September 24, 1979, the Office of Archeology and Historic Preser-

vation ceased to exist under that name. The associate director, preserva-

tion of historic properties, became the associate director, cultural

programs, and the chief of OAHP became the deputy associate director. The

deputy, Jerry Rogers, acted as associate director between Connally's

departure and the arrival of his successor, Hope T. Moore, on January 29,

1980.

Meeting in New Orleans in September 1980, the National Conference of

State Historic Preservation Officers again attacked HCRS in a statement

addressed to Secretary Andrus. The SHPOs accused Interior administrators

of taking a disproportionate share of their required fiscal 1981 budget

23
H.R. 5139, 96th Congress.
 17

reduction from the grants program and of unduly changing the rules for

state participation in the program. "[W]e can no longer in good con-

science urge anyone to seek participation in the national program," they

declared.2^

Wolf Von Eckhardt, architecture critic for the Washington Post,

characterized the widespread opposition to HCRS in an October article:

Members of Congress and citizen organizations concerned with

heritage and recreation seem unanimous, as one spokesman put it,
that "Delaporte's outfit is an unmitigated disaster." Congressional
dislike caused money cuts. Professional dislike caused resignations.
"Chris," as the executive of a leading citizen organization told me,
"caused nothing but chaos."2*

The end of the Carter administration in January 1981 was also the

end for the bureau. With its politically appointed leadership (including

Hope Moore) out of the picture, Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt

— a former director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation—immediately

abolished HCRS and returned most of its functions to the National Park

Service. Its five existing historic preservation divisions—National

Register, State Plans and Grants, Interagency Archeological Services,

National Architectural and Engineering Record, and Technical Preservation

Services—remained together under Jerry Rogers, who received the title

Associate Director, Archeology and Historic Preservation.

Two further Park Service reorganizations brought the preservation

programs to their status at this writing. In 1982 Rogers was retitled

Associate Director, National Register Programs; the first three divisions

mentioned above were consolidated to the Interagency Resource Management

Division, under Lawrence E. Aten; and the two remaining were renamed the

^Statement dated Sept. 6, 1980, Connally files.

25
"Landmark Decisions," Washington Post, Oct. 18, 1980, p. Bl.
 18

HABS/HAER Division (for Historic American Buildings Survey and Historic

American Engineering Record), under Robert J. Kapsch, and the Preservation

Assistance Division, under Lee H. Nelson. During the HCRS interlude the

old park-related History, Historic Architecture, and Anthropology (former-

ly Archeology) divisions had reemerged under an assistant director for

cultural resources, F. Ross Holland, Jr. Holland now became Associate

Director, Cultural Resources Management.

A year later the two associate directorates were amalgamated under

Jerry Rogers as Associate Director, Cultural Resources. On paper, Rogers

supervised three assistant directors, only one of whom existed. This

was the Assistant Director for Archeology, Bennie C. Keel, who oversaw

Douglas H. Scovill's park-related Anthropology Division and Victor Car-

bone's Archeological Assistance Division. The other assistant director

positions were not filled, so that the remaining five divisions reported

directly to Rogers. These were the History Division under Edwin C.

Bearss, the Park Historic Architecture Division under Hugh C. Miller,

and the Interagency Resources, HABS/HAER, and Preservation Assistance

divisions noted above. The organization fostered much greater interchange

among the "internal" and "external" programs. In one case it combined

them, returning the National Historic Landmarks Program to its erstwhile

home in the History Division.

Reviewing this organizational evolution since 1967, one is struck by

its circular nature. Integrating the in-park and extramural preservation

activities of the National Park Service under a ranking official reporting

to the director, the associate directorate for cultural resources after

1983 resembled nothing so much as the original Office of Archeology and

Historic Preservation. There were differences, to be sure. The Advisory

 19

Council support function and the park research and project supervision

activities were absent. The regionalization initiated under HCRS con-

tinued under the Park Service, so that some former OAHP activities were

carried out in the bureau's regional offices under its regional directors.

But the organization headed by Jerry Rogers 20 years after the National

Historic Preservation Act was closer to the initial OAHP concept than any

previous arrangement since 1971.

After the HCRS experience, the return of its historic preservation

component to the Park Service was greeted with general relief. Some

preservationists, including Charles E. Lee of South Carolina, president

of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers in the

mid-1980s, again became dissatisfied with Service custody of the non-park

programs and renewed the call for separation. But the call was untimely.

As program responsibilities were being shifted from the federal level to

the states and localities, the federal component warranted independent

agency status less rather than more. Its transfer to a less established

agency or bureau (presumably one devoted to cultural programs, the alter-

native having been discredited) would increase rather than reduce its

vulnerability to contemporary budget cutting imperatives. Although not

deliberately designed to do so, the integrated organization after 1983

also militated against separation. Most veterans of the bureaucratic

wars probably agreed with Jerry Rogers that the National Park Service

was, for the foreseeable future, the best place for his programs.26

26Rogers interview. In their conversations with the writer, Ernest

Connally and Bob Utley shared the view that divesting the non-park programs
was not a worthwhile objective in 1986.
 EXPANDING THE REGISTER

The National Historic Preservation Act authorized the Secretary of

the Interior "to expand and maintain a national register of districts,

sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history,

architecture, archeology, and culture, hereinafter referred to as the

National Register...." The National Register was at the core of the act:

nearly everything else was aimed at Identifying, preserving, and protect-

ing what would be included in it. The decisions made in implementing this

provision were therefore basic to the national historic preservation

program over the next two decades.

Those in the National Park Service charged with further defining,

expanding, and maintaining the National Register had aided or witnessed

the drafting of the act's language and were familiar with the testimony

of its proponents during the legislative process. From this legislative

history they derived and incorporated certain axioms that were not obvious

from the act alone.

The first of these was that the National Register already existed in

embryonic, form, consisting of the national historic landmarks designated

previously. This point was of much importance to George Hartzog, who

insisted on having the law "expand" rather than initiate the Register.

In this way he could tie the Register to longstanding Service activity

under the 1935 Historic Sites Act, which authorized the landmarks program.

Doing this would limit the possibility that the Department of Housing

and Urban Development or some other agency might seize the new program,

20
 21

and it might enable the Service to carry out some of the program under

the 1935 authority If funding were not forthcoming under the new legis-

lation.1

Second, expansion of the Register was understood to cover properties

of less-than-national significance. Nationally significant properties—

the national historic landmarks—were included by virtue of the 1935 act.

The thrust of the studies and testimony preceding the 1966 act was the

need to be concerned about places of regional, state, and local signifi-

cance as well. The bills introduced in March 1966 by Sen. Edmund S.

Muskie of Maine and Rep. William B. Widnall of New Jersey, who had both

served on the committee that produced the preservation blueprint With

Heritage So Rich, explicitly described the Register as comprising this

range of properties.2 Although this breakdown was not included in the

bill that was- enacted, there was no question that the act's reference to

properties "significant in American history, architecture, archeology,

and culture" was meant to apply broadly and that its call for "comprehen-

sive statewide historic surveys" would encompass places down to the

locally significant level.

Third, although "objects" were included among the categories of

properties on the Register, the Register was not intended to list small

artifacts outside of their historic contexts, such as museum objects and

collections. The act was primarily a response to concern about the effect

of federal public works on historically significant real estate—sites

and buildings. Portable objects whose significance was unrelated to their

1
Telephone interview with Robert M. Utley, June 11, 1986.
2
S. 3098, H.R. 13792, 89th Congress; Special Committee on Historic
Preservation, With Heritage So Rich (New York: Random House, 1966).
 22

locations were not threatened by such activity. Testifying on a related

bill before passage of the act, Gordon Gray, chairman of the National

Trust for Historic Preservation, spoke of "historic places" as the object

of its provisions.3 Although it did not appear in the act, this phrase

nicely captured the intended geographical basis of the Register.

In mid-1968 the Service began to refer to the "National Register of

Historic Places." Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation staff

adopted the suffix in preparing the first publication of the Register so

that the title would signify its general content ("National Register"

alone could have embraced anything).^ Although the title was not selected

deliberately to exclude objects, it did serve to reinforce the intended

scope of the Register. The number of objects listed over the years has

been small, and most of those included have been substantial in bulk and

relatively fixed in location, like moored ships. The current Service

definition of objects for Register purposes specifies that they must be

"related to a specific setting or environment."5

In June 1966, four months before passage of the act, Bob Utley drew

up an outline for implementing the expected program. The Service would

immediately place in the National Register all properties eligible for

national historic landmark designation and all, buildings recorded by

the Historic American Buildings Survey. Each state would be asked to

^Gray testimony on H.R. 13790 before House Committee on Banking and

Currency, Mar. 21, 1966, cited in James M. Lambe, "Legislative History of
Historic Preservation Act of 1966," National Park Service, 1967, p. 29.

^The first use of "National Register of Historic Places" found was

on a working list of July 1, 1968. The title appeared officially in the
February 25, 1969, Federal Register, where the Register was first pub-
lished. It was legally recognized in the 1980 amendments to the 1966 act.
5
36 C.F.R. Pt. 60.
 23

designate an agency responsible for conducting its statewide historical

survey, preparing its historic preservation plan, and receiving grants.

Utley adapted criteria for properties of state and local historical

significance on the Register from the Service's existing national signif-

icance criteria. Subsequently adopted, these criteria remain in force.8

At this point in the legislative process, proponents fostered the

notion that the state surveys would be completed in a finite time period.

Testifying before the House subcommittee considering the bill on July 15,

George Hartzog explained why it authorized appropriations for only three

more fiscal years:

The reason for the limitation of three years is that we were not
able, and we still are not until you get this overall survey fin-
ished, to say what amount of money you need for this program. So
four years from now we will be back before this committee and before
the Congress seeking a broader charter for grants in response to
the need that develops as a result of the survey.'

The Senate and House committee reports recommending passage of the

legislation both repeated this expectation that expansion of the National

Register via the state surveys would be completed by 1970. Ronald F.

Lee was equally optimistic a month after the October 15 enactment. In a

plan submitted to Hartzog he envisioned completion of the national his-

toric landmark surveys in 1967 and the statewide surveys and preservation

plans in fiscal 1970, with the results incorporated in the Register."

°Memorandum, Utley to Assistant Director Howard R. Stagner, June 2,

1966, enclosing "Preliminary Prospectus for Conduct of Grants-in-Aid
Program Under Jackson and Aspinall Bills," Utley office files, History Di-
vision. See first National Register publication in appendix for criteria.

^Hartzog testimony on H.R. 13491 quoted in Lambe, "Legislative

History," pp. 95-96.
8
S. Rept. 1363, July 7, 1966; H. Rept. 1916, Aug. 30, 1966; memo-
randum, Lee to Hartzog, Nov. 16, 1966, attaching "Preliminary Plan for
Enlargement of National Register," National Register files.
 24

An exchange between Hartzog and the Senate Interior committee chair-

man, Sen. Henry M. Jackson of 'Washington, during the Senate hearing In

June 1966 also reflected the prevailing vision of the Register as something

much narrower than It would actually become. Jackson expressed concern

that local desires to benefit from the grants program would cause many

unqualified properties to be nominated to the Register, and he asked how

state nominations would be evaluated. Hartzog replied that they would be

reviewed in the same manner as national historic landmark nominations—

by the Secretary of the Interior's Advisory Board on National Parks,

Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments.^ The advisory board comprised

11 members of varied expertise who met twice a year to consider a diver-

sity of business, including a few dozen landmark proposals. It would

have been overwhelmed by any significant volume of state Register nomina-

tions. Fortunately, Hartzog's response was forgotten when the nominations

started rolling in.

Serious planning for the National Register got underway in late

November with the formation of a Service task force to draft standards

and procedures for implementing the act. Bob Utley was chairman; the

other members were Russell Keune, architect; Zorro A. Bradley, archeolo-

gist; Murray H. Nelligan, historian; William E. Brown, historian, later

replaced by John A. Hussey; and Kay Thomas, secretary. The task force

convened on November 22 with the members of Hartzog's special committee

on historic preservation, Ronald Lee, Ernest Connally, and J. 0. Brew.

The first objective was to define the Register consistent with

the act's general language encompassing "districts, sites, buildings,

9Hartzog testimony on S. 3035 quoted in Lambe, "Legislative History,"

pp. 73-74.
 25

structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture,

archeology, and culture." According to the "minutes of the next meeting

on November 28:

The question arose as to what "Culture" would include, and Mr. Utley
said it was his understanding that Culture is anything not under the
heading of history, archeology, and architecture. It is not possible
to define it too well. The Smithsonian Institution has the most
objects, but they are not in the picture, and we will have to make
sure that they do not attempt to run away with the ball.^O

A good deal of discussion revolved around the matter of ranking

Register properties. Should the national historic landmarks be grouped

together at the top of the list? Should further distinctions be made

among properties of regional, state, and local significance? Should there

be different standards of protection based on the significance levels?

At the November 28 meeting the task force favored "a category of

inviolate properties of national significance, such as Mount Vernon and

Independence Hall—everything else would be subject to destruction if

determined to be in the public benefit." Bill Brown prepared a paper

for the next meeting on December 5 advocating that all properties be

ranked by significance and assigned to "must preserve," "should preserve,"

and "desirable to preserve" categories. The projected volume of Register

properties and competing public interests made such priorities essential,

in Brown's view; he thought it better to focus preservation attention

on the most important places than to diffuse it indiscriminately among

all."

Ronald Lee favored three significance categories—national, state or

^Historic Preservation Task Force minutes, National Register files.

"ibid.; Brown, "The Function of Rank-Order Categories in the Na-

tional Register, National Register files.
 26

regional, local—but did not want to assign different preservation

standards to them In such explicit fashion. Ernest Connally, who would

exercise heavy influence over the task force recommendations as the

prospective chief of OAHP, 'was even less Inclined to rank Register prop-

erties. To do so, he feared, would signal that those in the lower

categories were expendable. Rather than prejudging whether particular

sites "must" or "should" be preserved, he preferred to weigh the public

benefit of their preservation in the context of actions affecting them,

during the review process to be established by the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation under the act.12

The task force report reflected Connally's position, prescribing

the Register format as "an ungraded, uncategorized list of properties

arranged alphabetically by States."13 The first publication of the Regis-

ter, in the February 25, 1969j Federal Register, did not even identify

which properties were national historic landmarks. Bill Murtagh, Keeper

of the National Register, viewed the Register primarily as a means to

recognize and reinforce the environmental and aesthetic contributions of

locally significant properties in community life. To him and other devo-

tees of this "new preservation," the landmarks program overemphasized

associative values (the "Washington slept here" syndrome) and museum-type

properties isolated from contemporary social concerns.

Although landmark, status was noted in later publications of the

Register, landmarks were still listed alphabetically with other entries

^Historic Preservation Task Force minutes; interview with Ernest A.

Connally, Apr. 25, 1984; Utley interview.

^Memorandum, Utley to Hartzog, "Report of the Historic Preservation

Task Force," Feb. 16, 1967, National Register files.
 27

and with no suggestion that they warranted higher consideration. In 1980

the National. Historic Preservation Act was amended to give landmarks

somewhat more protection from federal undertakings than other Register

properties, but no change was made in the/Register itself reflecting this

modification.

In his earlier proposal for the Register's initial content, Bob

Utley had included all structures recorded by the Historic American

Buildings Survey. This was quickly seen as unworkable: many of the HABS-

recorded structures had been demolished, and there was no way to tell

which survived without extensive investigation. Nothing was entered in

the Register solely because it appeared in HABS, therefore. Instead,

HABS structures that had not been listed by mid-rl969 as a result of

landmark status or state nomination appeared in the Advisory List to

the National Register of Historic Places published by OAHP that year,

along with properties that had been considered but. rejected for landmark

designation. Copies went to the states with the suggestion that they

investigate these places during their surveys.

The task force prescribed for automatic placement in the Register

another class of properties that Utley had not mentioned in his prospec-

tus: the historical units of the National Park System. The national

significance of most had been established by Congress in authorizing

them, and they clearly fell within the intended comprehensive scope of

the Register. Little or no thought was then given to the fact that the

Service's own development of these parks would become subject to Advisory

Council review under Section 106 of the act. The Advisory Council's

review procedures had not yet been worked out, and Section 106 compliance

was seen in any case as applying largely to other federal agencies whose
 28

programs regularly impaired historic properties.^

Utley's proposal that each state be asked to designate an agency

to handle its Register program.-: was implemented in January 1967, when

Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall signed letters to all state

governors. Drafted by James M. Lambe in the Service's legislative office,

they read in part:

I would appreciate very much your letting me know the officer or

agency whom you designate to represent the State in preparing sur-
veys, receiving grants, and carrying out other phases of the program.
With this Information we can consult with your representative to
work out the basis for grants when funds become available, and can
eventually obtain the name of the State representative authorized to
enter into contractual relationships on behalf of the State.15

The letters enclosed copies of the act and an explanatory statement.

This procedure and arrangement closely followed the implementation

of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 by the Bureau of Out-

door Recreation. The officials designated by the governors even received

the same title—state liaison officer (SLO)—as those responsible for the

Land and Water Conservation Fund program; the more descriptive "state

historic preservation officer" (SHPO) was not substituted until 1973.

They were a varied group, falling into three general categories of

roughly equal size: state park administrators, state historical society

directors, and a polyglot of highway, housing, and planning officials.

Among the initial designees were a former Park Service director, Conrad

L. Wirth, then chairman of the New York State Historic Trust, and a

future Service director, William Penn Mott, Jr., general manager of the

l^Utley interview.

^Letters dated Jan. 4, 1967; copy in National Register files.

 29

California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Contrary to the expectations of some In the Service, the state park

and historical society offices were frequently less adapted to handling

the state programs than the diverse offices in the third category. The

parks departments and historical societies were accustomed to dealing with

historic sites, museums, and archives that they operated with their own

employees. Offices dealing more broadly with planning, on the other hand,

often seemed better able to grasp the vision of the nationwide preserva-

tion program, view preservation in environmental and economic development

terms, and take advantage of citizen involvement. Bill Murtagh later re-

gretted that his office had not promptly supplemented Udall's letter with

guidance on the selection of state preservation officers and agencies:

"Had better direction been given...we might have had the responsibility

placed in more State planning agencies where it might have functioned

better and quicker." io

A 1975 Service report by Robert B, Rettig found that 21 state his-

toric preservation offices were then parts of broad historical or cultural

agencies, 16 were in natural resources or parks departments, and 11 were

independent agencies. Rettig thought all arrangements satisfactory "if

the office has sufficient public identity and ability to function on its

own. Generally, this situation is likely to occur when the preservation

office is an independent agency or is a fairly autonomous division of a

larger agency, and when the SHPO has day-to-day contact with the preser-

vation program. " I 7

10
Memorandum, Murtagh to Director, Heritage Conservation and Recrea-
tion Service, June 1979, National Register files.

17
"Conserving the Man-Made Environment," Sept. 1, 1975, pp. 69, 76.
 30

Among the products of the Utley task force was a draft handbook

outlining procedures for conducting statewide surveys and plans, nominat-

ing properties to the National Register, applying for grants-in-aid, and

accounting for grants funds. After circulation to the SLOs, members of

the Advisory Council, and other interested parties for review and comment,

it was refined under Russell Keune's direction and issued in the summer of

1968 under the title Grants for Historic Preservation; Guide for State

Participation.

According to this grants manual (the shorthand term for it), the

results of a state's survey were to become the first volume of the state's

"comprehensive statewide historic preservation plan" prerequisite to

grants under the law. The survey would be conducted under the direction

of the SLO and his staff, which was to include professionals qualified in

history, archeology, and architecture; and the properties identified would

be evaluated by a state review board, also containing members qualified

in these disciplines. The survey volume would consist of a preface, com-

pleted National Register inventory-nomination forms on all eligible

properties identified, and a certificate of approval signed by a majority

of the state review board. The notion that all of a state's Register

nominations could be submitted en masse following a single survey seems

naive in retrospect, but it was consistent with the impressions conveyed

during the legislative process.

The decision to require professional credentials on.the state staffs

and review boards was an important one. It reflected early awareness that

the National Register would become in large measure a state rather than

a federal creation, so that expertise at the state level would be vital

to its credibility. The fact that Register nominations had undergone

 31

professional scrutiny at that level was helpful in countering legal

challenges to Register listings. Defenders could show that nominations

were based on "a consortium of trained, informed opinion-making," in Bill

Murtagh's words, not on caprice.18

In practice, it was difficult for many states to obtain and maintain

staffs and review boards with the required credentials. The Service did

not insist on these requirements in the early years, but in September

1973 Jerry Rogers told an SHPO committee that too many exceptions threat-

ened the integrity of the national program. The following April Russell

Mortensen, OAHP director, wrote all SHPOs warning that participation in

the program after January 1976 would require state staffs with the full

complement of preservation expertise. Henceforth each state would submit

a current staff and review board roster with its annual work program for

recertification by the Park Service.19

In response to a complaint from the Kansas SHPO about the stiffer

policy, Mortensen reviewed the background to it and revealed its tactical

component:

[A] very small percentage of the States had been responsive to

basic guideline requirements promulgated in 1966 [sic] that each of
the States develop a State staff professionally competent in the
fields of architecture, history, and archeology or other disciplines
as may be locally deemed necessary. In the interest of getting the
program off the ground when the funding levels were of a negligible
nature, it was deemed relatively unimportant, in the overall scheme
of things, that this guideline was not then being followed.... With
the growth of the funding level, however, the political sensitivity
of the programs has increased. Continuing to ignore this basic
requirement potentially jeopardizes the entire national structure as

l8
Memorandum, Murtagh to Director, HCRS, June 1979.
19
iTiterview with Rogers, May 7, 1986; Summary Minutes of SHPO Policy
Group, Mackinac Island, Mich., Sept. 25-26, 1973, National Register files;
letter, Mortensen to SHPOs, Apr. 8, 1974, ibid.
 32

the program grows. Any Intelligent lawyer could make mincemeat out
of any attempted defense of an historic site In Kansas jeopardized
by a federal project were he to uncover that neither we nor you are
following the basic guidelines laid down after passage of the act
in 1966.
Further, with the coming Bicentennial and the general temper
of the times, it appears to-ius that the time is right for the estab-
lishment of a well staffed preservation-oriented office within each
State....
Look upon this as a stick which we are placing in your hands
with which you can go to your State legislature, organized industry,
organized philanthropy, or whatever other source you may have, to
provide your match as a means to strengthen your case for enlarged
local financial assistance...."20

In a 1975 report prepared for Senator Jackson, the Advisory

Council declared: "Only 10 States are conducting surveys on a comprehen-

sive, scheduled basis, while the remaining 43 programs are conducted

without a definite plan.... A major shortcoming has been the lack of

coordination of local survey efforts with State surveys and the National

Register program." The Park Service then rated only 14 programs as

operating with sufficient professional expertise. Nearly all states had

at least one full-time historian, archeologist, and architect, according

to the simultaneous Rettig report, but a majority had no more than this

three-person minimum.21 Still, the situation was better than it had been.

"[The] decision to key professional staffing standards to the grants

process resulted in an obvious improvement of the number and quality of

working professionals at the state level...," Bill Murtagh declared in

1979. "Most of the States rendered thanks for our assistance in giving

them clout with their State legislatures to secure minimum staff."22

20Letter to Nyle Miller, May 2, 1974, National Register files.

2lAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation, The National Historic

Preservation Program Today (Washington: Government Printing Office,
1976), p. 13; Rettig, "Conserving the Man-Made Environment," p. 84.
22
Memorandum, Murtagh to Director, HCRS, June 1979.
 33

The Utley task force prepared definitions of the kinds of properties

eligible for the National Register, criteria for evaluating their sig-

nificance, and a form—subsequently refined for data processing purposes

in consultation with IBM—on which states would nominate properties.

Getting the state surveys and nomination process underway would require

more than disseminating paper, however. A major missionary campaign was

needed to spread the word about the new program and inspire participation

—especially in the absence of any significant grants to the states until

1969.

In January 1967 the task force met with representatives of several

future participants, including the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, and the New York

City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The task force report was made

public at a Williamsburg preservation conference in March sponsored by

Colonial Williamsburg and the National Trust and coordinated by Bill

Murtagh (still with the Trust). Discussions there relating to the new

program were summarized in a widely distributed booklet, Historic Preser-

vation Tomorrow.

After Ernest Connally, Murtagh, Jerry Rogers, and other new OAHP

staff arrived at midyear, planning began for a series of regional con-

ferences to explain the National Historic Preservation Act and clarify

state roles under it. Meetings were held in Boston, Richmond, Columbus,

San Juan, Savannah, Denver, Omaha, and Pacific Grove, California, between

November 1967 and May 1968. In addition to OAHP officials, attendees

included SLOs and representatives of the National Trust, the American

Association for State and Local History, the American Institute of

 34

Architects, the American Institute of Planners, the American Society of

Landscape Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society

of Architectural Historians, the Society of American Archeologtsts, and

the Garden Club of America. According to Murtagh, "The meetings were

used as a vehicle to mix the public and private preservation interests

for the first time on a large scale;" They enabled federal and state

officials to get acquainted, SLOs to raise issues, OAHP staff to learn

about local problems, and lagging states to become motivated to greater

participation.23

State nominations came in slowly at first. Only six properties from

the states were listed during 1968. A report on the year's activity

atttributed this rate of progress to the lack of grants appropriations

but noted that some states were proceeding on their own initiative.

OAHP shared responsibility for the slow start: it did not distribute

nomination forms until January 1969. That March the National Register

Newsletter, an informational circular on the program, noted eight more

listings including the Old Post Office in St. Louis, Chateau-sur-Mer in

Newport, Tuckahoe in Virginia, and the Walter Luther Dodge House in West

Hollywood, California (demolished the following year). By August 220

nominations had come in from 24 states. ^Virginia led with 57; Missouri

was next with 44.24

Still composed almost entirely of Park Service historical areas and

national historic landmarks—totaling some 960 properties—the National

23
ibid.; "Summary Report of the 1967-1968 Regional Conferences on
the new Preservation under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
Public Law 89-665," National Register files.

24pr0gress Report on National Register Activities, April-September

1968, National Register files; National Register Newsletter file, ibid.
 35

Register was published in the February 25, 1969, Federal Register pri-

marily to inform federal agencies of what they would need to take into

account under Section 106. Additions appeared periodically in subse-

quent issues. The Service published a popular version of the Register

in hard and soft cover, with short property descriptions and selected

illustrations, a. year later (although it bore a 1969 date). The book

was ceremoniously presented at a candlelight reception hosted by George

Hartzog and the Public Printer (head of the Government Printing Office)

at the National Trust's Decatur House. Copies went to all state governors

and members of Congress as well as the SLOs. Later editions appeared in

1972, 1974, and 1976. The book format was discontinued thereafter: the •

Register was growing too large and too fast to be published with reasonable

currency and economy in such fashion.

Nominations increased rapidly after 1970. There were more than

1,000 new entries in the Register in 1971, more than 2,000 in 1973, and

more than 3,000 in 1978, when new tax benefits for commercial rehabilita-

tion of Register properties began to have a significant effect on the

volume. In 1977 OAHP supplemented its How To Complete National Register

Forms publication with guidelines on multiple resource nominations and

thematic group nominations. These nominations encompassed all eligible

properties in a given area or related to a particular theme as a means

of expediting the process.

A backlog of unprocessed nominations developed and grew coincident

with the shift of the program to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation

Service in 1978. Director Chris Delaporte set a 60-day emergency period

that November and December to catch up on the backlog and institute other

reforms. With the assistance of staff detailed from other functions, the
 36

backlog was largely eliminated.25

The National Trust did a study of the Register's composition as of

November 1981. It counted some 20,300 individual properties and about

2,500 districts containing 147,000 individual properties, for a total

of 167,300 properties. Although districts constituted less than 11 per-

cent of the entries, they contained more than 90 percent of all included

properties. Only about 1,700 entries were nationally significant histo-

rical parks and landmarks; the rest were properties of state and local

significance. The most common area of significance was architecture,

relating to 71 percent of all listings. More than two-thirds of the

properties were 19th century; less than five percent were prehistoric.

Sixty-five percent of individually listed properties were privately owned,

and 33 percent of all listings included private residences.26

The framers of the National Historic Preservation Act envisioned

that federally owned properties would also be entered in the Register and

afforded review protection under Section 106 when affected by undertakings

of their custodians or other federal agencies. In November 1967 Bob

Garvey, executive secretary of the Advisory Council, first suggested that

federal agencies might nominate their eligible properties to the Register.

At that time Bob Utley persuaded him that the state surveys would take

care of federal property nominations.27

25jiemorandum, Delaporte to Associate Director, Preservation of His-

toric Properties, Nov. 2, 1978, Jerry L. Rogers office files; memorandum,
Delaporte to Secretary of the Interior, Jan. 30, 1979, ibid.
26
"A Profile of the National Register of Historic Places," 1983, Na-
tional Register files. The Register held more than 45,000 entries by 1986.

27Memorandum, Garvey to Chief, OAHP, Nov. 7, 1967, Ernest A. Connally

 37

As it developed, the Park Service itself upset this understanding.

When a representative of the Wyoming SLO visited Yellowstone National Park

In 1969 to inventory eligible properties there, Superintendent Jack K.

Anderson protested what he viewed as state interference to George Hartzog.

Hartzbg sided with Anderson and let it be known that the Service would

nominate its own properties (outside the already listed historical

areas).2°* "The Park Service is now undertaking its own inventory of the

historic resources within the natural and recreational areas under its

jurisdiction," the April 1969 National Register Newsletter announced.

"In conducting these surveys the National Park Service welcomes the

advice and assistance of the State Liaison Officers, but there is no need

for them to make a duplicate survey." The SLOs were promised copies of

forms on listed properties.

The Newsletter announcement was in fact a statement of intent more

than reality. Although Park Service historians completed National Regis-

ter forms on a few park resources, no comprehensive Service inventory was

underway or imminent. Nominations of properties held by other federal

agencies also lagged, in some cases because states were reluctant to

include them in their surveys. In 1970 a Council on Environmental Quality

task force with members from OAHP met to consider ways of improving the

national preservation program. Several of its ideas were included in

President Richard M. Nixon's February 8, 1971, environmental message to

Congress. One culminated in Nixon's Executive Order 11593 of May 13,

1971, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment."

office files.

2°Jerry L. Rogers speech (recorded), Jan. 24, 1984; Utley interview.

 38

Executive Order 11593 directed all federal agencies to do what the

Park Service said it would do in 1969. In cooperation with the SLOs, they

were to "locate, inventory, and nominate to the Secretary of the Interior

all sites, buildings, districts, and objects under their jurisdiction or

control that appear to qualify for listing on the National Register of His-

toric Places" by July 31, 1973. Simultaneously, the Secretary of the In-

terior was to encourage states to survey and nominate federal properties.

The executive order also resulted in official recognition of a new

category of historic properties: properties eligible for the National

Register. When Bob Garvey had presented draft preliminary procedures for

Section 106 compliance at the second meeting of the Advisory Council in

September 1967, the Council members advocated giving as much consideration

as possible to qualified properties not yet listed in the Register. OAHP's

Advisory List to the National Register of Historic Places, which included

unlisted properties that had been identified by HABS and the landmarks

program surveys, went to federal agencies in 1969 to indicate "those

places which merit consideration in the planning and approval procedures

associated with their projects until such time as they might be added

to the National Register. " 2 9 The executive order gave force to these

urgings. It required agencies to "exercise caution during the interim

period until inventories and evaluations are completed...to assure that

any federally owned property that might qualify for nomination is not

inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, or substantially altered."

They were to "refer any questionable actions to the Secretary of

the Interior for an opinion respecting the property's eligibility for

29
Advisory Council minutes, Sept. 27-28, 1967, National Register
files; Advisory List preface.
 39

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places." If the Secretary

— i n consultation with the SLO—determined the property eligible, the

agency could not proceed with its action until it had given the Advisory

Council an opportunity to comment.

This extension of the Council's responsibility was ratified in the

1976 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (which gave the

Council independent status) by modifying Section 106 to apply to eligible

as well as listed properties.30 Register eligibility thus attained legal

standing.

Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton wrote to all agency

heads on August 5, 1971, to publicize Executive Order 11593 and ask them

to designate liaison officers for property nominations.-*! OAHP held a

meeting in November to instruct the agency representatives, and it issued

procedures for federal nominations and eligibility determination requests.

Because the latter were normally triggered by impending projects, efforts

were made to expedite them. Properties found eligible were published in

tandem with listed properties in the Federal Register.

As happened with the state programs after the 1966 act, federal

agency surveys and nominations under the executive order got off to a

slow start. Few agencies had missions relating even remotely to historic

preservation or staff with any training in the field. Without the incen-

tive of grants, success depended heavily on proselytizing by OAHP and on

the specter of legal action should an agency threaten some potentially

eligible property without having followed the prescribed procedures.

30p.L. 94-422, Sept. 28, 1976.

^Memorandum, Morton to Heads of All Federal Executive Departments

and Agencies, Connally office files.
 40

The July 31, 1973, deadline for identifying and nominating all

likely candidates was wildly unrealistic and passed almost without notice.

Even the Park Service made no serious effort to meet it. In its 1975

report to Senator Jackson, the Advisory Council characterized the execu-

tive order's inventory and nomination requirement as "partially effec-

tive." Fifty-five agencies had designated preservation officers. "Twenty-

five of these agencies are conducting substantial identification programs,

while the remainder vary in quality from poor to nonexistent," the Council

reported. It gave highest marks to the General Services Administration,

which had 105 Register entries, while noting that "few other agencies

have devoted sufficient staff or funds to do a comparable job."32

The expired deadline raised some doubts as to the continuing effect

of the executive order requirement, which in any event lacked the force

of law. To reaffirm and strengthen the requirement, the National Historic

Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 repeated it as an open-ended mandate:

With the advice of the Secretary and in cooperation with the State
historic preservation officer for the State involved, each Federal
agency shall establish a program to locate, inventory, and nominate
to the Secretary all properties under the agency's ownership or
control by the agency, that appear to qualify for inclusion on the
National Register.... Each Federal agency shall exercise caution
to assure that any such property that might qualify for inclusion
is not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, substantially
altered, or allowed to deteriorate significantly.33

By directing agencies to "establish a program" for inventory and

nomination, the law allowed for some discretion in procedure. Surveys

focused on areas of project impact would continue to take precedence

over comprehensive surveys. A 1986 report prepared by the Park Service

32The National Historic Preservation Program Today, p. 12.

33p.L. 96-515, Dec. 12, 1980.

 41

on the national preservation program endorsed this priority:

In some cases where agencies do not expect to be affecting properties

either immediately or in the distant future, there is no compelling
reason for the agency to nominate such properties to the National
Register. Often the effort and expenditure needed to prepare and
process those nominations could be applied to other activities,
including more immediate materials preservation needs.34

At the regional conferences held in 1967-1968 to promote the

National Register program, Bill Murtagh educated his audiences on the

concept of local significance—the basic ingredient of the "new preser-

vation." He encouraged them to stop thinking primarily in terms of

individual landmarks and to think more in environmental terms, leading

them to identify and nominate districts to be "preserved as a living part

of our community life and development," as the preamble to the 1966 act

urged.

Taking an expansive view of local significance, Murtagh was not

troubled by the breadth with which some interpreted it in nominating

properties. He was inclined to defer to local opinion, believing that

"the further you go down the spectrum of significance, the further up has

to go a federal staff's reliance on local professional value judgment-

making. "35 At the same time, if federal dollars were going to be spent

on properties and federal agencies were going to have to consider them

in their planning, some consistency in evaluation was required.

The 1977 National Heritage Trust Task Force proposed broadening

the scdpe of the Register even further. It recommended that in addition

34jhe Secretary of the Interior's 20th Anniversary Report on the

National Historic Preservation Act, 1986, p. 61.

35Memorandum, Murtagh to Director, HCRS, June 1979.

 42

to the "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects" specified

In the 1966 act, the Register accept neighborhoods, cultural landscapes,

and networks. Neighborhoods were defined by their contemporary ethnic

character (like a Chinatown), cultural landscapes were natural settings

with human associations (like Walden Pond), and networks were extended

resources linked geographically or thematlcally (like the Oregon Trail

or the California missions). The task force wanted to eliminate the

existing criteria restrictions on birthplaces, graves, cemeteries, and

properties achieving significance less than 50 years ago, and It suggested

dropping the national, state, and local significance gradations. 3 "

The new resource categories were Included In the Carter administra-

tion's proposed National Heritage Policy Act of 1979, but neither the

legislation nor the categories were adopted. The view prevailed that

"neighborhoods" should not be accepted unless they also met the historic

district definition. The other proposed categories appeared unnecessary

given the ability of the existing district category and the new thematic

resource nomination format to cover the kinds of resources they envi-

sioned. Nor were the criteria restrictions and significance gradations

abandoned.

The opposition to these recommendations reflected a growing concern

that the Register was becoming overly inclusive. A report by staff

investigators of the House -:.Appropriations Committee in February 1979

voiced this concern:

The legislative history of the 1966 act clearly reflects the

intent of the Congress to establish a National Register which would
afford recognition and protection to properties of State and local,

36
National Heritage Trust Task Force draft report, Aug. 23, 1977,
National Register files.
 43

as well as National, significance. It is not so clear that the

Congress Intended that State and local significance be interpreted
so broadly as the present directions of the preservation movement
seem to indicate.
It is the opinion of the Investigative Staff that HCRS should
take a second look at the National Register criteria, and decide
what the role of the National Register should be. If all the built
environment ends up listed in the National Register, it Is obvious
that the significance of such listing will be demeaned.-*'

In subsequent questions directed to HCRS, Chairman Sidney R. Yates

of the House Interior appropriations subcommittee suggested that "very

few areas would fail to qualify for listing in the National Register" if

the latest administration proposals were adopted. HCRS responded by

agreeing that the Register criteria must remain selective, and it cited

examples of recently rejected nominations.-*"

Yates' comments also suggested that federal efforts should be

directed more to nationally significant properties, allowing the states

to take primary responsibility for those of state and local signifi-

cance. This indication of shifting sentiment by the Democratic legislator

most responsible for preservation funding anticipated by two years the

direction predictably favored by the Reagan administration in 1981.

Assistant Secretary of the Interior G. Ray Arnett then approved a "Fed-

eral Historic Preservation Agenda for the 80's" which in part recalled

Bill Brown's position back in 1966 on ranking Register properties.

Because the Register did not distinguish sufficiently among them, the

document stated, "the same level of administrative obligation is applied

to properties of varying degrees of significance.... What is needed

"surveys and Investigations Staff, "A Report to the Committee on

Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, on Federal Historic Preser-
vation Efforts," February 1979, Preservation Assistance Division files.

^Written questions by Yates with HCRS responses, 1979, Preservation

Assistance Division files.
 44

is a redefinition of the National Register criteria in order to clearly

distinguish and articulate the difference between historic properties

of local or State or National significance so that decisionmaking

can be made on a sliding scale based upon the degree of a property's

significance."™

Just six months earlier, the National Historic Preservation Act

Amendments of December 12, 1980, had given national historic landmarks

their first explicit recognition in law and specified greater considera-

tion for landmarks than other Register properties by requiring federal

agencies "to the maximum extent possible, [to] undertake such planning

and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm" to them. It also

authorized direct grants to landmarks threatened with demolition or

impairment.™ in 1979, while under HCRS, the landmarks program had been

subsumed under the National Register Division and all but terminated.

With the abolition of HCRS in 1981 and the return of the preservation

programs to the Park Service, the landmarks program was replaced in the

History Division (its home until 1973) and given much greater attention.

The division revived the nationwide thematic surveys that formed the

basis for landmark designation, and in 1986 it published the first land-

marks catalogue in a decade. These developments all reflected a swing

of the pendulum back toward the traditional federal focus on national

significance.

^Historic Preservation Policy Work Group, "Federal Historic Pres-

ervation Agenda for the 80's," June 12, 1981.
40
P.L. 96-515, Sees. 206, 201(a).
 45

Another issue affecting the progress of the National Register over

the years was that of owner participation and consent. A property:'s

qualifications for the National Register were determined by professional

evaluation; Its owner's wishes with respect to listing had no legitimate

role in the decision. The Service insisted, moreover, that listing had

no effect on an owner's rights. It constrained only federal agencies

from affecting Register properties without complying with the Advisory

Council's review process. A private owner remained free to alter,

demolish, sell, or do anything else with his property subject to any

local restrictions.

Some owners were not persuaded by this argument. Although Register

listing per se might not affect their freedom, it could abet passage

of local historic district ordinances that would. There was also the

possibility that an owner seeking to benefit from a federal undertaking

affecting his property would be unable to do so. W. R. Grace and Company

encountered this situation when it sought a federally guaranteed bank

loan for mining operations on land within the Register district of Green

Springs, Virginia, in the mid-1970s. Its attorney asked that owner

consent be required for Register listing, citing "the fact that once, a

property is listed in the National Register the owner of the property is

placed in a position to be denied equal standing with others under Federal

programs."**

Although the Service maintained its opposition to owner consent, some

states found it politic to consider the opinions of owners and local

officials in deciding to nominate properties. The California SHPO was

^Letter, 0. Mario Favorito to William J. Murtagh, Sept. 26, 1975,

National Register files.
 46

giving local authorities an effective veto over nominations by 1974. A

year later the Advisory Council reported, "It is not uncommon for a

nomination, professionally proper, to be held up by a State, frequently

by the Governor's office, because entry on the National Register will

prove inconvenient for a construction project advocated by the State."42

Two steps taken in 1976 would bring the owner consent issue to a

boil by the end of the decade. The Service embarked on a multi-year

study of properties associated with commerce and industry to identify

potential national historic landmarks in these themes. The study resulted

in the nomination of numerous stores, office buildings, shops, and

factories—many still in commercial or industrial use. Coincidentally,

the Tax Reform Act of 1976 contained provisions designed to encourage

preservation of such income-producing properties listed in the National

Register. As an incentive to their rehabilitation, it allowed rapid

depreciation or amortization of rehabilitation costs. To discourage

their demolition, it forbade demolition costs to be treated as deductible

business expenses and denied any form of accelerated depreciation for new

structures built on their sites.43

With the latter provision, it was no longer possible to assure af-

fected property owners that Register listing would not interfere with

their present and future use or plans (assuming no federal involvement).

Listing now carried a financial penalty for demolition. Not surprisingly,

some owners objected. The chairman of Marshall Field and Company, whose

42
Letter, Kathryn H. Kaiser to William J. Murtagh, May 21, 1974,
National Register files: The National Historic Preservation Program Today,
p. 28.
43
P.L. 94-455, Sec. 2124, Oct. 4, 1976.
 47

Chicago store was among the landmark nominees in 1977, wrote, "[W]e

simply cannot be put in a position where additional hurdles and competitive

restraints may be placed in the path of upgrading and adapting the store

to meet the needs of our customers and the changing demands of the central

city."44 R. H. Macy, Montgomery Ward, Sears Roebuck, and the American

Stock Exchange were among others protesting nominations of their historic

properties. Under Secretary of the Interior James A. Joseph nevertheless

included these properties among 30 commercial landmark designations in

1978.

The next batch of landmark nominations from the theme study, in 1979,

included Proctor and Gamble's Ivorydale plant near Cincinnati. The com-

pany's board chairman wrote Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus to

v
express concern about the effect of the tax act. Also, we are concerned

that the Congress, having once imposed restrictions on landmark owners,

might oppose other and perhaps more onerous restraints in the future...,"

he added.45 His attitude typified that of other industry representatives,

already faced with federal health, safety, and antipollution requirements,

who feared the demolition disincentives of the tax act less than the

precedent they set for further entanglements.

Ernest Connally, believing that many of the industrial properties

did not lend themselves to preservation and concerned about brewing

political repercussions, advised HCRS Director Chris Delaporte to hold

the protested nominations, but Delaporte insisted on forwarding them to

44Letter, Joseph A. Burnham to George F. Emery, Aug. 15, 1977, History

Division files.

45Letter, Edward G. Harness to Andrus, Apr. 3, 1979, History Division

files.
 48

Secretary Andrus. Letters from Sen. John Glenn and other Ohio politicians

backing Proctor and Gamble also arrived on the Secretary's desk. The

opposition triumphed when Rep. Willis D. Gradison, Jr., of Cincinnati

managed to insert a provision in the fiscal 1980 Interior appropriations

bill, enacted November 27, 1979, "That none of the funds appropriated to

the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service may be used to add

industrial facilities to the list of National Historic Landmarks without

the consent of the owner."4®

Proponents of owner consent sought to extend it to all National

Register nominations in pending legislation to amend the National Historic

Preservation Act. HCRS and most preservation groups tried to head off

the requirement. Acting Keeper of the National Register Carol D. Shull

wrote all SHPOs in August 1980, "We firmly believe that the integrity of

the National Register can be maintained only if additions can be made to

the Register if a property meets the National Register criteria, regard-

less of an owner's consent." Director Delaporte reaffirmed the bureau's

position to Rep. John F. Seiberling, chairman of the subcommittee consid-

ering the legislation: "[W]e do not support the concept of owner concur-

rence for the evaluation and recognition of historic resources and believe

it is important to emphasize that listing on the National Register does

not in any way restrict what a private property owner can do with his

property...." When the House Interior committee reported favorably on

the legislation with the owner consent provision, added through the

efforts of Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, five committee members recorded

their disagreement: "We feel that this change is a most unwise decision.

46
P.L. 96-126.
 49

It constitutes a serious threat to the current professional integrity of

the National Register, and will result in a significant diminishment of

the usefulness which the Register has served for so long, as a profes-

sional tool to identify and to assist in the preservation of historic

properties nationwide."^'

Congress nevertheless passed the National Historic Preservation Act

Amendments of 1980 with the provision, and President Carter signed the

measure on December 12. The owner consent requirement was worded thus:

The Secretary [of the Interior] shall promulgate regulations

requiring that before any property or district may be included on
the National Register or designated as a National Historic Landmark,
the owner or owners of such property, or a majority of the owners of
the properties within the district in the case of an historic dis-
trict, shall be given the opportunity (including a reasonable period
of time) to concur in, or object to, the nomination of the property
or district for such inclusion or designation. If the owner or
owners of any privately owned property, or a majority of the owners
of such properties within the district in the case of an historic
district, object to such inclusion or designation, such property
shall not be included on the National Register or designated as a
National Historic Landmark until such objection is withdrawn.^8

The provision went on, however, to specify that

The Secretary shall review the nomination of the property or district

where any such objection has been made and shall determine whether or
not the property or district is eligible for [Register] inclusion or
[landmark] designation, and if the Secretary determines that such
property or district is eligible...he shall inform the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, the appropriate State Historic
Preservation Officer, the appropriate chief elected local official
and the owner or owners of such property, of his determination.^

This allowance for eligibility determination meant that properties kept

off the Register by objecting owners could still become subject to the

^Letter, Shull to All SHPOs, Aug. 28, 1980, National Register files;
letter, Delaporte to Seiberling, Sept. 29, 1980, and minority statement
in H. Rept. 96-1457, Oct. 10, 1980.
48
P.L. 96-515, Sec. 201(a).

4°Ibid.
 50

Advisory Council's review process under Section 106. Representative

Seiberling called the overall provision "a reasonable and workable com-

promise which adequately takes into account the concerns of private

owners without seriously eroding the usefulness of the National Register

as a planning tool and comprehensive historical record."50

Enactment of the legislation forced an immediate moratorium on

the listing of private properties until November 16, 1981, when new

regulations incorporating procedures for notification, objection, and

eligibility determination went into effect.51 Except for national histo-

ric landmark nominations initiated at the federal level, the burden of

the notification requirements fell largely on the SHPOs. Relatively few

nominations—at least among those forwarded to Washington—encountered

owner objections. The demolition disincentives in the tax code that

had fueled the owner consent issue expired at the end of 1983, leaving

less cause for objection thereafter.52 By 1986 about 650 properties

whose owners objected to listing had been found eligible for the Register

under the new regulations.

The elevation of owner consent to legal resolution provides an

interesting commentary • on the workings of the federal system and the

relative sensitivity of the federal and state governments to local

interests. At the state level there was some willingness not to press

nominations when owners and elected officials objected. The federal

50*126 Congressional Record 29827.

5lFederal Register, Nov. 16, 1981, p. 56183.

. 52^ 1984 tax code revision reinstated the denial of deductions for
demolition costs but made it applicable to all buildings, so that historic
structures were not singled out for special treatment.
 51

program administrators, further removed from local pressures, insisted

on proceeding with their landmark nominations in the face of such opposi-

tion. They were attempting, quite properly, to keep the process "pure'V-

guided only by professional considerations. They were also inviting

what usually happens when bureaucrats pursue courses at odds with public

sentiment: politicians intervene to redress their constituents' griev-

ances . It was thus the Washington-run landmarks program rather than the

state-based programs that first prompted congressional action for owner

consent.

When state nominations were trickling in, relatively speaking, during

the late 60s and early 70s, the National, Register staff in OAHP had time

to scrutinize each before both Bill Murtagh and Ernest Connally signed

their approval. As the trickle increased to a flood, especially after

the tax benefits enacted in 1976, and as the staff failed to increase

commensurate with the nomination and tax act certification workload,

substantive review of Register forms became more difficult.

In 1973 Jerry Rogers, then chief of registration, proposed automatic

acceptance of nominations from states with demonstrated professional capa-

bility. There was doubt about the legality of doing this; and notwith-

standing Murtagh's desire to defer to state and local; opinion on properties

of state and local significance, too many states, could not be relied on for

consistency in both the substantive and technical aspects of nomination.

State staffs were not of uniformly high quality, and the review boards,

which enabled public involvement and gave SHPOs the final recommendations

on nominations, were a weak link in the process. Murtagh especially

regretted his office's lack of contact with these boards to foster broader
 52

understanding of the Register's intended content and purpose.53 Despite

much published guidance, including the comprehensive How To Complete

National Register Forms booklet first issued in 1972 and the supplementary

"How To" bulletin series begun in 1978 (how to establish Register bounda-

ries, evaluate properties of recent significance, improve photo quality,

etc.), the quality of nominations remained uneven.

The review backlog that accumulated by late 1978 necessitated a

crash program to overcome and greater management emphasis to see that it

did hot recur. Congress reinforced this imperative in the National His-

toric Preservation Act Amendments of 1980. It specified that a property

nominated without owner objection by a state (or federal agency) with an

approved historic preservation program would be automatically listed in

the Register 45 days after receipt unless the Secretary of the Interior

disapproved it within that period. Commenting on this provision in its

report on the legislation, the House Interior committee made clear that

substantive review of all nominations was not required:

The purpose of this provision is to assure that there are no un-

necessary delays in processing the nominations. If the procedures
for making nominations have been properly followed, and if the
documentation is sufficient, the Secretary should be able to approve
the nomination without a substantive review. The Secretary should,
however, review particular nominations on a spot-check basis, or as
otherwise necessary, to insure the integrity of the program.^^

The Register office adopted a new system for operation within the 45-

day requirement. All nominations would receive technical review to insure

that the required documentation was present; those with missing or inade-

quate information would be returned immediately. For substantive review

"memorandum, Murtagh to Director, HCRS, June 1979.

54H. Rept. 96-1457, Oct. 10, 1980.

 53

purposes, states and federal agencies were divided among three categories

based on their past performance. Those with a return rate under 15 percent

during fiscal years 1979-1980—29 states—were assigned to Category I and

would have only one-fifth of their nominations subjected to substantive

review. Eleven states with a return rate between 15 and 24 percent went

into Category II; one-third of their nominations would be scrutinized.

The remaining states, in Category III, would receive substantive review

of all nominations. With its announcement of the new system, the office

provided recommendations for improving nominations: it sought summary

paragraphs at the beginning of the description and significance sections;

better evidence of property context and integrity, stronger justifications

for exceptions to Register criteria (e.g., for properties attaining sig-

nificance less than 50 years ago), clear delineation of contributing and

noncontributing resources in districts, and more precise boundaries."

The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 did more

to elevate the role of the states. The legislation gave statutory recog-

nition to the state programs with their SHPOs, professional staffs, and

review boards—previously just administrative creations of the federal

program—and specified the responsibilities of the SHPOs in administering

the programs. It also provided that local governments meeting certain

requirements could participate officially in the nomination process and

grants program upon certification by the SHPOs. By 1986 there were 180

55Lefeter, Jerry Rogers to All SHPOs, Apr. 9, 1981, National Register

files; letter, Carol Shull to All SHPOs, Sept. 8, 1981, ibid.; letter,
Shull to All SHPOs, Dec. 2, 1981, ibid. After the initial categorization,
Category III was expanded to include all states and federal agencies that
had submitted fewer than 20 nominations during the analysts period., All
agencies fell into this category except GSA, which merited Category I
assignment.
 54

certified local governments.

To maintain their status as approved programs under the legislation,

state programs must be evaluated periodically by Park Service program

officials. As a result of these state program evaluations, the nomination

review formula adopted in the early 1980s gave way to a more refined

approach focusing on the particular problem areas of particular states or,

as Jerry Rogers told Director Russell E. Dickenson in 1984, on "nominations

from States known to have difficulty with specific types of properties or

documentation."56 This selectivity insured that staff effort would be

concentrated where it was most needed.

Rogers' goal was a "programmatic nomination process" whereby the

Service would concentrate largely on the process of nomination and leave

the content to the states. As he explained it to Dickenson:

After 17 years experience, all States are familiar with the National
Register process and most are adept in its use. Since the vast
majority of State nominations are for properties of State and local
significance it is appropriate to rely on a State's judgment when
the State uses a demonstrably sound, consistent, and professional
process based on the National Register criteria, with documentation
that meets a reasonable standard....
When moving to carry out a programmatic nomination process,
certain things will not change. The Service will continue to "keep"
a strong and vital National Register and be fully accountable for
the registration process. The States, however, must shoulder pri-
mary accountability for the integrity of nominations of individual
listed properties.57

Improvement of state historic preservation planning was essential

to increased reliance on the states. According to the early guidelines,

the comprehensive statewide plans required for grants-in-aid under the

1966 act were to incorporate and be based on completed state surveys

^Memorandum, Rogers to Dickenson, Mar. 8, 1984, National Register

files.
57
Ibid.
 55

(page 30). This was quickly recognized as unrealistic. States went

through the motions of preparing "preliminary" plans using what survey

data they had, but these were largely paper exercises. Lawrence E. Aten,

chief of the Interagency Resources Division, later faulted the methodology

of this approach:

The "accumulation" strategy assumes that historic property data are

unique and additive, and that effective planning cannot be under-
taken until all or most of the potential data have been collected.
Even if this were true, it obviously would be an impractical strategy
because the desired information would not be available for decades,
if then, while development and land use decision are being made now.
Moreover, "planning" based on this strategy does not aid public ad-
ministration because it considers all properties to be of essentially
the same importance, having no system developed for differentiating
between them; it requires that all properties need to be located in
order to develop a management plan...."

In 1975 the Interagency Archeological Services Division developed

a methodology to help Interior's outer continental shelf oil leasing

program anticipate which areas would be most likely to hold submerged

archeological resources. By 1978 Larry Aten and others had translated

this predictive methodology into a new general planning approach, desig-

nated the Resource Protection Planning Process (Rp3). According to Aten:

The alternative approach emphasizes the use of information other

than its accumulation.... It assumes that the cultural landscape
was created by non-random processes and that by identifying the
significant roles in past settlement played by one or more key fac-
tors (such as environment, transporation networks, technology, etc.)
a practical framework can be developed for partitioning an undiffer-
entiated inventory of properties into manageable units. Working
with these units, less ambitious management priorities and strategies
can be developed with respect to sets or classes of information.
These, in turn, make the identification, evaluation, and protection
of individual properties and situations relate to an appropriate
cultural context.59

5°Aten, "The Resource Protection Planning Process," Architectural

Preservation Forum, December 1983.

59ibid.
 56

By 1986 the great majority of states had adopted some version of

Rp3 and were identifying properties in the context of the thematic,

temporal, and geographic study units they had developed. Jerry Rogers

called the new kind of state plan based on this methodology "no longer

something you write, but something you do."60 By rationalizing property

identification and evaluation, RP^ aided the transition to his desired

programmatic nomination process.

As the Service moved away from nomination review, it moved toward

increasing the utility of the National Register as a planning tool—its

primary intended function. The state inventories were still more compre-

hensive than the Register, and in practice, these had become the data base

for planning that the Register was supposed to be. (The Service asked

federal agencies to consult the states rather than rely solely on the

Register in their project planning.) But there was potential for making

the Register more useful, much of which would be realized in the National

Register Information System (NRIS).

The Utley task force envisioned computerization of the Register in

1966, and IBM helped design the nomination form for this purpose. Nearly

two decades passed before the objective was in sight. By the end of 1986

NRIS would encompass all Register entries (although not yet the Register-

eligibles). Forty-five data elements on each property would enable rapid

retrieval of a wide variety of information. States and federal agencies

were expected to use the same elements to automate their inventories,

broadening the system's planning value. They would be given access to

the system and would eventually be able to enter nomination data directly.

60ROgers interview.
 57

In addition to aiding planning, this unprecedented accessibility to the

Register was foreseen as enabling further decentralization of decisions

on listings, eligibility determinations, and significance certifications

for tax purposes.61

The general effort to decentralize responsibility was not universally

appreciated by the states, especially as it was accompanied by less rather

than more federal money to them after 1979. Advanced under Jimmy Carter

and accelerated under Ronald Reagan, the trend nevertheless reflected the

ascendant governmental philosophy of the 1980s. Most of the "new preser-

vation" was essentially of local benefit and fell logically within the

traditional spheres of state and local concern. The federal government

might "keep" the National Register, but the states would properly become

the dominant partners in expanding it.

61carol D. Sh'ull, "The National Register After 20 Years," draft

article for Preservation News, June 1986.
 AIDING PRESERVATION

As George Hartzog was fond of saying, money Is policy. Congress

might embrace some great cause, but unless It authorized and appropriated

sufficient funds to progress toward achieving It, Its policy would not

carry beyond the statute books. The funding provisions in the National

Historic Preservation Act were key, therefore, to implementing the lofty

declarations in Its preamble.

The act specified two parties as recipients of matching grants-

in-aid: the states and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

It authorized two kinds of grants to the states: grants for surveys and

plans and grants for property acquisition and development projects. The

federal funds could not exceed 50 percent of the respective costs involved

and could not be applied to ongoing property maintenance and administra-

tion. The Secretary of the Interior was to apportion grants among the

states based on his determination of their needs. Grants to the National

Trust, also required to be matched equally, were authorized "for the

purpose of carrying out the responsibilities of the National Trust." At

the Secretary's discretion, they could support maintenance and administra-

tion of Trust properties. The act authorized appropriations of not more

than $2,000,000 in fiscal 1967 and not more than $10,000,000 in each of

the three fiscal years following.

The favored status given the National Trust in the act reflected its

key role behind the legislation—a role stimulated by the prospect of

federal funding for its own activities. This involvement meant that the

58
 59

Trust was ready and waiting for the first appropriation before the states

knew what was afoot, generally speaking. When It came—$300,000 In fiscal

1968—the Trust got It all.

On May 24, 1967, Hartzog wrote all state liaison officers seeking

"letters of intent" as to how much they would be requesting for surveys

and planning In fiscal 1969. By the following March 40 states had

responded with requests totaling $1,754,263, an average of $43,857 per

state. The sum proved wildly optimistic. President Lyndon B. Johnson's

1969 budget proposed $680,000 for grants, only about a third of the

previous year's request. The House voted to repeat the 1968 appropria-

tion; the Senate cut It to zero. In conference they compromised on a

token $100,000. The National Trust got $17,500 of this negligible outlay;

the $82,500 balance had to be spread among all the states.

The fiscal 1970 appropriation, the last under the original authoriza-

tion, was a relatively respectable $969,000. This was still less than 10

percent of the amount authorized for the year, however, and the Trust got

$300,000 of it—nearly a third. The Department of Housing and Urban

Development was providing more support for community historic preservation

in these years than the National Park Service.

The extremely modest support to the state programs prompted action

on two fronts. A group of southern SLOs, joined by Bill Murtagh, met

in May and June 1969 to discuss common concerns and form the Southern

States Liaison Officers Council. Milo Howard of Alabama, chairman of

the body, then invited all SLOs to convene at the annual meeting of

the American Association for State and Local History in St. Paul that

August. There was born the National Conference of State Historic Preser-

vation Officers (so called beginning in 1973). The Service actively

 60

encouraged and welcomed this organization as a lobby for increased grants

funding and as a means of facilitating communication with and among the

state program leaders.

Within the Service, Hartzog saw his new program as threatened with

extinction or—equally bad—removal to HUD or elsewhere without appro-

priations to sustain it at something closer to the authorized levels.

In 1970 Congress extended the funding authority for another three

years, authorizing $7,000,000 in fiscal 1971, $10,000,000 in 1972, and

$15,000,000 in 1973, after Hartzog demonstrated his commitment by shifting

some $5,000,000 from road construction to the grants program in his 1971

budget request.^ The grants appropriations rose to $5,980,000 in both

1971 and 1972 and $7,505,000 in 1973, exceeding the administration's

budget request by $1.3 million in the latter year.

Congress reauthorized funding again in 1973, allowing $15.6 million,

$20 million, and $24.4 million in fiscal 1974, 1975, and 1976. Appropri-

ations of $11,505,000, $20 million, and $20 million followed, in each case

matching the administration's request.2 The increasing appropriations

reflected Hartzog's successful strategy (fruitful beyond his departure

at the end of 1972) and the growing constituency for the program among

its actual and potential beneficiaries as the money reached significant

levels.

lP.L. 91-243, May 9, 1970. A superb legislative tactician, Hartzog

acted in full confidence that Congress would restore the road funds.
2
P.L. 93-54. July 1, 1973. Another $4,750,000 was requested, author-
ized, and appropriated for July-September 1976, the period between the end
of fiscal 1976 and the beginning of fiscal 1977 on October 1 of that
transition year.
 61

Survey and planning grants went largely for staff salaries, travel,

and other personal services required to identify historic properties and

nominate them to the National Register. The acquisition and development

project, or "bricks-and-mortar," grants held greater potential for con-

stituency building and could be used to fund work on properties owned by

state and local governments as well as private parties. The problem with

these appealing grants was that, under the law, they had to accord with

comprehensive statewide preservation plans approved by the Secretary of

the Interior (in reality, OAHP). And the Service grants manual issued

in 1968, reflecting the legislative history, prescribed the statewide

survey results as the first volume of the state plan. If taken seriously,

this meant that a state could receive no project grants until it had

identified and nominated virtually all its eligible properties.

Because no state had the remotest prospect of meeting this require-

ment, it was not taken seriously. Charles E. Lee, the South Carolina SLO,

later recalled a meeting with Ernest Connally on May 23, 1969, at which

the OAHP chief exercised his creativity:

. I told Ernest that I thought we would never get the funding needed
for the program until we started providing grants for the brick-and-
mortar projects which citizens all over the country wanted. Yet the
law itself required the writing and approval of a statewide Historic
Preservation Plan before acquisition and development grants could be
applied for. Which of the states—certainly not South Carolina—was
going to spend months of labor writing a statewide plan with no
assurance that there would be any money for acquisition and develop-
ment projects at the end?
Then Ernest Connally did a cavalier, unbureaucratic, statesman-
like thing. Pulling out the Grants and Procedures Manual, he turned
to the sketchy outline for a state plan provided there. "Go home,"
he said. "Write a paragraph or two on each of these headings. Call
it 'The Preliminary South Carolina Historic Preservation Plan.* If
it makes any sense at all, I'll approve, and you can file for your
brick-and-mortar projects."^

^"Present at Creation," remarks to National Conference of State

 62

The idea that grants funds could be applied to preservation and

restoration work on private properties caused some controversy. At the

House subcommittee hearing on the proposed legislation in July 1966,

Rep. Richard C. White of Texas suggested that the law should preclude a

private owner selling his property from retaining any profit attributable

to improvements made with grants money. George Hartzog assured him that

the Service would promulgate regulations to this effect, requiring that

any such profits be reimbursed to the government. A year later, the

first draft of the Service's grants manual would have virtually banned

assistance to private properties. "No assisted property may be used to

conduct a profit making enterprise, or be used as a private residence, or

for other private purposes, even though partially or wholly open to the

public," it stated. As issued in July 1968, the manual lacked these

strictures but required "use and maintenance of the property for historic

purposes."^

The act itself specified private organizations and individuals among

the beneficiaries of project grants and required only that assisted

preservation projects be "for public benefit." Bill Murtagh, Jerry

Rogers, and others eager to maximize the impact of the program argued

for a liberal interpretation of public benefit that would extend to

private properties in any use without recovery of profits thereon. They

successfully pressed the concept that public benefit was sufficiently

Historic Preservation Officers, Washington, D.C., March 9, 1981 (tran-

script at NCSHPO office, Washington, D.C.).

^James M. Lambe, "Legislative History of Historic Preservation Act

of 1966," National Park Service, 1967, pp. 96-97; "Grants-In-Aid Manual,"
draft dated July 6, 1967, National Register files; Grants for Historic
Preservation: Guide for State Participation (National Park Service,
1968).
 63

realized by the preservation of historic properties, regardless of any

subsequent financial gain to their owners.5

There was general agreement that public benefit Implied at least some

public access. Exterior work visible from a public way met this condition.

Interior and exterior work not visible from a public way posed a problem.

Bernard R. Meyer of the Interior Solicitor's Office thought that interior

work should be funded only if a property would regularly be open to the

public. Murtagh saw this as inconsistent with the "new preservation,"

aimed at keeping properties in use rather than maintaining them as museums.

A compromise was reached: properties improved by work not visible from

a public way would have to be opened to the public at least 12 days a

year.6 This rule appeared in the 1972 edition of the grants manual,

which dropped the requirement that assisted properties be used "for

historic purposes."

The access provision, where applicable, became part of the legal

covenants required of all private grants beneficiaries to protect the

public investment in their properties. Attached to the property deeds,

the covenants required owners to maintain their properties without

substantial alteration for prescribed periods, depending on the amount

of the federal contribution. In 1980 the maximum period was reduced from

40 to 20 years. The states were required to monitor compliance.

In practice, private parties did not benefit heavily from grants

funding, especially in the early years when the states themselves cornered

much of the money. In 1975 Robert Rettig reviewed what he saw as a

^Rogers speech (recorded), Jan. 24, 1984.

^Memorandum, Murtagh to Director, Heritage Conservation and Recrea-

tion Service, June 1979, National Register files.
 64

changing situation: "Many states saw the grants program initially as a

way of financing the restoration of state-owned historic sites, but this

approach is being supplanted in most states by a more broadly based

grants program involving local governments, individuals, and organizations

throughout the state," The trend was fostered by the way in which the

annual grants appropriation was apportioned among the states. States

had to submit apportionment warrants reporting their capacity to match

federal funds. Because a state's apportionment was related to its

matching capacity, it was motivated to involve a wide range of National

Register property owners to boost its warrant total. Having solicited

their involvement, it could not easily revert to keeping all the money

for its own properties.'

In January 1974 Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton advanced

"Project Protection" as a balance to "Project Independence," the current

thrust to increase domestic energy production and curb dependence on

foreign sources. Project Protection would allocate revenues from outer

continental shelf oil leases to activities that would aid conservation

and fight unemployment. Taking advantage of this planning opportunity,

Ernest Connally, assisted by Bill Murtagh and Jerry Rogers, conceived a

scheme for spending $400 million per year for 10 years to identify and

preserve historic properties.°

The plan, written by Rogers, had four major elements:

° a National Historic Resources Conservation Institute—a reconstitu-

7
Rettig, "Conserving the Man-Made Environment," Sept. 1, 1975, p. 81.

^Project Protection file, Jerry L. Rogers office files.

 65

tion of OAHP that would define and advance professional standards, augment

the supply of preservation professionals, dispense professional and finan-

cial assistance to the states, foster state preservation plans, and

amalgamate the state plans into a nationwide plan;

0
a Historic Resources Conservation Fund, supporting the Conservation

Institute and funding 50 percent matching grants to the states and National

Trust;

° an Endangered Historic Resources Fund, providing 90 percent grants

to the states and National Trust for preserving endangered national

historic landmarks and funding demonstration projects;

° a Historic Resources Capital Fund, providing 70 percent grants to

the states and National Trust to build independent, self-sustaining

revolving funds for preservation projects.0.

The Nixon and Ford administrations ultimately judged inflation a

bigger threat than unemployment, and the big spending for Project Pro-

tection did not materialize. The historic preservation planning exercise

nevertheless had significant consequences. Rogers later recalled its

impact:

It was instantly evident to us that any major infusion of money

would require a fundamental revision of our modus operandi. The
OAHP would have to rise above the hands-on, or even the eyes-on,
approach to preservation work, encouraging—and trusting—others to
handle most matters without our direct participation....
The pie-in-the-sky never came, but very much came of the pro-
posal. The philosophy of the OAHP became more firmly fixed upon the
notion of a State-based program, with the OAHP gradually converting
itself from a participant in project details into a broad overseer,
standard-setter, trainer, provider of grants, producer of technical
information, and guardian of national historic landmarks.10

9
Ibid.

l°Letter to Banks C. Talley, Jr., Dec. 29, 1983, ibid.

 66

OAHP had been reviewing in detail the plans and specifications for

every grant-supported project, a practice that brought complaints of nit-

picking from some SHPOs and that clearly could not continue as the program

grew. Rogers sought to devise a system whereby preservation projects

could avoid such scrutiny at the federal level. Federal standards and

guidelines for projects, supplemented by technical information, under-

girded OAHP's move in this direction. Developed by W. Brown Morton III,

Lee Nelson, and Gary Hume, they "took preservation from the province of

in-group experts and explained it to ordinary people" in easily understood

language, employing a "do and don't" format.*1 With the standards in

place, states with demonstrated professional review capability were

eligible for "expanded participation" in the grants program after 1976:

no longer did they have'to submit project plans and specifications for

OAHP approval.

The second element of the Project Protection exercise was reflected

in the 1976 legislation amending the 1966 act. This enactment established

a Historic Preservation Fund in the United States Treasury, patterned on

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which would receive outer continen-

tal shelf oil leasing revenues: $24.4 million in fiscal 1977, $100

million in each of fiscal 1978 and 1979, and $150 million in fiscal 1980

and 1981. It also authorized but did not mandate 70 percent federal

contributions for state survey and planning work.*2

This earmarking of revenues at unprecedented levels -still did not

mean that the dollars would be forthcoming in appropriations. At the

^Interview with Rogers, Feb. 5, 1986.

12
P.L. 94-422, Sept. 28, 1976.
 67

March 1977 Senate hearings preceding his confirmation as assistant

secretary of the Interior in the Carter administration, Robert L. Herbst

pledged support for full funding of the grants program in fiscal 1978

at the authorized $100 million level.13 In fact, the administration

requested only $17.5 million for 1978, the same amount appropriated for

1977 and half of what the outgoing Ford administration had sought.

Congress responded by appropriating $45 million.

For 1979 the administration requested $45 million and Congress

appropriated $60 million. That proved to be the high water mark. While

the last two Carter budgets held constant at $45 million, appropriations

declined to $55 million in fiscal 1980 and $26 million in 1981.

The Endangered Historic Resources Fund idea bore fruit in fiscal

1978, when $1,000,000 of $2,005,000 held from that year's appropriation

in the Secretary's Discretionary Fund went to the National Trust as a

matching grant for its use in aiding threatened national historic land-

marks. According to Ernest Connally:

[T]he Endangered Historic Properties Fund originated with us in the

National Park Service because of our sense of helplessness when the
Chicago Stock Exchange was demolished (we were totally unable to
respond for emergency cash in the amount necessary to buy an option
or make a down payment) and when I learned that the Trust was able
to buy an option on the Wainwright in St. Louis only because Jimmy
Biddle [Trust president] was rich enough to give assurance that he
would stand behind the purchase if it came to that. To my mind that
was not a satisfactory basis for long-term discharge of a public
trust. The National Trust was given the flexibility of a private
corporation to assist the Federal Government in ways it could not
function to save properties of national significance. Hence the idea
of an emergency fund, adequate for purchase as a last resort.1^

l^U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Interior Nominations, Hearings, March 10, 11, 30, 1977 (Washington: Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1977).
14
Note to Jerry Rogers, Jan. 3, 1984, Project Protection file.
 68

The Secretary's Discretionary Fund from which this allocation was

made was rooted in the demise of criteria that the states were supposed

to use in ranking their project funding requests. For most of the decade

the SHPOs had been asked to give priority to (1) endangered national

historic landmarks, (2) other endangered properties in urban areas whose

loss would seriously affect the environment, (3) endangered properties

outside urban areas whose loss would seriously affect the environment,

and (4) properties not threatened but in need.

Consistent with its decentralizing approach, OAHP had lately dropped

the criteria and allowed the states virtual freedom in project selection.

Rep. Sidney R. Yates, chairman of the House subcommittee on Interior

appropriations, feared this laxity would lead to government funding of

projects at "every old jail in the West."14 in a memorandum defending the

new course, Jerry Rogers called the old criteria "somewhat outdated" and

observed that they "did not allow for consideration of positive benefits

that could accrue from restoration of a property not in clear and present

danger." He continued:

[T]he selection of pivotal buildings for grant assistance must

include consideration of many factors, such as the owner's in-
tentions, the financial capability of those who would save the
buildings, prevention of undesirable social disruption of urban
neighborhoods, the possibility of packaging grants from a wide
range of public and private sources, use of public funds as leverage
to obtain larger commercial loans, and the amount of influence that
either preservation or loss of the building would have upon the
surrounding historic resources. Although it is appropriate for the
Federal Government to assure that proper professional standards and
broad policies are followed in the treatment of historic resources,
we strongly recommend continuance of the philosophy that most deci-
sions should be made by those who are closest to the problems. 15

Incited in memorandum, Secretary Cecil D. Andrus to Assistant Secre-

tary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, July 26, 1977, Rogers files.

15Memorandum, Acting Director Ira J. Hutchison, NPS, to Assistant

 °9
For fiscal 1978, OAHP developed six "national objectives" and asked

the SHPOs to spend at least half their acquisition and development grants

on projects meeting one or more of them. They were broad enough to place

little constraint on the states' discretion. The first objective was

revitalization of National Register districts through public/private

cooperation; last came national historic landmark preservation. Here the

Secretary's Discretionary Fund came into play, to serve the federal

interest in properties of national significance. The balance of the fund

not going to the National Trust for endangered landmarks went for "chal-

lenge grants" to special projects of demonstration value.

The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 included

specific authority for the discretionary fund and specified that the

Secretary could make direct grants from it for threatened landmarks,

demonstration projects, preservation training, and the prevention of

displacement from historic districts. Sharply reduced appropriations

in succeeding years precluded such grants, however, and the Endangered

Properties Fund arrangement with the National Trust was discontinued in

1983.

State revolving funds, the final Project Protection element, were

attempted in a few states. Absent the hoped-for dollars, the concept was

not pressed heavily.

Project- grants became subject to other special emphases and prohibi-

tions at various times. In 1977 the assistant secretary of the Interior

for program, budget, and administration questioned the propriety of grants

Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Aug. 19, 1977 (written by Rogers),
Rogers files.
 70

money going to state capitols and other state and local government

buildings.16 The Interior appropriations acts for fiscal 1979 and 1980

reflected this concern by denying funds to state and local government

buildings used for government purposes. The 1979 act also earmarked

$5,000,000 of that year's appropriation for the preservation of ships

and other historic maritime resources.

SHPOs voiced displeasure with these legislative directions. While

some objected to the restriction on funding government buildings, more

expressed concern about the special provision for maritime preservation.

This earmarking reduced the amount available for general apportionment,

favored an aspect of preservation unimportant in many states, and departed

from the concept that the states should set the priorities.^

After signing a bill establishing San Antonio Missions National

Historical Park in November 1978, President Carter stated his opposition

to "the use of Federal funds to rehabilitate or restore structures that

remain active parish churches." He was referring to park development at

the San Antonio missions, but his statement precipitated a review of

grants to religious properties under the National Historic Preservation

Act. As of mid-1979, 1.81 such properties had received $3,789,757 in

grants. The Solicitor's Office opined that this support was probably

constitutional, but with reservations. The grants guidelines were amended

to stipulate that benefiting churches had to be on the National Register

for reasons other than religious significance (already required by the

^Memorandum, Andrus to Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and

Parks, July 26, 1977.

^Surveys and Investigations Staff, "A Report to the Committee on

Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, on Federal Historic Pres-
ervation Efforts," February 1979, p. 30.
 71

Register criteria) and that grants could support work only in areas

accessible to the general public. A new rule In 1984 prohibited any

assistance to active churches, but by that time the issue was academic.^

It became so because acquisition and development project grants

ceased altogether in fiscal 1982. Their termination was influenced by

several factors, including deficit reduction pressures and the use of tax

incentives as an alternate means of supporting preservation.

A 1979 staff report of the House Appropriations Committee observed

that as the National Register had grown, the amount of money allocated

per project had shrunk. Noting the increased workload of the SHPOs in

reviewing federal undertakings under Section 106 and projects •proposed

for tax benefits, it suggested that grants funding might better be devoted

to the survey and planning functions that supported the state staffs.

These basic functions were less likely to proceed without grants than

were bricks-and-mortar projects.19

The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 retained

the authorization for project grants and included provisions to facilitate

their administration. The 1966 act had been interpreted to require at

least a 50 percent match from nonfederal sources for each project. Now a

state could aggregate its projects, enabling some to receive funding with

a lesser contribution. The legal recognition granted the state programs

in the 1980 Amendments also enabled the Park Service to make programmatic

18Memorandum, Carter to Secretary of the Interior, Nov. 17, 1978,

Rogers files; memorandum, Stephen D. Newman to Jerry Rogers, July 24,
1979, Ernest A. Connally office files; memorandum, Associate Solicitor
James D. Webb to Director, HCRS, Mar. 6, 1979, ibid.; personal communi-
cation from Stephen D. Newman, May 5, 1986.

19"Report on Federal Historic Preservation Efforts," pp. vii-ix.

 72

or consolidated grants to the states without the need for applications

detailing every project. At the same time, the new legislation displayed

favoritism to surveys by mandating 70 percent federal sharing in their

costs.

The 1980 Amendments continued the annual addition of $150 million

to the Historic Preservation Fund from fiscal 1982 through 1987, but

appropriations stayed close to the 1981 level of $26 million, about

$5 million of which went annually to the National Trust. Project grants

were na longer deemed viable at this funding level with the great number

of properties now eligible for them. Congress therefore halted this

aspect of the program beginning with the 1982 appropriation, after some

7,700 individual grants had been awarded.20

Among the recommendations of the Special Committee on Historic

Preservation in With Heritage So Rich was "income tax deductibility to

private owners of registered historic properties for preservation and

restoration expenditures within appropriate limitations."21 This idea of

fostering preservation though the Internal Revenue Code found no place in

the 1966 act or its amendments (where it would not have belonged in any

case), but it would have a profound effect on the national preservation

program beginning with tax legislation enacted a decade later.

Following the Special Committee's report, the tax benefit concept

next arose in 1970 within the Council on Environmental Quality task force

20±n fiscal 1983 $25 million was provided for preservation projects
under emergency jobs legislation (P.L. 98-8, Mar. 24, 1983). This special
appropriation was not repeated.

21 With Heritage So Rich (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 209.

 73

whose recommendations led to Executive Order 11593 (see page 37).

President Nixon's 1971 environmental message stemming from these recom-

mendations proposed more favorable tax treatment for commercial rehabili-

tation of historic properties, enabling their owners to derive the same,

advantages from rehabilitation as the tax ,code allowed for new construc-

tion. In 1973 Sen. J. Glenn Beall, Jr., of Maryland introduced legislation

to install such a provision in the tax code. With the effective lobbying

of Preservation Action, formed in 1974, Congress included Beall*s provi-

sion in the Tax Reform Act of 1976.22

The preservation incentives in this act were expanded and altered

in subsequent tax legislation, notably the Economic Recovery Tax Act of

1981, which offered a 25 percent investment tax credit for the substantial

rehabilitation of historic commercial, industrial, and rental residential

buildings. In general, realization of these tax benefits required Park

Service certification (1) that the structure to be rehabilitated was

listed individually in the National Register or contributed to the signif-

icance of a historic district in or eligible for the Register and (2) that

the rehabilitation work was consistent with the historic character of the

structure. By 1986 the Service had approved more than 15,600 projects

with a total rehabilitation value likely to exceed $10 billion.

The preservation tax incentives had several consequences beyond

these impressive figures, some of which have been alluded to previously.

Among them:

° The rate of National Register nominations increased as property

owners sought to become eligible for the benefits. This increase and the

22
S . 2347, 93rd Congress, Aug. 3, 1973; P.L. 94-455, Sec. 2124,
Oct. 4, 1976.
 74

certification requirements heightened the workload of Park Service staff

and state staffs, which also became involved in the certification process.

° The need to certify numerous rehabilitation projects planned and

executed by parties often inexperienced in preservation work greatly

stimulated the development, dissemination, and application of standards,

guidelines, and supplementary technical information. The Service condi-

tioned project certification directly on compliance with "The Secretary

of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," which encouraged com-

patible uses, retention of original character and materials, care in

surface cleaning, protection of affected archeological resources; and

harmonious and reversible contemporary additions. Information was shared

both ways: experience with numerous projects revealed common errors and

new solutions to problems that the Service could then publicize in bulle-

tins called "Interpreting the Standards" and "Preservation Tech Notes."

The tax incentive program won one of the first Presidential Awards for

Design Excellence in 1985 for the system by which the high quality of

rehabilitation it fostered was achieved.

° The increased workload necessitated and the standards enabled

greater program decentralization to the state preservation offices, which

were closest to the project planners and project areas and thus best able

to advise and assist with certification.

0
Preservation became very much a part of the economic development

mainstream. Developers, most often at odds with preservationists in

former years, now became leading players in the business. Preservation

by developers necessarily focused on properties that could be made to

generate commercial revenue. As a result some classes of property, such

as owner-occupied residences and archeological sites, did not benefit from

 75

the tax provisions, while some monumental buildings that might better

have been preserved or restored for public purposes underwent commercial

rehabilitation.23
0
The disincentives for demolition of National Register buildings In

the 1976 tax act stimulated adoption of the owner objection provision in

the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 (see pages 46-

50). This made Register listing (although not eligibility) officially

subject to a non-professional consideration and complicated the nomination

process.

Envisioned as a supplement to the acquisition and development

project grants, the tax benefits became a justification for ending them

and an argument for ending the survey and planning grants to the states

as well. Beginning with its fiscal 1982 budget, the Reagan administration

requested no Historic Preservation Fund appropriations to the states.

Congress declined to "zero out" the grants program but, as noted, halted

project grants and retained a much lower appropriation level for survey

and planning grants only.

Not surprisingly, SHPOs protested the reduced funding and the

administration's efforts to end the grants program altogether. They

argued, correctly, that the tax benefits were no help to non-revenue-

producing properties. They also contended that they should be compensated

for the staff work they did in support of the national program: nominating

properties to the National Register, reviewing and commenting on federal

agency undertakings under Section 106, reviewing and commenting on

rehabilitation projects for federal tax benefits. "Although the funding

23
Interview with Ernest A. Connally, Apr. 21, 1986.
 76

allocated to this program has decreased considerably from what was allo-

cated in the late 1970s, the federal government, i.e., the National

Park Service, has increased the requirements and demands on the states

dramatically beyond what we coped with in the late 1970s," the Kansas

SHPO complained to Rep. John F. Seiberling. "There seems to be some per-

verse logic at work that as the funding drops the demands on the states

must increase."2^

The administration took the position that grants had been justified

to get the state historic, preservation offices and programs going, but

because preservation most benefited the states and localities, they

should now be willing to continue these programs without direct financial

aid. From this perspective, the states were essentially serving them-

selves in nominating properties to the Register and reviewing federal

undertakings and tax act projects within their jurisdictions. An April

1986 letter to the governor of Virginia summarized this position:

Although there is no question that the historic preservation program

in Virginia and other States is worthwhile, the Administration
believes that Historic Preservation Fund grants to the States are
no longer critical to ensure that preservation activities continue.
Over the past 19 years, the Federal Government has committed over
$415 million in grants..,., plus several million dollars in technical
support, to help establish a network of State preservation programs.
These State programs now function effectively and should be able to
continue to do so with other than Federal assistance. It is the
proper responsibility of individual States and Federal agencies to
define their program interests and responsibilities, identify their
resource needs and carry out their programs. The variety of State
activities, including survey and evaluation of resources, nomination
of properties to the National Register, interpretive and educational
programs, and rehabilitation of deteriorating neighborhoods and com-
mercial areas, clearly have a purpose and value beyond fulfillment
of federally mandated responsibilities. Therefore, the cost of State
programs should be borne by the States. The tax incentives provided
under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 for preserving commercial

24
Letter, Joseph W. Snell to Seiberling, Oct. 22, 1985, copy in
History Division.
 77

properties are sufficient Federal support for historic preservation

development work and properly define the financial assistance role of
the Federal Government In historic preservation....25

Accustomed to federal aid, state program participants were unlikely

to accept this argument. Most surely realized, however, that no adminis-

tration would favor substantial grants—nor would Congress vote more than

token appropriations—so long as deficit reduction remained a paramount

national objective. For better or for worse, it would fall to the states

and localities to weigh the social and economic benefits they derived

from preservation and decide whether and to what extent they wished to'

offset the decrease and possible disappearance of federal money. Success

in obtaining state and local funding would come to those best able to

portray the benefits of preservation at these levels.

In a 1986 article prepared for The Public Historian, Jerry Rogers

suggested one approach that preservationists might take in lobbying their

state legislatures:

Perhaps the most overlooked contribution of the tax incentive

program is its positive effect upon State and local revenues.
Rehabilitation is labor-intensive. Money going home in workers'
paychecks gets turned over again in the local economy for food,
clothing, and shelter, rather than sent to distant cities or foreign
lands for construction materials. Rehabilitated properties often
climb to high assessed values from previously low or even negative
values. State and local coffers benefit from increased income
taxes, sales taxes, and real estate taxes. One study indicated that
the State of New York gained over $9 million in annual revenue from
the rehabilitation tax incentives. If this is accurate, New York
State could spend five or six million dollars per annum on its own
State Historic Preservation Office and still realize an excellent
profit. One can only wonder why so little attention has been
devoted to this opportunity by the constituencies of State and local
preservation programs.26

25Letter, Acting Assistant Secretary Susan Reece to Gov. Gerald L.

Baliles, Apr. 7, 1986, Preservation Assistance Division files.

26"Xhe National Register as a Fulcrum for Historic Preservation in

America,*' June 1986 draft, copy in History Division.
 78

The tax incentives, of course, were also vulnerable to termination.

They represented a substantial federal "tax expenditure" in terms of

foregone revenues, and they were a complication and loophole in the tax

code—both negatives when deficit reduction and tax simplification vied

for top billing on the nation's domestic policy agenda. Although the

Reagan administration favored the tax incentives, the tax reform package

it advanced in 1985 sacrificed them to the goal of simplification.

Preservationists lobbied successfully to retain somewhat reduced benefits

in the tax reform bill approved by a House-Senate conference committee

and embraced by the administration in August 1986. The survival of

preservation incentives in the new tax legislation was clear evidence of

their bipartisan popularity.

 PROTECTING PROPERTIES

Among the most frequently cited rationales for passage of the

National Historic Preservation Act was the destruction of historic

resources wrought by urban renewal, highway construction, water impound-

ments, and other projects reshaping the landscape in the postwar period.

A major purpose of identifying and registering historic properties was

to enable them to be considered by federal agencies in their project

planning.

The requirement for such consideration was specified in Section 106

of the 1966 act:

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction

over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any
State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency
having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the
approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking
or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take
into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included in the National
Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under title II
of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such
undertaking.

The act established the Advisory Council with 17 members: the sec-

retaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and

Treasury; the attorney general; the administrator of the General Services

Administration; the chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preserva-

tion; and 10 persons appointed by the President from outside the federal

government. Amendments to the act subsequently enlarged and altered the

Council's membership. Its current composition, specified in the 1980

amendments, may be seen in the amended version of the act reproduced in

79
 80

the appendix.

The language of Section 106 was amended once, in 1976, to direct

agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties

eligible for the National Register as well as those actually listed (see

page 39). But the responsibility and authority granted by the provision

remained quite limited.

In the first place, Section 106 applied only to federal undertakings.

It had no bearing on actions by state and local governments and private

organizations and individuals that were not supported or approved by the

federal government. Broader application would have gone contrary to the

American federal system, which reserves control over other-than-federal

land use to the states and their political subdivisions. It was also

interpreted to apply only where federal involvement in an undertaking was

subject to agency discretion. When an agency disbursed block grants to

state or local governments for a range of functions and had no role in

deciding the particular projects or activities to be carried out with

this aid, for example, the projects could proceed without reference to

Section 106.

In the second place, agencies needed only to "take into account" the

effects of their undertakings on historic properties. They did not have

to refrain from damaging or destroying them. The absence of any positive

requirement for protection contrasted with Section 4(f) of the Department

of Transportation Act—approved the same day as the National Historic

Preservation Act—which forbade the Secretary of Transportation from

approving "any program or project which requires the use of any land from

a...historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative

...and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize

 81

harm to such...historic site resulting from such use."*

In the third place, the Advisory Council was to be afforded only "a

reasonable opportunity to comment" on agency undertakings. It had ho

authority to enjoin or regulate them.

On its face, then, this key protective provision of the 1966 act

appeared bootless, neither encouraging agencies to preserve or spare

historic properties nor requiring more than perfunctory procedural com-

pliance. When its content was viewed in its context, however, its thrust

was clear. The preamble to the act was a positive call for preservation.

The duties of the Advisory Council specified in the act indicated that

the Council was expected to play an advocacy role for preservation. The

Senate committee report on the version of the bill subsequently passed by

the Senate said of Section 106, "It is intended to insure that the Fed-

eral agencies will not work at cross purposes with the goals of historic

preservation and provides for a meaningful review of Federal or federally

assisted projects...."2 Thus, although the provision did not mandate

preservation, it sought to insure that agencies would no longer act with

disregard for this national objective.

Section 106 would clearly not be self-enforcing. Compliance would

require the awareness and cooperation of all federal agencies whose

!p.L. 89-670, Oct. 15, 1966.

2s. Rept. 1363, 89th Congress, July 7, 1966, p. 7. The Senate-passed

bill specified that no federal funds could be spent on a project affecting
a National Register property until 60 days after the responsible agency
had reported to the Advisory Council. The House amended the bill to
substitute "a reasonable opportunity to comment" for the 60-day period,
change "project" to "undertaking," and include federal licensing within
the scope of Section 106.
 82

activities had the potential to affect historic sites, and It would

require establishment of a procedural mechanism to handle a potentially

enormous volume of agency requests for comment.

The National Park Service took immediate steps to involve other

agencies in its planning to implement the 1966 act. A representative of

the Federal Highway Administration attended the first meeting of Bob

Utley's task force on November 22. This agency, attached to the new

Department of Transportation, needed to be informed of historic sites so

that it could consider them under Section 4(f) of the DOT act as well as

Section 106. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was another

early collaborator, represented by Dwight F. Rettie, director of its

Division of Land Development. Rettie, who later moved to the Park

Service, served with notable influence as the HUD secretary's initial

designee on the Advisory Council.

Following consultation with the Park Service, the National Trust,

and other interested parties, the White House announced the 10 citizen

appointments to the Council on March 1, 1967. Among them were S. K.

Stevens, director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,

appointed chairman; Albert Rains, who had chaired the Special Committee

on Historic Preservation that produced With Heritage So Rich; Lawrence

Halperin, San Francisco landscape architect; Christopher Tunnard, pro-

fessor of city planning at Yale; Russell W. Fridley, director of the

Minnesota Historical Society; and Elizabeth Stevenson Ives, a North

Carolina preservationist and sister of Adlai E. Stevenson. The Council

met twice that year but considered no Section 106 cases.

It was immediately apparent that case review and comment would be

largely a staff function. A body assembling a few times a year was ill
 83

suited to consider any substantial number of cases in a timely fashion.

During 1967 Executive Secretary Bob Garvey and OAHP staff handled consul-

tations on 16 agency undertakings whose effects on Register properties

were minimal or readily mitigated. Knowing the importance of precedent,

Garvey wanted to establish an early record of successful staff-level

negotiation and reserve involvement of the Council itself for cases

representing major issues that also appeared capable of satisfactory

resolution.

The Council considered the first such case at its third meeting,

in February 1968. The agency was the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare; its undertaking was approval of a grant requested by George-

town University for construction of a heating plant in the Georgetown

Historic District of Washington, D.C., a national historic landmark. The

Council commented that the location originally proposed for the plant

would have had an adverse effect on the district but that the alternate

location chosen since was acceptable.3

That May the Council met in Albany, New York, on the second case

brought before it. The Atomic Energy Commission proposed to license a

nuclear generating plant near Saratoga . National Historical Park, a

National Park System area in the National Register. Although the plant

would have no physical impact on the historic battlefield, the Council

found that it would cause an adverse visual impact,and recommended denial

of the license.^ Faced with this and other opposition, the Niagara

Mohawk Power Corporation subsequently decided to build elsewhere.

^Advisory Council minutes, National Register files.

4
Ibid.
 84

The most Important early case to reach the Council concerned the

landmark Vleux Carre Historic District in New Orleans. The Federal High-

way Administration had approved initial plans for a riverfront expressway

through the district in January 1966, nine months before enactment of the

National Historic Preservation Act. More detailed planning and funding

decisions remained to be made, however, causing the Council to assert

jurisdiction over the undertaking. Meeting on the case in early 1969, it

found that the expressway would have a substantial adverse effect on the

historic character of the district. That summer Secretary of Transporta-

tion John A. Volpe decided not to approve funds for the project, citing

its effect on the district and the excessive cost of depressing the road

to mitigate the adversity.5

The Vieux Carre expressway case set the precedent for Council

involvement even when an undertaking might have originated before the

1966 act, as long as the responsible agency retained discretion in pro-

ceeding with it, and it addressed a major project in a prominent locale.

"That was the first big success of the Advisory Council...," Ernest

Connally said later. "Volpe made that courageous decision, and that

did more to set the Council on the right track and to show that it had

influence and integrity than anything."6

There were failures too, of course. A developer obtained a federally

guaranteed loan for a 12-story apartment building in the landmark Savannah

Historic District notwithstanding the Council's objections. The Council

^Digest of Cases, 1967-1973 (Washington: Advisory Council on Histo-

ric Preservation, 1973).

°Connally interview by Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., July 28, 1981, tran-

script pp. 132, 136, Eastern National Park and Monument Association.
 85

failed to thwart an Intrusive observation tower adjoining Gettysburg

National Military Park, constructed after the Park Service granted

access to It over park land to Induce Its builder to abandon an even more

prominent spot. During the first six years more than 400 undertakings

underwent staff review, but many more that should have been referred

for consideration were not.'

Only 26 of these went to the Council itself. The remainder were

handled by OAHP staff acting on behalf of the Council, in accordance with

procedures published with the first publication of the National Register

in the February 25, 1969, Federal Register. The introduction to the

procedures made clear that the Council expected to comment "in only the

most complex situations." The procedures thus placed the major burden of

consultation with agencies on OAHP, involving the state liaison officers

in the process as well.

First, agencies were asked to consult the National Register to see

whether any listed properties might be affected by their undertakings.

They were then to apply the "criteria for effect," which defined "effect"

as occurring "when any condition of the undertaking creates a change in

the quality of the historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural

character that qualified the property...for listing in the National Regis-

ter." Adverse effect could result from "(a) Destruction or alteration of

all or part of a property; (b) Isolation from or alteration of its sur-

rounding environment; (c) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric

elements that are out of character with the property and its setting. "8

7Digest of Cases.

^••protection of Properties in. the National Register of Historic

Places," Federal Register, Feb. 25, 1969, p. 2582.
 86

If an agency determined that there was no effect, it could proceed

with the undertaking. If It found an effect, It was to consult with

OAHP and the SLO to decide whether the effect was adverse. If it was

not, the undertaking could proceed. If It was, the parties were to

"select and agree upon a prudent and feasible alternative to remove the

adverse effect," enabling the undertaking to proceed. The Council was

to be notified and given an opportunity to comment only if the parties

could not agree upon such an alternative. It retained discretion over

whether it would in fact comment. It also announced its intention "to

exert its advisory prerogatives by commenting to agencies in certain

special situations even though written notice of effect has not been

received."^

The slow Initial progress of National Register nominations hampered

the effectiveness of the Advisory Council and Section 106. Agencies

could ignore the great mass of properties that were clearly eligible

for the Register but had not yet been listed. As noted previously (pages

37-39), Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971, and the 1976 amendments to

the National Historic Preservation Act included provisions to plug this

protection gap by requiring agencies to Identify and nominate apparently

eligible properties under their jurisdictions and giving those found

eligible the same review consideration as listed properties.

Executive Order li'593 also elaborated on federal agency responsi-

bilities for preservation in much more explicit and positive terms than

had the 1966 act. Section 1 was a strong policy statement:

The Federal Government shall provide leadership in preserving,

restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment

9
Ibid.
 87

of the Nation. Agencies of the executive branch...shall (1) admin-

ister the cultural properties under their control in a spirit of
stewardship and trusteeship for future generations, (2) initiate
measures necessary to direct their policies, plans and programs
in such a way that federally owned sites, structures, and objects
of historical, architectural or archaeological significance are
preserved, restored and maintained for the inspiration and benefit
of the people, and (3) in consultation with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation..., institute procedures to assure that Federal
plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of
non-federally owned sites, structures and objects of historical,
architectural or archaeological significance.

Section 3 of the executive order set forth responsibilities of the

Secretary of the Interior (in effect, the Park Service). He was to

assist agencies with their property surveys and nominations; expedite

action on nominations of properties proposed for sale, transfer, demoli-

tion, * or substantial alteration; and develop and disseminate to agencies

"information concerning professional methods and techniques for preserv-

ing, improving, restoring and maintaining historic' properties," among

other duties.

The executive order was, largely superseded by the 1980 amendments

to the National Historic Preservation Act. A new Section 110 of the act

specified federal agency responsibilities for identifying and nominating

properties to the National Register, using available historic buildings,

carrying out their programs in accordance with the purposes of the act,

and "to the maximum extent possible, undertaking] such planning and

actions as may be necessary to minimize harm" to national historic

landmarks. Other new provisions included one enabling agencies to

lease out historic properties under their jurisdictions for purposes

consistent with their preservation and retain the proceeds to defray the

costs of their maintenance. By 1986 the Park Service had used this

authority to lease out 10 structures whose lessees made improvements

 88

valued at some $4.4 million.

The executive order and 1980 amendments further stimulated the

Service's development and issuance of preservation standards, guidelines,

and technical information. The amendments directed the Secretary of the

Interior to promulgate guidelines for agency responsibilities under

Section 110 and professional standards for the preservation of historic

properties in federal ownership. Incorporating material developed, pre-

viously in other contexts, the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards

and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation" was published

in the Federal Register on September 29, 1983, and "Guidelines; for

Historic and Archeological Resource Management: Federal Agency Responsi-

bililities Under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act"

was published in draft form on March 10, 1986.

Expanding on its initial procedures, the Advisory Council published

progressively more detailed procedures in the February 28, 1973, and

January 25, 1974, issues of the Federal Register. The 1974 version was

given added force by being formalized as regulations. It addressed

agency compliance with pertinent portions of Executive Order 11593, and

it added two more criteria of adverse effect: "(d) Transfer or sale of a

federally owned property without adequate conditions or restrictions

regarding preservation, maintenance, or use; and (e) Neglect of a property

resulting in its deterioration or destruction."

As noted in the first chapter, the 1976 amendments to the National

Historic Preservation Act freed the Advisory Council from reliance on

National Park Service staff. Its executive director would no longer be

the Service director or his designee but would be appointed by the Council

chairman. Until this emancipation Bob Garvey had been required to serve
 89

two masters: his superiors in the Service and Interior Department and

the Council chairman appointed by the President. This posed a potential

for conflict when cases Involving Service and Interior undertakings came

before the Council. Director Ronald Walker delegated the executive

directorship to Garvey after the Gettysburg tower case spotlighted this

problem, but Garvey remained a Service employee. Aside from the conflict

of interest issue, he found that his voice was not adequately heard in

pleading the Council's budget through Service and Interior channels. To

the surprise of his superiors, he and Council chairman''Clement M. Silvestro

successfully engineered independence in 1976.^0

Because the Advisory Council was no longer staffed by the Park

Service thereafter, the Council's activities beyond that date warrant

only brief mention here. Its 1974 regulations were superseded in 1979

by still more refined procedures that covered, among other matters,

programmatic memorandums of agreement with agencies—a mechanism for

consolidating Section 106 compliance on a range of similar agency under-

takings. A 1986 report prepared by the Service identified "a consistent

trend in the development of Council regulations away from an advisory

role, toward a prescriptive, regulatory role"**—a trend that occasioned

some opposition from federal agencies under the Reagan administration.

The dissemination and use of preservation standards and new Council

regulations being readied in 1986 were expected to reduce burdensome

aspects of the compliance process. "The Council's-commenting process has

been restructured to relate the degree of Council involvement to the

10
Telephone interview with Garvey, July 22, 1986.

l^The Secretary of the Interior's 20th Anniversary Report on the

National Historic Preservation Act, 1986, p. 92.
 90

complexity of each case and the extent of conflict,"*the Council reported

of its proposed regulations. "Agencies are encouraged to consult directly

with the State Historic Preservation Officer in routine cases to develop

and sign a Memorandum of Agreement, which the Council then reviews." On

the other hand, the regulations prescribed greater Council involvement

where national historic landmarks were affected, in line with language in

the 1980 amendments (see page 44).12

In a 1975 report the Council declared that, relative to property

identification and registration, "the current protective system in the

national historic preservation program is the least satisfactory part of

the program." Many federal undertakings affecting historic properties

had proceeded without reference to Section 106. Other undertakings were

brought to the Council's attention too late for its comments to have

any effect. Lacking veto or approval power, the Council was severely

limited in its ability to influence agency decisions. Even so, it

reported that "[a] broad administrative interpretation of the statutory

term 'undertaking,' a number of favorable court decisions, and an increas-

ing awareness of Federal preservation responsibilities have contributed

to a continually improving record of effectiveness for the Section 106

review process."1-' As preservation came more and more into the mainstream

in succeeding years, rising to nigh-universal attention, the kind of

12Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Report to the President

and the Congress of the United States, 1985 (Washington: Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, 1986), p. 8.

^Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The National Historic

.Preservation Program Today (Washington: Government Printing Office,
1976), pp. 37-39.
 91

heedless destruction that had prompted the National Historic Preservation

Act became less and less common.

 AN APPRAISAL

A law like the National Historic Preservation Act Is only as good as

its execution. It heeds the bureaucracy to put it Into effect and the

additional congressional commitment of appropriations to achieve Its

purposes. Adequate appropriations and effective implementation are un-

likely to occur without' the continuing involvement of the constituency

behind the law and force'iful administrative leadership.

Execution of the 1966 act and its amendments has not been without

difficulty and occasional default. The authorities and directives in the

law suggested a larger commitment than Congress and successive adminis-

trations have been willing to meet. As has been seen and as the funding

history table' in the appendix graphically summarizes, grants-in-aid

appropriations in most years have been small fractions of the amounts

authorized. Perceptions of inadequate National Park Service and Interior

Department support for the preservation program and recent administration

efforts to end grants altogether have fueled complaints and calls for

relocation of the program. On occasion, Federal agencies have violated

Section 106 with impunity. The 1980 amendments commanded the Secretary

of the Interior, with great specificity, to establish and maintain a

program of insured loans for preserving National Register properties; but

Congress appropriated no money for this program and it has never been

implemented*

Many other trials and shortcomings relative to execution of the act

could be cited. To conclude with such a litany, however, would grossly

92
 93

misrepresent the "big picture" of what the act has wrought. That picture

is aptly summarized in the preface of The Secretary of the Interior's 20th

Anniversary Report on the National Historic Preservation Act;

[M]uch of what was sought through enactment of the National Historic

Preservation Act has been accomplished. These accomplishments are
objective and concrete; even the casual observer is aware of the up-
. • grading and rehabilitation of historic properties and the broadening
of citizen interest in historic preservation that has taken place
I throughout the United States. With few exceptions, Federal agencies
now thoughtfully consider cultural resource values. Guidelines,
standards, and technical materials defining good preservation prac-
tice are generally available. As a people, the quality of our lives
, has benefitted from historic preservation, through appreciation of
our history, through the beautification of our cities and rural
landscapes, and through the creation of jobs,, and the economic re-
vitalization of chronically impoverished areas. The verdict is in;
. historic preservation is a winning proposition.*

Only those who fail to place preservation in,historical perspective

and appreciate how far it has come in the last , 20 years would disagree.

!p. 3.
/'APPENDIX
 THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Public Law 89-665

89th C o n g r e s s , S. 3 0 3 5
O c t o b e r 15, 1966

3ln 2lct
80 STAT. 915
To establish a program for the preservation of additional historic properties
throughout the Nation, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, Historio prop-
The Congress finds and declares— erties.
(a) that the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded Preservation
upon and reflected in its historic past; program e s -
(b) that the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation tablished.
should be preserved as a living part of our community life and
development in order to give a sense of orientation to the Ameri-
can people;
(c) that, in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban cen-
ters, highways, and residential, commercial, and industrial devel-
opments, the present governmental and nongovernmental historic
preservation programs and activities are inadequate to insure
future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy
the rich heritage of our Nation; and
(d) that, although the major burdens of historic preservation
have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies
and individuals, and both should continue to play a vital role, it is
nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Govern-
ment to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities,
to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals
undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State
and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Pres-
ervation in the United States to expand and accelerate their his-
toric preservation programs and activities.
i
TITLE I
SEC. 101. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized— Buildings and
(11 to expand and maintain a national register of districts, sites, objects, e t c .
buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, Expansion and
architecture, archeology, and culture, hereinafter referred to as maintenance of
the National Register, and to grant funds to States for the pur- National Regis-
ter.
pose of preparing comprehensive statewide historic surveys and
plans, in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary,
for the preservation, acquisition, and development of such prop-
erties ;
(2) to establish a program of matching grants-in-aid to States Grants to
for projects having as their purpose the preservation for public states.
benefit of properties that are significant in American history,
architecture, archeology, and culture; and
(3) to establish a program of matching grant-in-aid to the National Trust
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, for Historic
chartered by act of Congress approved October 26,1949 (63 Stat. Preservation.
927), as amended, for the purpose of carrying out the responsibil- 16 USC 468-
ities of the National Trust. 468d.
(b) As used in this Act—
(1) The term "State" includes, in addition to the several States "State.
of the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) The term "project" means programs of State and local govern- "Project."
ments and other public bodies and.private organizations and indi-
viduals for the acquisition of title or interests in, and for the develop-

97
 Pub. Law 8 9 - 6 6 5 - 2 - October 15, 1966
80"STAT.'916
ment of, any district, site, building, structure, or.object that is signifi-
cant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture, or
property used in connection therewith,-and for its development in order
to assure the preservation for public benefit of any such historical
"properties.
"Hi3toric-pre- (3) The term "historic preservation" includes theprotection, reha-
.servation." .bilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture,
^archeology, or culture.
'.'Secretary.'" (4) The term "Secretary" meansithe Secretary of the.Iriterior.
'Conditions for SEC. 102. (a) No grant may. be made under thisAct—
•grants. (1) unless application theref ords submitted to the Secretary in
accordance with regulations .and"procedures-prescribed.by him;
: (?) unless the application Is. in-accordance-.with the compre-
hensive statewide historic preservation, plan which h a s been, ap-
proved by t h e Secretary after'considering its:relationship to the
comprehensive .statewide outdoor recreation plan prepared pur-
suant to the Land.and Water Conservation Eund Act of 1965. (78
16:USC 4601^4 Stat. 897);
note. (3) formore than'50 per centum of the total cost-involved, as
determined by the Secretary and his determination shall be final;
(4) unless the grantee has.agreed to make such reports, in such
form and containing such'ihformationras the "Secretary may from
time to time require;
( 5 ) u n l e s s the grantee has agreed to assume,:after. completion
of the project, the total costof the:continuedmaiiitenance,repair,
and administration of the property in a manner satisfactory'to
the Secretary ;.and
(6) until the grantee has complied with such further terms.arid
conditions as the '"Secretary may "deem necessary or .advisable.
•Waiver. ! (b) The Secretary may in his discretion waive therrequirements.df
subsection'(a), paragraphs (2) and (5) of.this section for.any.grant
under this Act to the National.Trust for Historic Preservation in' the
United States, in which case a grant t o t h e National". Trust may in-
clude funds for the maintenance, repair, and administration o r the
property in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.
(cVNo State.shall be permitted to utilize the value of real property
obtained "before the .date of approval Of this Act "in "meeting the
remaining cost o f a. project forr.which.a grant is made under this'Act.
•Apportionment. SEC. .103. (a) "The amounts appropriated and made"available for
grants.to: the States for comprehensive statewide historic surveysand
plans under this Act shall be apportioned .among the States by 'the
• Secretary on the basis of needs as determined by him: Provided, how-
-Limitation. ever, T h a t the amount granted to any one State shall-net-exceed. 50
per.centum of the total cost of the comprehensive statewide:hist0fic
.survey andplan. for that State, as determined by the Secretary.
'(b) The amounts appropriated and made available, for grants to
the States for projects under this Act for each fiscal year" shall be
apportioned among the States by t h e Secretary in accordance with
needs.as disClosedin approved statewide historic preservation plans.
The Secretary shallnotify each.State of its apportionment, arid the
amounts thereof shall be available'thereafter for payment to such
State forprojects in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Any
(..amount ofiany.apportionment t h a t has not been p a i d or obligated by
the Secretary during thefiscal year in which such notification is given,
:and for two fiscal .years thereafter, shall be reapportioned by the
Secretary in r accordance:with this subsection.

98
O c t o b e r 1 5 , 1.966 • - 3 - P u b . . L a w 89^-665
BO. STAT.. 917
SEC. 104.. (a) No grant may be made'by the Secretary for or on Coordination:
account of. any survey or project under this A c t with, respect to which with other-Fed--
financial assistance has- beenrgiven- or :promised;under.rany- other-Fed;- eral.programs..
eral program: or activity; .and no financial"assistance:-may b e given,
under any other Eederalprogram. or. activity, for oroniaccount'of any
survey or project with respect to which' assistance hasrbeemgiven or
promisedtunder this'Act;':
(b) Imorder to assure consistencyin. policies and.actions underthis
Act withuother related Federal programs and activities; and to: assure
coordination, of the- planning acquisition, and "development assistance
to. States .under this Act with other related Federal programs and
activities,the President may issue such regulations with respect thereto,
as he deems desirable, and such assistance may be provided only in
accordance with.such regulations.
SEC: 105: Thebeneficiaryof assistance underthis Act shall keep such Records..
records as the Secretary shall'prescribe,, including records which, fully
disclose the-disposition by the beneficiary-of'the proceeds of such
assistance,, the-total cost of t h e project, or undertaking in. connection
with which.suchiassistance'is'given orusedi.and.the amount and:nature=
of.that portion, of - the cost of the project or undertaking; supplied: by
other sources, and:.such other records as will "facilitate an. effective
audit.
SEC.106. Tliebead.'of any Federal, agency having direct or indirect
jurisdiction- over a proposed Federal, or federally assisted undertak-
ing imany State andd i e head of any Federal'department or independ-
ent agency having, authority to license any undertaking shall, prior
to the approval orlthe expenditure of any Federal funds.on the.under-
taking or prior to the.issuance of. any license,-as the.case may be, take
into account the effect of the undertaking on any district,,site, build-
ing, structure, or object that is included in the National. Register. The
head: of; any- such. Federal agency shall afford:the Advisory Council on.
Historic Preservationrestablished under title I I of this Act a reasona-
ble opportunityto- comment with regard to. such undertaking.
SEC. 107. Nothing.in this.Act shall: be construed, to be applicable to Exemptions.
the White House a n d i t s grounds,.the Supreme Court building and its-
grounds, or the United: States Capitol and its related, buildings and
grounds..
SEC. 108. There are authorized to be appropriated, not to exceed Appropriation.
$2,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this.Act,for the fiscal year
1967, and not more than $10,000;000 for each, of the three succeeding
fiscal years. Such appropriations shall be available for the financial
assistance authorized by this title and. for the administrative expenses
of the Secretary in connection therewith, and. shall remain available
until expended.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. (a) There is established an Advisory Council.on Historic Advisory Council
Preservation (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") which shall on Historio
be composed, of seventeen members as follows:. Preservation,
(1) The Secretary of the Interior. membership.,
(2); The Secretary of Housing and. Urban Development.
(3) The Secretary of Commerce..
(4) The Administrator of the General Services Administration.
'. (5)' The Secretary of the Treasury.
1
(6) The Attorney General.
(7) The Chairman, of the National Trust for Historic Preser-
vation..

99
 80 STAT. 918
Pub. Law 8 9 - 6 6 5 - 4 - October 15, 1966
(8) Ten appointed by the President from outside the Federal
Government. In making these appointments, the President shall
give due consideration to the selection of officers of State and local
governments and individuals who are significantly interested and
experienced in the matters to be considered by the Council.
(b) Each member of the Council specified in paragraphs (1)
through (6) of subsection (a) may designate another officer of his
department or agency to serve on the Council in his stead.
Terms of (c) Each member of the Council appointed under paragraph (8)
office. of subsection (a) shall serve for a term.of five years from the expira-
tion of his predecessor's term; except that the members first appointed
under that paragraph shall serve for terms of from one to five years,
as designated by the President at the time of appointment, in such
manner as to insure t h a t the terms of not less than one nor more than
two of them will expire in any one year.
(d) A vacancy in the Council shall not affect its powers, but shall
be filled in'the same manner as the original appointment (and for the
balance of the unexpired term).
Chairman, (e) The Chairman of the Council shall be designated by the Presi-
selection. dent
(f) Eight members of the Council shall constitute a quorum.
Duties. SEC. 202. (a) The Council shall—
(1) advise the President and the Congress on matters relat-
ing to historic preservation; recommend measures to coordinate
activities of Federal, State, and local agencies and private institu-
tions and individuals relating to historic preservation; and ad-
vise on the dissemination of information pertaining to such activi-
ties;
(2) encourage, iff cooperation with the National Trust for His-
toric Preservation and appropriate private agencies, public in-
terest and participation in historic preservation;
(3) recommend the conduct of studies in such areas as the ade-
quacy of legislative and administrative statutes and regulations
pertaining to historic preservation activities of State and local
governments and the effects of tax policies at all levels of govern-
ment on historic preservation;
(4) advise as to guidelines for the assistance of State and local
governments in drafting legislation relating to historic preserva-
tion; and
(5) encourage, in cooperation with appropriate public and pri-
vate agencies and institutions, training and education in the field
of historic preservation.
Report to (b) The Council shall submit annually a comprehensive report of
President and its activities and the results of its studies to the President and the Con-
Congress. ' gress and shall from time to time submit such additional and special
reports as it deems advisable. Each report shall propose such legis-
lative enactments and other actions as, in the judgment of the Council,
are necessary and appropriate to carry out its recommendations.
Other Federal SEC. 203. The Council is authorized to secure directly from -any
agencies, co- department, bureau, agency,_ board, commission, office, independent es-
operation. tablishment or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Federal
Government information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the
purpose of this title; and eachsuch department, bureau, agency, board,
commission, office, independent establishment or instrumentality'is au-
thorized to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and sta-
tistics to the extent permitted by law and within available funds.
Compensation. SEC. 204. The members of the Council specified in paragraphs (1)
through (7) of section 201(a) shall serve without additional compen-

100
October 15, 1966 - 5 - P u b . Law 8 9 - 6 6 5
80 STAT. 'J19
.sation. The members of the Council appointed under paragraph (8)
of section 201(a) shall receive $100 per diem when engaged in the per-
formance of the duties of the Council. All members of the Council
shall receive reimbursement for necessary traveling and subsistence
expenses incurred by them in the performance of the duties of the
Council.
SEC. 205. (al The Director of the National P a r k Service or his Executive
designee shall be the Executive Director of the Council. Financial Director.
and administrative services (including those related to budgeting,
accounting, financial reporting, personnel and procurement) shall be
provided the Council by the Department of the Interior, for which
payments shall be made in advance, or by reimbursement, from funds
of the Council in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Chair-
man of the Council and the Secretary of t h e l n t e r i o r : Provided, T h a t
the regulations of the Department of the Interior for the collection
of indebtedness of personnel resulting from erroneous payments (5
U.S.C. 46e) shall apply to the collection of erroneous payments made 68 Stat. 483.
to or on behalf of a Council employee, and regulations of said Secre-
tary for the administrative control of funds (31 U.S.C. 665 ( g ) ) shall
apply to appropriations of the Council: And provided further, That
the Council shall not be required to prescribe such regulations.
(b) The Council shall have power to appoint and fix the compensa- Personnel.
tion of such additional personnel as may be necessary to carry out its
duties, without regard to the provisions of the civil service laws and
the Classification Act of 1949. Ante, p. 288.
(c) The Council may also procure, without regard to the civil
service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, temporary and inter-
mittent services to the same extent as is authorized for the executive
departments by section 15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946
(5 U.S.C. 55a), but at rates not to exceed $50 per diem for individuals. 60 Stat. 810.
(d) The members of the Council specified in paragraphs (1)
through (6) of section 201(a) shall provide the Council, on a reim-
bursable basis, with such facilities and services under their jurisdic-
tion and control as may be needed by the Council to carry out its
duties, to the extent that such facilities and services are requested by
the Council and are otherwise available for that purpose. To the
extent of available appropriations, the Council may obtain, by pur-
chase, rental, donation, or otherwise, such additional property, facili-
ties, and services as may be needed to carry out its duties.
Approved October 15, 1966.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY;

HOUSE REPORT go. 1916 (Coram, on Interior & Insular, Affairs),

SENATE REPORT No. 1363 (Coram, on Interior. & Insular Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 112 (1966):
,July 11s Considered and passed Senate.
Sept. 19: Considered in House.
Oct, 10: Considered and passed House, amended.
Oct. 11: Senate concurred in House amendment.

101
 Department Of The Interior National Park S e r v i c e
OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

O F F I C E OF THE C H I E F
P T O V
^ ^ Chief, P f f l c T o f frcnrofogS^aT
Ernest A. Connolly, Chief a n d ' H i s t o r i c Preservatjon '
(Vacancy) Administrative Asst.
Hantha L. Wewerka, ; Secty. 0?te L^tr f. /fat 7

ADVISORY COUNCIL RATIONAL REGISTER

Robert R. Garvey, J r . , Exec. Secty. William J . Mortagh, Keeper

Linda E. Hard, Secty. Russell V. 'Keune, Asst. Keeper
1
Jerry L. Rogers
Josephine 0. Hearld, Secty.

F-*

o DIVISION OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE DIVISION OF ARCHE0L06Y DIVISION OF HISTORY

Vacancy, Chief John H. C o r b e t t , Chief Robert M. Utley, Chief

Vacancy, Secty. Zorro A. Bradley, Asst. Chief Juanlta Dartstead, Secty.
BarbaA Owl, Secty. '

H i s t o r i c American Buildings" Branch of Restorations Southeast Archeological Center Washington Staff Southwest Archeoloqlcal Center Branch of Park History Studies Branch of H i s t o r i c a l Surveys
£tL". ' . . . .Survey Z '~'±i':~
Henry A. Judd , Chief John H. Griffin, Chief Chester A. Thomas. Chief Roy £- Appleman, Chief Horace J . Sheely, J r . , Chief
James C. Massey, Chief
r
•*'» Hary H. Cates ' letltia'Morris- • Jacqueline 59*Abe11'
•'**• Cornelia G. Fowler Richard D. Faust John L. Cotter Leland J . Abel 11.' t i
James Askins John M. Walker'- George R. Fischer Louis R. Caywood Edwin C. Bearss George S. Cattanach, J r .
Nancy Bel nice Orvilte W\ Carroll Vacancy- Lee H. Hanson, 'Jr. Sal H e ' Harris • John W. Bond Robert G. Ferris -
Dorothy Biff fart re Thomas N. Crelltn Carolyn A. Hester Edmund J . Ladd ' Aider. C'-' Hayes Lenard £.- Brown Jack NcDermott '
Georglanna Duress Archie H. Frahzen W i l f r e d D. Logan David J . Jones Charles E. Hatch, J r . Richard E. Morris
A:- C r a i g ' l t e r r U o n Frederik C. Gjesslng Jackson H. Moore, J r . Thomas R. Jones F.' Ross Holland, J r . Charles W. Snell
H: Brown Norton Penelope Kartshorne B.1 Bruce Powell Thorns u. Mathews Benjamin Levy Vacancy
Oenys *P.' Myers A'.1 Lewis Koue Erik'K.-Reed M a r t i n T. Mayer George C. Mackenzie R. Norma Clark
John Cv. Poppellers Harry V. Martin Nan' V'. Rickey - Charmion McKusick Charles H. McCornick Helen F. Evans
Ear) H; Reed iee'H. Nelson Marlon d.'Riggs Don P.'Morris George J . Olszewski Juanlta Zbel
Joseph Petrak Paul J . 'f, Schumacher Jean HcW. Pinkjey John 0. R. P i a t t
Touporery: 2 office Charles S. Pope Richard P. Wheeler Rcland'Von S. Richert Don Rickey. J r . Temporary: 3 positions
' ^ ^ ' 51 field Norman H'. Souder Eunice T. Baker Wilbur F. Slonkosky Frank B. Sarles
Gordle Hhittington Mary Callaghan Rex L. Wilson George Svejda
Alice Ailis Joyce 0. Curtis Jon N. Young Erwin H. Thompson
Susan M. Furnari Vacancy Anna C. Toogood
Mary Ann K e l l e y ' E l s i e M. Bannon Vacancy [2}
Gertrude C. Sager Barbara M. Howard Maxine S. bresham
Lorrayne Langham pelores M. Highnote
Annie M. Sanders Mary C. Shipman
Lucy P. Wheeler

Temporary: 3 position 1 .
 FEDERAL
REGISTER
V O L U M E 34 N U M B E R 37
Tuesday, February 25, 1969 © Washington, D.C.

P A R T II

Department of the Interior

National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places

No. 37—Pt. n 1
105
2580 NOTICES
ernment to accelerate its historic preser- CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT W H E INTERIOR vation programs and activities, to give
maximum encouragement to agencies and Director, Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion, State Resources Agency, Post Office
National Park Service individuals .undertaking preservation by Box 2390, Sacramento. Calif. 95811.
private means, and to assist State and local
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC •governments and the National Trust for COLORADO
PLACES •Historic Preservation in the United States
to expand and accelerate their historic pres- President, State.Historical Society, "Colorado
Pursuant to the National Historic ervation programs and activities. State Museum, East 14th Avenue and Sher-
man-Street, Denver, Colo. 80203.
Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915; I n order to accomplish these purposes,
16 U.S.C. 470) the Advisory Council on the .National Historic Preservation Act rCONNECTICtJT
Historic Preservation and the National provided for three significant innova- Chairman,.Connecticut'Historical Conunis-
Park Service, Department of the Interior tions : An expanded National Register of . sion, 78.:Elm Street, Hartford, Conn. 06115.
have undertaken steps to implement the Historic Places, a program of grants-in- : DELAWARE
purposes of that act through (1) expan- aid for historic -preservation, and an
sion of the National Register of Historic Advisory Council on Historic Preserva- State Archivist, Archives * Building, Dover,
Places, (2) initiating a program of .Del. 19901.
tion empowered to comment upon all FLORIDA
grants-in-aid for historic preservation, undertakings licensed, assisted, or car-
and (3) adoption of procedures and cri- ried out by.th Federal Government that •Executive "Director, Florida Board of Ar-
teria for furthering the Nation's historic have a n ' effect upon properties in the chives and History..401; East "Gaines Street,
preservation program. I n addition, the National Register. Tallahassee, Fla. 32304.
role and functions of the Advisory Coun- .GEORGIA
cil on Historic Preservation have been Official-notice is hereby given to the
more clearly defined. public and government agencies of the Executive Secretary, Georgia Historical Com-
-opportunities and restrictions provided mission, 116" Mitchell Street SW- Atlanta,
It is the purpose of this notice, through by the National -Historic Preservation Ga. 30303.
publication of the following information Act. Detailed administrative procedures -HAWAII
and materials, to apprise the public, as for the .program may be found" In t h e Director, Department of Land and -Natural'
well as governmental agencies, associa- manual "Grants For Historic Preserva- Resources, State of "Hawaii, Honolulu,
tions, and all other organizations and tion: A Guide For State Participation" Hawaii "96813.
individuals interested in historic presen- (U.S. Department of the Interior, Na- 1IDAHO
tation of >the implementing actions that tional Park' Service, Washington, D.C.), Director, IdahcvHlstorfcal Society; 610 North
have been taken in order that there will which will be available for purchase from Julia Drive, Boise, Idaho 83706. ')
be a greater awareness of the means by the Superintendent of Documents, U S . HXINOIS
which properties of State and local his- Government Printing Office, Washing-
torical significance may be norninated ton, D.C. ; Director, Department of Conservatdori.tstate
for placement in the National Register, Office."Building, Springfield, HI. 62706; '••
B. Expanding the National Register
of the criteria used in evaluating the of Historic Places. The Act authorizes INDIANA
properties, and of t h e responsibilities the Secretary of t h e Interior to expand '• ••s
exercised by the Advisory Council. The and maintain a National Register of dis'- Director, Department of "Natural Resources,1
notice includes a list' of the properties State of Indiana, Indianapolis; Ind. 426041'
tricts, sites, buildings, structures.. and
presently included in the National Reg- objects significant in American history, IOWA
ister of Historic Places. Amendments and architecture, archeology, and culture.
revisions of that list will be published in Superintendent, State Historical Society; of
Previously, the National Register in- Iowa, Centennial Building,' IowaA *Glty,'
the FEDERAL REGISTER frpm time to time, cluded only nationally significant prop- Iowa .52242.
HARTHON L. BELL, erties that are historical or archeologi-
cal units of the National Park System or KANSAS I
Acting Director, National Park
Service, and Executive Direc- that have, been declared eligible for Executive Secretary, Kansas State Historical
tor, Advisory Council on His- . designation as National Historic Land- Society, U20 West. loth, Topekai* 'EAns.
toric Preservation, marks.Because they must meet exacting 66612.'
criteria of national significance, such _~ KENTUCKY
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT properties .are few in number. The Na- Coordinator of .State and Federal Activities;
I. THE NATIONAL REGISTER OR HISTORIC tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Office'.of the Governor, 'Frankfort, tKy.
PLACES AND PROCEDURES FOR REGISTRATION provides a means for States to nominate .40601.-
properties of State and local signifi- LOUISIANA •
A. Introduction. In the National His- cance for placement in the National
toric Preservation Act of, 1966, 80 Stat. Register. ; Chairman, Louisiana .Historical •Preservation
915, 16 U.S.C. 470, the Congress found and Cultural Commission, Post Office'Box
and declared: The following officials have been des- 44222; Capitol Station, Baton1 Rouge,! La.
ignated by their Governors to act as •70802.
(a) That the spirit and direction of t h e State Liaison Officers responsible for MAINE
' Nation are founded upon and reflected in State activities under the National His-
its historic past; toric "Preservation Act: DlrectorilState' Park and "Recreation, Commis-
(b) That the historical and cultural foun- sion, state Office "Building, Augusta,' Maine
dations of the Nation should be preserved STATE LIAISON OFFICERS 04330.
as a living part of our community life and MARYLAND
ALABAMA
• development in order to give a sense of
' orientation to the American people. Chairman, Alabama Historical Commission, Director; Maryland "Historical Trust; !Box
State "Department of Archives .and History, -1704,»Annapous, Md. 21401. i
(c) That, in the face of ever-increasing
extensions of urban centers, highways, and 624 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, MASSACHUSETTS
: residential, commercial, and industrial de- •Ala. 36104.
velopments, the present governmental and AT.AKWA Secretary of "the Commonwealth, Chairman,
.nongovernmental historic preservation pro- MassachusettsrHistortcal Commission, Bos-
grams and activities are inadequate to insure Chief, Parks and Recreation, Department of ton,- Mass. 02133.
future generations a genuine opportunity Natural Resources, Division of Lands, 344
.Sixth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99601. 'MICHIGAN
to> appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of
our Nation; and .ARIZONA Director, "Department of Conservation, Ste-
(d) That, although the major' burdens of vens T. Mason Building, Lansing, Mich.
historic preservation have been borne and Director, "State Parks Board, Phoenix, Ariz. 48926.
"major efforts initiated by private agencies "85021.
ARKANSAS MINNESOTA
and individuals, and both should continue
to play a vital role, ft is nevertheless neces- Director, Arkansas Planning Commission, Director, Minnesota Historical Society, Cedar
sary and appropriate for the Federal Gov- Little :Rock, Ark. 72201. • and Central Streets, St. Paul, Minn. 55101.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 34, NO. 37—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1969

106
 NOTICES 2581
MISSISSIPPI TENNESSEE professional review committee and the
Director, State of Mississippi, Department of Chairman, Tennessee Historical Commission, S t a t e Liaison Officer as unquestionably
Archives and History, Post Office Box 57L State Library and Archives Building, Nash- worthy of entry into t h e National R e g -
Jackson, Miss. 39201. ville, Tenn. 37219. ister of Historic Places. S u c h considera-
MISSOURI TEXAS
tion will be given to properties which are:
(a) I n State ownership; (b) recognized
Director, Missouri State Park Board, Post Executive Director, Texas State Historical in other Federal historic preservation
Office Box 176, 1204 Jefferson Building, Survey Committee, 108 West 15th Street, programs; (c) owned by private, n a -
Jefferson City, Mo. 65101. Austin. Tex. 78701. tional, regional, or State organizations
MONTANA UTAH concerned with historic preservation; or
Chief of Recreation and Parks Division, De- Director, Department of Development Serv- (d) recognized in an existing State land-
partment of Fish and Game, State of Mon- ices, 312 State Capitol Building, Salt Lake mark program.
tana, Helena, Mont. 57601. City, Utah 84114. The following criteria shall be used
NEBRASKA VERMONT by the States in evaluating properties for
nomination to the National Register of
Director, The Nebraska State Historical So- Director, Vermont Historical Society, Mont- Historic Places and by the National Park
ciety, 15th and R Streets, Lincoln, Nebr. peller, Vt. 05602. Service in reviewing State nominations.
68508. moans
NEVADA National Register Criteria of
Chairman, Virginia Historic Landmarks Com- Evaluation
Administrator, Division of State Parks, 201 mission, Room 1108, State Ninth Street
South Fall Street, Room 221, Nye Building, Office Building, Richmond, Va. 23219. The quality of significance in Ameri-
Carson City, Nev. 89701. can history, architecture, archeology,
WASHINGTON
NEW HAMPSHIRE a n d culture is present in districts, sites,
Commissioner, Department of Resources and Director, Washington State Parks and Rec- buildings, structures, and objects of
reation, Olympla, Wash. 98501. State and local importance that possess
Economic Development, Concord, NH.
03301. WEST VIRGINIA integrity of location, design, setting,
NEW JERSET materials, workmanship, feeling, and
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Historic
Commissioner, State of New Jersey, Depart- Properties, Potomac State College, Eeyser, association, and:
ment of Conservation and Economic De- W. Va. 26726. 1. That are associated with events
velopment, Trenton, N.J. 08608. WISCONSIN t h a t have made a significant contribu-
NEW MEXICO Director, State Historical Society of Wiscon- tion to the broad patterns of our history;
sin, 816 State Street, Madison, Wis. 63706. or
State Planning Officer, State of New Mexico, 2. T h a t are associated with the lives
Santa Fe, N. Mex. 87601. WYOMING
of persons significant in our past; or
NEW YORK Executive Director, Wyoming Recreation 3. T h a t embody the distinctive char-
Chairman, New York State Historic Trust, Commission, Cheyenne, Wyo. 82001. acteristics of a type, period, or method
30 Rockefeller Plaza, Room 5600, New York, DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA of construction, or that represent the
N.Y. 10020. work of a master, or that possess h i g h
Deputy Mayor, Executive Office, District of artistic values, or that represent a signif-
NORTH CAROLINA Columbia Government, Washington, D.C.
20004. icant and distinguishable entity whose
Director, Department of Archives and His- components may lack individual distinc-
tory, State of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C. "COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO tion; or
27602.
NORTH DAKOTA Executive Director, Institute of Puerto 4. T h a t have yielded, or may be likely
Rlcan Culture, San Juan, PR. 00931. to yield, information important in pre-
Superintendent, State Historical Society of history or history;
North Dakota, Liberty Memorial Building, GUAM
Bismarck, N. Dak. 58501. Criteria considerations. Ordinarily
Director of Land Management. Government cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of
of Guam, Agana, Guam.
OHIO historical figures, properties owned by
Director, The Ohio Historical Society, Colum- VIRGIN ISLANDS ' religious institutions or used for reli-
bus, Ohio 43210. Planning Director, Virgin Islands Planning gious purposes, structures that have been
Board, Charlotte Amalle, St. Thomas, V.L moved from their original locations, re-
OKLAHOMA
SAMOA.
constructed historic buildings, proper-
Chairman, Oklahoma Historical Society, 1108 ties primarily commemorative in n a -
Colcord Building, Oklahoma City, Okla, Office of the Governor, Pago Pago, American ture, and properties that have achieved
73102. Samoa. significance within the past 50 years
OREGON
T h e State Liaison Officer supervises a shall not be considered eligible for t h e
State Highway Engineer, Oregon State High- professional survey staff i n conducting a National Register. However, such prop-
way Department, State Highway Building, statewide historic sites survey. Prom, t h e erties will qualify if they are integral
Salem, Oreg. 97310. survey findings a comprehensive state- parts of districts that do meet the cri-
PENNSYLVANIA wide historic preservation plan is pre- teria or if they fall within the following
pared. T h e plan must be reviewed and categories:
Executive Director, Pennsylvania Historical approved by a high-level professional, re- (a) A religious property deriving pri-
. and Museum Commission, William Penn view committee. T h e State Liaison Offi- mary significance from architectural or
Memorial Museum and Archives Building,
Harrisburg, Pa. 17108. cer, in accordance with the plan, m a y artistic distinction or historical i m -
t h e n nominate properties for inclusion portance.
RHODE ISLAND in the National Register. T h e nominated (b) A building or structure removed
Director, Rhode Island Development Coun- properties which are approved by the from its original location but which is
cil, Roger Williams Building, Hayes Street. National Park Service are entered in the significant primarily for architectural
Providence, R.I. 02908. National Register of Historic Places by value, or which is the surviving struc-
the Chief, Office of Archeology and His- ture most importantly associated with a
SOUTH CAROLINA toric Preservation, National Park Service. historic person or event.
Director, State Archives Department, 1430 I n exceptional cases, States m a y make (c) A birthplace or grave of a h i s -
Senate Street,' Columbia, S.C. 29201. nominations before submission of the torical figure of outstanding importance
if there is n o appropriate site or building
SOUTH DAKOTA statewide historic preservation plan. T h e directly associated with his productive
Chief, Division of Parks and Recreation, De- National Park Service will consider a p - life.
partment of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, propriate properties so nominated which (d) A cemetery which derives its pri-
S. Dak. 67501. have received unanimous approval of the mary significance from graves of persons

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 34, NO. 37—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1969

107
2582 N0TICE5
of transcendent importance, from age, cil on Historic Preservation established u n - C. Advisory Council section 106 re-
from distinctive design features, or from der title n of this Act a reasonable oppor- porting procedures. For the convenience
association with historic events. tunity to comment with regard to such of agencies submitting effect notices to
undertaking. the Council under section 106, the fol-
(e) A reconstructed building when ac-
curately executed in a suitable environ- The Advisory Council desires to pro- lowing standard procedures for handling
ment and presented in a dignifled vide maximum assistance in connection such notices have been promulgated:
manner as part of a restoration master with section 106. Normally the Council 1. Upon receipt of a written notice of
plan, and when no other building or anticipates that, its comments will be re- an undertaking having an effect on a
structure with the same association has quired in only the most complex situa- National Register property, the Council
survived. tions, and it requests that agencies fulfill shall:
(f) A property primarily commemora- their obligations under section 106 by the (a) Acknowledge its receipt and give
tive in intent if design, age, tradition, or use of the following procedures: notice of a 14-day review period during
symbolic value has invested it with its ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION which the Advisory Council may deter-
own historical significance. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 2 4 0 mine and so advise the agency of its
(g) A property achieving significance desire to comment;
Procedures for Compliance (b) Refer the notice to the Office of
within the past 50 years if it is of Section 106
exceptional importance. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Archeology and Historic Preservation,
C. Grants for historic preservation. The National Park Service, for a preliminary
National Historic Preservation Act also At the earliest stage of planning or con- verification of significance, National or
sideration of any undertakings carried out, otherwise, and evaluation of the effect
authorizes a program of grants-in-aid to licensed, or financially assisted by the Fed-
States for comprehensive statewide his- eral Government, an agency should follow upon the National Register property;
toric site surveys and preservation plans. these steps: and
Grants are also authorized to States, 1. Consult the National Register of His- (c) Determine that it will or will not
local governments, private organizations, toric Places to determine it a National Regis- comment.
and individuals for preservation projects ter property is involved in the undertaking. 2. Upon determination that the Coun-
in accordance with an approved state- The National Register is maintained by t h e cil will comment on an undertaking, the
wide plan. All grants are made through Office of Archeology and Historic Preserva- Council shall:
tion, National Park Service, and published
the States. The State Liaison Officer may from time to time with interim addendums (a) Notify the agency of Council in-
then distribute the funds to other ap- in the FEDERAL REGISTER. tent to comment and date by which it
proved public and private recipients. 2. Apply the "Criteria for Effect." If there will do so;
Funds may be used for acquisition, pro- is no effect, the undertaking may proceed. (b) Place the matter on the agenda
tection, rehabilitation, restoration, and 3. If there is an effect, regional, or State of the next regular meeting or in ex-
reconstruction of properties included in officials of the agency' in consultation with ceptional circumstances schedule the
the National Register of Historic Places. the State Liaison Officer and a representative matter for consideration in an unas-
of the Office of Archeology and Historic Pres- sembled meeting; and
II. PROTECTION OP PROPERTIES EN THE ervation shall:
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (a) Determine if the effect is adverse—if (c) Authorize preparation of a section
not, the undertaking may proceed; 106 report.
A. Introduction. The National Historic . (b) Upon finding an adverse effect, select 3. The section 106 report shall be
Preservation Act of 1966 created the Ad- and agree upon a prudent and feasible al- prepared by the Executive Director and
visory Council on Historic Preservation. ternative to remove the adverse effect, in shall contain:
The Council is authorized to advise the which case the undertaking may proceed;
President and the Congress on matters . (c) Failing to find and agree upon an al- (a) A full report of verification and
relating to historic preservation; to rec- ternative, recommend all possible planning evaluation of the effect prepared by the
to minimize the adverse effect and delay fur- Office of Archeology and Historic Pres-
ommend measures to coordinate activi- ther processing of the undertaking pend-
ties of Federal, State, and local agencies ervation;
ing the receipt of comments from the Advi-
and private institutions and individuals sory Council. (b) A report from the requesting
relating to historic preservation; to com- 4. Provide written notice affording the agency on the undertaking with the
ment on undertakings carried out, li- Advisory Council an opportunity to com- agency evaluation of effect; and
censed, or financially assisted by the ment upon doubtful or unresolved situations (c) Conclusions.
Federal Government which have any of adverse effect and upon request submit The section 106 report shall contain
effect upon properties listed in the Na- a report of the undertaking. but not be limited to information such
tional Register; and to secure from the The Council expects to exert its advisory as a full description including visual
appropriate Federal agencies certain in- prerogatives by commenting to agencies in materials of the National Register prop-
formation necessary to the performance certain special situations even though writ- erty, the undertaking, agency efforts to
of these duties. ten notice of effect has not been received.
take into account effect on National
B. Procedures for section 106 com- Criteria for Effect Register properties, records of hearings,
pliance. The Advisory Council exercises A federally financed or licensed undertak- statements of support or opposition, a
an important function by responding ing shall be considered to have an effect on a statement from the State Liaison Officer,
with comments to undertakings carried National Register listing (districts, sites, and answers to any specific questions
out, licensed, or financially assisted by buildings, structures, and objects, including voiced by Council members. The Coun-
their settings) when any condition of the cil will not hold formal hearings on sec-
the Federal Government, when the un- undertaking creates a change in the quality
dertaking will affect a property listed in of the historical, architectural, archeological,
tion 106 matters. The Council comments
the National Register. This authority or cultural character that qualified the prop- to agencies shall take the form of a
derives from section 106 of the National erty under the National Register criteria for three-part statement including an in-
Historic Preservation Act, which pro- listing in the National Register. troduction, findings, and a conclusion.
vides: Generally, adverse effect occurs under con- III. THE NATIONAL REGISTER OP HISTORIC
The head of any Federal agency having di- ditions which include but are not limited PLACES
rect or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed to:
Federal or federally assisted undertaking in (a) Destruction or alteration of all or Pursuant to the authority vested in the
any State and the head of any Federal de- part of a property; Director of the National Park Service
partment or independent agency having au- (b) Isolation from or alteration of its under the Antiquities Act of 1906, 34
thority to license any undertaking shall, prior surrounding environment; Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431; the Act of Au-
to the approval of the expenditure of any (c) Introduction of visual, audible, or gust 25, 1916, 39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C. 1;
Federal funds on the undertaking or prior atmospheric elements that are out of char- the Historic Sites Act of 1935. 49 Stat.
to the issuance of any license, as the case acter with the property and its setting. 666,16 U.S.C. 461; and the National His-
may be. take into account the effect of the
undertaking on any district, site, building, toric Preservation Act of 1966, 80 Stat.
structure, or object that is included in the 1
When the agency has no regional or State 915, 16 U.S.C. 470; the. properties listed
National Register. The head of any such Fed- officials, the Office of Archeology and Historic below are included in the National Regis-
eral agency shall afford the Advisory Coun- Preservation will perform this service. ter of Historic Places. The responsibility

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 34, NO. 37—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1969

108
 NOTICES 2583
of all Federal agencies to take cognizance Southeastern District Navajo County
of these properties is specined in section Sitka, American Flag Raising Site, Castle Hill. Kayenta vicinity, Navajo National Monu-
106 of the National Historic Preservation Sitka, Russian Mission Orphanage, Lincoln ment, 30 miles southwest of Kayenta.
Act. and Monastery Streets. Keams Canyon vicinity, Awatovi Ruins, 8
Sitka, St. Michael's Cathedral, Lincoln and miles south of Keams Canyon, Hopi Indian
NATIONAL EEGISTES ENTRIES Maksoutoff Streets. Reservation.
ALABAMA SitkaTBaranof Island, Sitka National Monu- Oraibl vicinity, Old Oraibi, 3 miles west of
ment. Oraibi on Arizona 264, Hopi Indian Reser-
Baldwin County Sitka vicinity, Old Sitka Site, 6 miles north of vation.
Gasque vicinity, Fort Morgan, western Sitka on Starrigavan Bay.
terminus of Alabama 180. Skagway and vicinity, Skagway Historic Dis- Pima County
trict and White Pass, head of Taiya Inlet Santa Rosa vicinity, Ventana Cave, 11 miles
Colbert County on Lynn Canal. west of Santa Rosa, Papago Indian Reser-
Florence vicinity, Wilson Dam, Tennessee ARIZONA vation.
River, on Alabama 133 (also in Lauderdale Tucson vicinity, Desert Laboratory, west of
County). Apache County Tucson off West Anklam Road.
Elmore County Chinle, Canyon de Chelly National Monu- Tucson vicinity, San Xavier del Bac, 9 miles
Wetumpka vicinity, Fort Toulouse, 4 miles ment, east side of Chinle. south of Tucson via Mission Road.
southwest of Wetumpka at confluence of Ganado, Hubbell Trading Post National His- Pinal County
t h e Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. toric Site, west side of Ganado.
Springerville vicinity, Casa Malpais Site, 2 Chandler vicinity, Snaketown, 12 miles south-
Hale County miles north of Springerville. west of Chandler, Gila River Indian Reser-
vation.
Moundvllle vicinity, Moundville Site, 1 mile Cochise County
west of Moundville on County Route 21. Coolidge vicinity, Casa Grande Ruins Na-
Bisbee vicinity, Coronado National Memorial, tional Monument, 2 miles north of Coo-
Jackson County 30 miles southwest of Bisbee via Arizona 92 lidge on Arizona 87.
Bridgeport vicinity, Russell Cave National and secondary road. Phoenix vicinity, Hohokam-Pima Irrigation
Monument, 8 miles west of Bridgeport via Bisbee vicinity, Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site,
10 miles west of Bisbee. Sites (see Maricopa County).
Tf.S. 72 and County Routes 91 and 75.
Bowie vicinity, Fort Bowie National Historic Santa Cruz County
Launderdale County Site, 13 miles south of Bowie.
Douglas vicinity, Double Adobe Site, 12 miles Nogales vicinity, Tumacacori National Mon-
Wilson Dam (see Colbert County). ument, 18 miles north of Nogales on Inter-
northwest of Douglas on the west bank of
Macon County Whitewater. Creek. state 19.
Douglas vicinity, San Bernardino Ranch, 17 Yavapai County
Tuskegge vicinity, Tuskegee Institute, 1 mile
northwest of Tuskegee on TJ.S. 80. miles east of Douglas on the international Clarkdale vicinity, Tuzigoot National Monu-
boundary. ment, 2 miles east ol Clarkdale.
Montgomery County Tombstone, Tombstone Historic District. Flagstaff vicinity, Montezuma Castle Na-
Montgomery, First Confederate Capitol, Goat Coconino County tional Monument, 40 miles south of Flag-
Hill, east end of Dexter Avenue. staff on Interstate 17.
Flagstaff vicinity, Lowell Observatory, 1 mile Jerome, Jerome Historic District.
Russell County west of Flagstaff on Mars Hill.
Holy Trinity vicinity, Apalachicola Fort, 1.5 Flagstaff vicinity, Merriam (C. Hart) Base Yuma County
miles east of Holy Trinity on Chatta- Camp Site, 20 miles northwest of Flagstaff, Yuma, Yuma Crossing and Associated Sites,
hoochee River, at Little Springs private enclave i n Banks of the Colorado River (also in Im-
Talladega County Coconino National Forest, perial County, Calif.).
Flagstaff vicinity. Walnut Canyon National
Talladega vicinity, Curry (J. L: M.) Home, 3 Monument, 8 miles east of Flagstaff on TJ.S. ARKANSAS
miles northeast of Talladega on Alabama 66.
21. Flagstaff vicinity, Wupatki National Monu- Arkansas County
Tallapoosa County ment, 30 miles north of Flagstaff off U.S. Glllet vicinity, Arkansas Post National Me-
Dadeville vicinity, Horseshoe Bend National 89. morial, 8 miles southeast of Gillet on
Military Park, Tallapoosa River, 12 miles Winona vicinity, Winona Site, 5 miles north- Arkansas 1 and 169.
north of Dadeville on Alabama 49. east of Winona on U.S. 66, Coconino Na- Benton County
tional Forest
ALASKA Pea Ridge, Pea Ridge National Military Park.
Gila County
Northwestern District Cross County
Globe vicinity, Roosevelt Dam, Salt River, 31
Barrow vicinity, Birnirk Site, 5 miles north- miles northwest of Globe on Arizona 88 Parkin vicinity, Parkin Indian Mound, north
east of Barrow. (also in Maricopa County). edge of Parkin.
Cape Denbigh Peninsula, lyatayet Site, Globe vicinity, Tontq National Monument,
Norton Sound. Mississippi County
28 miles northwest'of Globe on Arizona 88.
Cape Prince of Wales vicinity, Woles Sites, Whlterlver vicinity, Kinishba Ruins, 15 miles Wilson, Nodena Site, south edge of Wilson.
adjacent to Cape Prince of Wales on Seward west of Whlteriver via Arizona 73 and Sebastian County
Peninsula- secondary road.
Nome vicinity, Anvil Creek Gold Discovery Fort Smith, Fort Smith National Historic
Site, 4.25 miles north of Nome on Seward Graham County Site.
Peninsula at Anvil Creek. Bonita vicinity, Sierra Bonita Ranch, south- CALIFORNIA
Point Hope Peninsula, Ipiutak Site, tip of west of Bonita.
Point Hope, lat. 68'20' N„ long. 167"50' W. Morencl vicinity. Point of Pines, 30 miles Alameda County
St. Lawrence Island, Gambell Sites, North- northwest of Morencl, San Carlos Indian Berkeley, Room 307, Gilman Hall, University
west Cape. Reservation. of California, University of California
Maricopa County campus.
Southcentral District
Gila Bend vicinity, Gailin Site, 3 miles north Oakland. Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge,
Kodiak, Kodiak Island, Erskine House, Main Lakeside Park, Grand Avenue.
Street and Mission Street. of Gila Bend.
Phoenix, Hohokam-Pima Irrigation Sites, Oakland, Miller (Joaquin) House, The Abbey,
Nikolskl vicinity, Chaluka Site, TJmnak Is- Park of the Four Waters (also in Pinal
land, Aleutian Islands. Joaquin Miller Road and Sanborn Drive.
County). Contra Costa County
Rip Rock vicinity, Hawkins Island, Palugvik
Site, 3.75 miles east of Rip Rock on Prince Phoenix, Pueblo Grande Ruin, Washington
Avenue, Pueblo Grande City Park. Martinez, John Muir National Historic Site,
William Sound. 4440 Alhambra Avenue.
Pribilof Islands, St. Paul Island, Fur Seal Roosevelt Dam (see Gila County).
Rookeries. Mohave County £2 Dorado County
Yukon Island, Yukon Island Main Site, Fredonia vicinity. Pipe Spring National Mon- Placerville vicinity, Coloma, 7 miles north-
Kachemak Bay, Cook Inlet. ument, 15 miles southwest of Fredonia. west of Placerville on California 49.
etc.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 34, NO. 37—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1969

109
Table 1: National Register Listings by Calendar Year

Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number

1966 868 1971 1074 1976 2159 1981 7241

1967 29 1972 1551 1977 1513 1982 4893

1968 57 1973 2225 1978 3383 19832 4495

1969 358 1974 2241 1979 3546 19842 3915

1970 898 1975 2032 1980 4526 19852 3171

19863 998

Total 44,656

^Low number of listings during 1981 resulted from a prohibition on listing privately
owned property while regulations were being prepared to implement "owner objection"
provisions of the 1980 Amendments to the Act.
2
Of the total number of listings in 1983, 1984, and 1985, there were 571, 488, and 406
historic districts, respectively.
3
Listings for 1986 are through April.

Ill
Table 2: National Register Listings by State1

Alabama 673 Montana 343

Alaska 242 Nebraska 433
American Samoa 8 Nevada 197
Arizona 589 New Hampshire 488
Arkansas 770 New Jersey 945
California 1470 New Mexico 576
Colorado 627 New York 2225
Connecticut 707 North Carolina 1389
Delaware 519 North Dakota 212
District of Columbia 231 Northern Marianas 27
Florida 555 Ohio 2749
Georgia 1195 Oklahoma 690
Guam 67 Oregon 737
Hawaii 213 Pennsylvania 1866
Idaho 749 Puerto Rico 114
Illinois 896 Rhode Island 528
Indiana 837 South Carolina 925
Iowa 1009 South Dakota 461
Kansas 446 Tennessee 1043
Kentucky 1993 Trust Territory 35
Louisiana 653 Texas 1402
Maine 837 Utah 884
Maryland 959 Vermont 387
Massachusetts 2062 Virgin Islands 78
Michigan 989 Virginia 1234
Minnesota 1200 Washington 685
Mississippi 727 West Virginia 478
Missouri 900 Wisconsin 1140
Wyoming 262

Total 44,656

1
Listings from program inception in 1966 through April 1986.

112
 June 19, 1986

HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANTS-IN-AID: FUNDING HISTORY

(P.L. 89-665: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966)

NPS/HC.RS C l e a r e d by President's
FY Authorization Request Department Budget Appropriation

1967 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000 $ -0- $ -0-

1968 10,000,000 9,450,000 9,450,000 1,853,000 300,000
1969 10,000,000 10,600,000 2,800,000 680,000 100,000
1970 10,000,000 9,450,000 1,569,000 969,000 969,000
1971 7,000,000 6,119,000 6,119,000 6,119,000 5,980,000
1972 10,000,000 5,980,000 5,980,000 5,980,000 5,980,000
1973 15,000,000 6,205,000 6,205,000 6,205,000 7,505,000
1974 15,600,000 7,505,000 7,505,000 15,505,000 11,505,000
1975 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
1976 24,400,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
3/Mo. 4,750,000 PHP 4,750,000 4,750,000 4,750,000 4,750,000(a)
Trans.
1977 24,400,000 \ 1 10.000,000 10.000.000 10.000.000 . 17.500.000
1978 100,000,000 ,\ 17,500,000 17,500,000 17,500,000 45,000,000
1979 100,000,000 HI >P 45,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 60,000,000
1980 150,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 55,000,000(b)
1981 150,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 26,000,000(c)
1982 150,000,000 4,600,000 4,600,000 4,600,000 25,440,000(d)
1983 150,000,000 -0- -0- -0- 51,000,000(e)
1984 150,000,000 -0- -0- -0- 27,500,000(1)
1985 150,000,000 -0- -0- -0- 25,480,000(g)
1986 150,000,000 -0- -0- -0- 23,729,330(g)

Total $1,403,150,000 $268,909,000 $252,000,000 $249,161,000 $433,738,330

(a) 3-Month Transition Quarter when Federal Fiscal Year End changed.
(b) $10,000,000 deferred from Fiscal Year 1980 to Fiscal Year 1981.
(c) Revised 1981 budget request reduced original request from $45,000,000.
(d) $26,500,000 originally approved was reduced by 4 percent as part of multi-
departmental budget reduction; proposed $781,000 deferral was restored.
(e) Beginning with 1981 appropriation, Program Administration costs
($1,540,000 in 1981) were separated from grants-in-aid appropriation.
Includes $25,000,000 from Emergency Jobs Act (PL 98-8).
(f) $1,000,000 appropriated to the NPS construction account <5c earmarked for
Natchez, Mississippi erosion study.
(g) Twelve month Continuing Resolution.

The PHP was derived from General Revenue, no-year appropriations. (Preservation
of H i s t o r i c P r o p e r t i e s budget item)
HPF is derived from Outer Continental Shelf revenue; 2-year appropriations. (Historic
Preservation Fund)
113
 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended

AN ACT to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Additional

Historic Properties throughout the Nation, and for Other Purposes,
Approved October 15,1966 (Public Law 89-665; 80 STAT. 915; 16 U.S.C.
470) as amended by Public Law 91-243, Public Law 93-54, Public Law
94-422, Public Law 94-458, Public Law 96-199, Public Law 96-244, and
Public Law 96-515).

Section 1 (16 U.S.C. 470)

Short title (a) This Act may be cited as the "National Historic Preservation Act."

Purpose of the Act (b) The Congress finds and declares that—
(1) the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its
historic heritage;
(2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved asa
living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of
orientation to the American people;
(3) historic properties significant to the Nation's heritage are being lost or
substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency;
(4) the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that
its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and
energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of
Americans;

(5) in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and

residential, commercial, and industrial developments, the present governmental
and nongovernmental historic preservation programs and activities are inadequate
to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich
heritage of our Nation;
(6) the increased knowledge of our historic resources, the establishment of better
means of identifying and administering them, and the encouragement of their
preservation will improve the planning and execution of Federal and federally
assisted projects and will assist economic growth and development; and

(7) although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and
major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals, and both should
continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the
Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities,
to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking
preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and
accelerate their historic preservation programs and activities.

Section2 (16 U.S.C. 470-1)

Declaration of policy It shall be the policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with other nations
and in partnership with the States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private
organizations and individuals to—

(1) use measures, including financial and technical assistance, to foster

conditions under which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic
resources can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and
other requirements of present and future generations;
115
 (2) provide leadership in the preservation of the prehistoric and historic
resources of the United States and of the international community of nations;

(3) administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and

historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present
and future generations;

(4) contribute to the preservation of nonfederally owned prehistoric and historic

resources and give maximum encouragement to organizations and individuals
undertaking preservation by private means;

(5) encourage the public and private preservation and utilization of all usable
elements of the Nation's historic built environment; and

(6) assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation in the United States to expand and accelerate their historic
preservation programs and activities.

116
 TITLE I

Section 101 (16 U.S.C. 470a)

National Register of Historic Places, (a)(1)(A) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to expand and maintain a
expansion and maintenance National Register of Historic Places composed of districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture.

National Historic Landmarks, designation (B) Properties meeting the criteria for National Historic Landmarks
established pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be designated as "National Historic
Landmarks" and included on the National Register, subject to the requirements of
paragraph (6). All historic properties included on the National Register on the date
of enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 shall
be deemed to be included on the National Register as of their initial listing for
purposes of this Act. All historic properties listed in the Federal Register of February
6,1979, as "National Historic Landmarks" or thereafter prior to the effective date of
this Act are declared by Congress to be National Historic Landmarks of national
historic significance as of their initial listing as such in the Federal Register for
purposes of this Act and the Act of August 21,1935 (49 Stat. 666); except that in cases
of National Historic Landmark districts for which no boundaries have been
established, boundaries must first be published in the Federal Register and
submitted to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States
Senate and to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States
House of Representatives.

Criteria for National Register and National (2) The Secretary in consultation with national historic and archeological
Historic Landmarks and regulations associations, shall establish or revise criteria for properties to be included on the
National Register and criteria for National Historic Landmarks, and shall also
promulgate or revise regulations as may be necessary for—
(A) nominating properties for inclusion in, and removal from, the National
Register and the recommendation of properties by certified local governments;
(B) designating properties as National Historic Landmarks and removing such
designation;
(C) considering appeals from such recommendations, nomination, removals,
and designations (or any failure or refusal by a nominating authority to nominate or
designate);
(D) nominating historic properties for inclusion in the World Heritage List in
accordance with the terms of the Convention concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage;
(E) making determinations of eligibility of properties for inclusion on the
National Register; and
(F) notifying the owner of a property, any appropriate local governments, and
the general public, when the property is being considered for inclusion on the
National Register, for designation as a National Historic Landmark or for
nomination to the World Heritage List.

Nominations to the National Register (3) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (6), any State which is carrying out a
program approved under subsection (b), shall nominate to the Secretary properties
which meet the criteria promulgated under subsection (a) for inclusion on the
National Register. Subject to paragraph (6), any property nominated under this
paragraph or under section 110(a)(2) shall be included on the National Register on
the date forty-five days after receipt by the Secretary of the nomination and the
necessary documentation, unless the Secretary disapproves such nomination
within such forty-five day period or unless an appeal is filed under paragraph (5).

Nominations from individuals and local (4) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (6) the Secretary may accept a
governments nomination directly from any person or local government for inclusion of a property
on the National Register only if such property is located in a State where there is no
program approved under subsection (b). The Secretary may include on the National
Register any property for which such a nomination is made if he determines that
such property is eligible in accordance with the regulations promulgated under
paragraph (2). Such determinations shall be made within ninety days from the date
of nomination unless the nomination is appealed under paragraph (5).
117
Appeals of nominations (5). Any person or local government may appeal to the Secretary a nomination of
any historic property for inclusion on the National Register and may appeal to the
Secretary the failure or refusal of a nominating authority to nominate a property in
accordance with this subsection.

Owner participation in nomination process (6) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations requiring that before any
property or district may be included on the National Register or designated as a
National Historic Landmark, the owner or owners of such property, or a majority of
the owners of the properties within the district in the case of an historic district,
shall be given the opportunity (including a reasonable period of time) to concur in,
or object to, the nomination of the property or district for such inclusion or
designation. If the owner or owners of any privately owned property, or a majority
of the owners of such properties within the district in the case of an historic district,
object to such inclusion or designation, such property shall not be included on the
National Register or designated as a National Historic Landmark until such
objection is withdrawn. The Secretary shall review the nomination of the property
or district where any such objection has been made and shall determine whether or
not the property or district is eligible for such inclusion or designation, and if the
Secretary determines that such property ordistrict is eligible for such inclusion or
designation, he shall inform the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, the appropriate chief elected local
official and the owner or owners of such property, of his determination. The
regulations under this paragraph shall include provisions to carry out the purposes
of this paragraph in the case of multiple ownership of a single property.

Regulations for curation, documentation, (7) The Secretary shall promulgate, or revise, regulations—
and local government certification (A) ensuring that significant prehistoric and historic artifacts, and associated
records, subject to section 110 of this Act, the Act of June 27,1960 (16 U.S.C. 469c),
and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa and
following) are deposited in an institution with adequate long-term curatorial
capabilities;
(B) establishing a uniform process and standards for documenting historic
properties by public agencies and private parties for purposes of incorporation into,
or complementing, the national historic architectural and engineering records
within the Library of Congress; and
(C) certifying local governments, in accordance with subsection (c)(1) and for
the allocation of funds pursuant to section 103(c) of this Act.

State Historic Preservation Programs (b)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, shall
promulgate or revise regulations for State Historic Preservation Programs. Such
regulations shall provide that a State program submitted to the Secretary under this
section shall be approved by the Secretary if he determines that the program—

Designation of the State Historic (A) provides for the designation and appointment by the Governor of a "State
Preservation Officer (SHPO) Historic Preservation Officer" to administer such program in accordance with
paragraph (3) and for the employment or appointment by such officer of such
professionally qualified staff as may be necessary for such purposes;
(B) provides for an adequate and qualified State historic preservation review
board designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer unless otherwise
provided for by State law; and
(C) provides for adequate public participation in the State Historic Preservation
Program, including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the
National Register.

Review of State programs (2) Periodically, but not less than every four years after the approval of any State
program under this subsection, the Secretary shall evaluate such program to make a
determination as to whether or not it is in compliance with the requirements of this
Act. If at any time, the Secretary determines that a State program does not comply
with such requirements, he shall disapprove such program, and suspend in whole
or in part assistance to such State under subsection (d)(1), unless there are adequate
assurances that the program will comply with such requirements within a
reasonable period of time. The Secretary may also conduct periodic fiscal audits of
State programs approved under this section.

118
SHPO responsibilities (3) It shall be the responsibility of the State Historic Preservation Officer to
administer the State Historic Preservation Program and to—
(A) in cooperation with Federal and State agencies, local governments, and
private organizations and individuals, direct and conduct a comprehensive
statewide survey of historic properties and maintain inventories of such properties;
(B) identify and nominate eligible properties to the National Register and
otherwise administer applications for listing historic properties on the National
Register;
(C) prepare and implement a comprehensive statewide historic preservation
plan;
(D) administer the State program of Federal assistance for historic
preservation within the State;
(E) advise and assist, as appropriate, Federal and State agencies and local
governments in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities;
(F) cooperate with the Secretary, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and
organizations and individuals to ensure that historic properties are taken into
consideration at all levels of planning and development;
(G) provide public information, education and training, and technical
assistance relating to the Federal and State Historic Preservation Programs; and
(H) coopera te with local governments in the development of local historic
preservation programs and assist local governments in becoming certified pursuant
to subsection (c).

Arrangements with nonprofit (4) Any State may carry out all or any part of its responsibilities under this
organizations subsection by contract or cooperative agreement with any qualified nonprofit
organization or educational institution.

Approval of existing programs (5) Any State historic preservation program in effect under prior authority of law
may be treated as an approved program for purposes of this subsection until the
earlier of—
(A) the date on which the Secretary approves a program submitted by the State
under this Subsection, of
(B) three years after the date of the enactment of the National Historic
Preservation Act Amendments of 1980.

Certification of local governments (c)(1) Any State program approved under this section shall provide a mechanism
for the certification by the State Historic Preservation Officer of local governments
to carry out the purposes of this Act and provide for the transfer, in accordance with
section 103(c), of a portion of the grants received by the States under this Act, to
such local governments. Any local government shall be certified to participate
under the provisions of this section if the applicable State Historic Preservation
Officer, and the Secretary, certifies that the local government—
(A) enforces appropriate State or local legislation for the designation and
protection of historic properties;
'(B) has established an adequate and qualified historic preservation review
commission by Sta te or.local legisla tion;
(C) maintains a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties that
furthers the purposes of subsection (b);
(D) provides for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation
program, including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the
National Register; and
(E) satisfactorily performs the responsibilities delegated to it under this Act.
Where there is no approved State program, a local government may be certified
by the Secretary if he determines that such local government meets the
requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (E); and in any such case the Secretary
may make grants-in-aid to the local government for purposes of this section.

119
Participation of certified local governments (2)(A) Before a property within the jurisdiction cf the certified local government
in National Register nominations may be considered by the State to be nominated to the Secretary for inclusion on the
National Register, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall notify the owner, the
applicable chief local elected official, and the local historic preservation
commission. The commission, after reasonable opportunity for public comment,
shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the
criteria of the National Register. Within sixty days of notice from the State Historic
Preservation Officer, the chief local elected official shall transmit the report of the
commission and his recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), after receipt of such report and
recommendation, or if no such report and recommendation are received within
sixty days, the State shall make the nomination pursuant to section 101(a). The State
may expedite such process with the concurrence of the certified local government.
(B) If both the commission and the chief local elected official recommend that a
property not be nominated to the National Register, the State Historic Preservation
Officer shall take no further action, unless within thirty days of the receipt of such
recommendation by the State Historic Preservation Officer an appeal is filed with
the State. If such an appeal is filed, the State shall follow the procedures for making
a nomination pursuant to Section 101(a). Any report and recommendations made
under this section shall be included with any nomination submitted by the State to
the Secretary.

(3) Any local government certified under this section or which is making efforts
to become so certified shall be eligible for funds under the provision of section 103(c)
of this Act, and shall carry out any responsibilities delegated to it in accordance with
such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary or advisable.

Grants to States (d)(1) The Secretary shall administer a program of matching grants-in-aid to the
States for historic preservation projects, and State historic preservation programs,
approved by the Secretary and having as their purpose the identification of historic
properties and the preservation of properties included on the National Register.

Grants to the National Trust (2) The Secretary shall administer a program of matching grants-in-aid to the
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, chartered by Act of
Congress approved October 26,1949 (63 Stat. 947), for the purposes of carrying out
the responsibilities of the National Trust.

Direct grants for threatened National (3)(A) In addition to the programs under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary
Historic Landmarks, demonstration shall administer a program of direct grants for the preservation of properties
projects, training, and displacement included on the National Register. Funds to support such program annually shall
prevention not exceed 10 per centum of the amount appropriated annually for the fund
established under section 108. These grants may be made by the Secretary, in
consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer—
(i) for the preservation of National Historic Landmarks which are
threatened with demolition or impairment and for the preservation of historic
properties of World Heritage significance;
(ii) for demonstration projects which will provide information concerning
professional methods and techniques having application to historic properties;
(iii) for the training and development of skilled labor in trades and crafts,
and in analysis and curation, relating to historic preservation; and,
(iv) to assist persons or small businesses within any historic district included
in the National Register to remain within the district.
Grants and loans to minority groups (B) The Secretary may also, in consultation with the appropriate State Historic
Preservation Officer, make grants or loans or both under this section to Indian tribes
and to nonprofit organizations representing ethnic or minority groups for the
preservation of their cultural heritage.
(C) Grants may be made under subparagraph (A)(i) and (iv) only to the extent
that the project cannot be carried out in as effective a manner through the use of an
insured loan under section 104.

Prohibition on compensating intervenors (e) No part of any grant made under this section may be used to compensate any
person intervening in any proceeding under this Act.

Guidelines for Federal agency (f) In consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
responsibilities Secretary shall promulgate guidelines for Federal agency responsibilities under
section 110 of this title.

120
Preservation standards for federally owned (g) Withinoneyearafterthedateofenactmentof the National Historic
properties Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, the Secretary shall establish, in consultation
with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense, the Smithsonian Institution, and
the Administrator of the General Services Administration, professional standards
for the preservation of historic properties in Federal ownership or control.

Technical advice (h) The Secretary shall develop and make available to Federal agencies, State and
local governments, private organizations and individuals, and other nations and
international organizations pursuant to the World Heritage Convention, training
in, and information concerning professional methods and techniques for the
preservation of historic properties and for the administration of the historic
preservation program at the Federal, State, and local level. The Secretary shall also
develop mechanisms to provide information concerning historic preservation to the
general public including students.

Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 470b)

Grants requirements (a) No grant may be made under this Act—

(1) unless application therefore is submitted to the Secretary in accordance with

regulations and procedures prescribed by him;

(2) unless the application is in accordance with the comprehensive statewide

historic preservation plan which has been approved by the Secretary after
considering its relationship to the comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation
plan prepared pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78
Stat. 897);

(3) for more than 50 per centum of the aggregate cost of carrying out projects and
programs specified in section 101(d) (1) and (2) in any one fiscal year, except that for
the costs of State or local historic surveys or inventories the Secretary shall provide
70 per centum of the aggregate cost involved in a ny one fiscal year;

(4) unless the grantee has agreed to make such reports, in such form and
containing such information as the Secretary may from time to time require;

(5) unless the grantee has agreed to assume, after completion of the project, the
total cost of the continued maintenance, repair, and administration of the property
in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary; and

(6) until the grantee has complied with such further terms and conditions as the
Secretary may deem necessary oradvisable.
Except as permitted by other law, the State share of the costs referred to in
paragraph (3) shall be contributed by non-Federal sources. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no grant made pursuant to this Act shall be treated as taxable
income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code 1954.

Waiver for the National Trust (b) The Secretary may in his discretion waive the requirements of subsection (a),
paragraphs (2) and (5) of this section for any grant under this Act to the National
Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, in which case a grant to the
National Trust may include funds for the maintenance, repair, and administration
of the property in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.

Limitation on matching (c) No State shall be permitted to utilize the value of real property obtained before
the date of approval of this Act in meeting the remaining cost of a project for which a
grant is made under this Act.

121
 Section 103 (16 U.S.C. 470c)
Apportionment of survey and planning (a) The amounts appropriated and made available for grants to the States for
grants comprehensive statewide historic surveys and plans under this Act shall be
apportioned among the States by the Secretary on the basis of needs as determined
by him.

Apportionment of project and program (b) The amounts appropriated and made available for grants to the States for
grants projects and programs under this Act for each fiscal year shall be apportioned
among the States by the Secretary in accordance with needs as disclosed in
approved statewide historic preservation plans. The Secretary shall notify each
State of its apportionment under this subsection within thirty days following the
date of enactment of legislation appropriating funds under this Act. Any amount of
any apportionment that has not been paid or obligated by the Secretary during the
fiscal year in which such notification is given and for two fiscal years thereafter,
shall be reapportioned by the Secretary in accordance with this subsection.

Apportionment to certified local (c) A minimum of 10 per centum of the annual apportionment distributed by the
governments Secretary to each State for the purposes of carrying out this Act shall be transferred
by the State, pursuant to the requirements of this Act, to local governments which
are certified under section 101(c) for historic preservation projects or programs of
such local governments. In any year in which the total annual apportionment to the
States exceeds $65,000,000, one half of the excess shall also be transferred by the
States to local governments certified pursuant to section 101(c).
Guidelines for apportionment to local (d) The Secretary shall establish guidelines for the use and distribution of funds
governments under subsection (c) to insure that no local government receives a disproportionate
share of the funds available, and may include a maximum or minimum limitation on
the amount of funds distributed to any single local government. The guidelines
shall not limit the ability of any State to distribute more than 10 per centum of its
annual apportionment under subsection (c), nor shall the Secretary require any
State to exceed the 10 per centum minimum distribution to local governments.

Section 104 (16 U.S.C. 470d)

Insured loans for National Register (a) The Secretary shall establish and maintain a program by which he may, upon
properties application of a private lender, insure loans (including loans made in accordance
with a mortgage) made by such lender to finance any project for the preservation of
a property included on the National Register.

Requirements (b) A loan may be insured under this section only if—

(1) the loan is made by a private lender approved by the Secretary as financially
sound and able to service the loan properly;
(2) the amount of the loan, and interest rate charged with respect to the loan, do
not exceed such amount, and such a rate, as is established by the Secretary, by rule;
(3) the Secretary has consulted the appropriate State Historic Preservation
Officer concerning the preservation of the historic property;
(4) the Secretary has determined that the loan is adequately secured and there is
reasonable assurance of repayment;
(5) the repayment period of the loan does not exceed the lesser of forty years or
the expected life of the asset financed;
(6) the amount insured with respect to such loan does not exceed 90 per centum
of the loss sustained by the lender with respect to the loan; and

(7) the loan, the borrower, and the historic property to be preserved meet other
terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary, by rule, especially
terms and conditions relating to the nature and quality of the preservation work.

Interest rates The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding the
interest rate of loans insured under this section.

122
Limitation on loan authority (c) The aggregate unpaid principal balance of loans insured under this section and
outstanding at any one time may not exceed the amount which has been covered
into the Historic Preservation Fund pursuant to section 108 and subsection (g) and
(i) of this section, as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Act but which has
not been appropriated for any purpose.

Assignability and effect (d) Any contract of insurance executed by the Secretary under this section may be
assignable, shall be an obligation supported by the full faith and credit of the United
States, and shall be incontestable except for fraud or misrepresentation of which the
holder had actual knowledge at the time it became a holder.

Method of payment for losses (e) The Secretary shall specify, by rule and in each contract entered into under this
section, the conditions and method of payment to a private lender as a result of
losses incurred by the lender on any loan insured under this section.

Protection of Government's financial (f) In entering into any contract to insure a loan under this section, the Secretary
interests; foreclosure shall take steps to assure adequate protection of the financial interests of the Federal
Government. The Secretary may— . .
(1) in connection with any foreclosure proceeding, obtain, on behalf of the
Federal Government, the property securing a loan insured under this title; and
(2) operate or lease such property for such period as may be necessary to protect
the interest of the Federal Government and to carry out subsection (g).

Conveyance offoreclosed property (g)(1) In any case in which a historic property is obtained pursuant to subsection (f),
the Secretary shall attempt to convey such property to any governmental or
nongovernmental entity under such conditions as will ensure the property's
continued preservation and use; except that if, after a reasonable time, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
determines that there is no feasible and prudent means to convey such property
and to ensure its continued preservation and use, then the Secretary may convey
the property at the fair market value of its interest in such property to any entity
without restriction.

(2) Any funds obtained by the Secretary in connection with the conveyance of
any property pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be covered into the historic
preservation fund, in addition to the amounts covered into such fund pursuant to
section 108 and subsection (i) of this section, and shall remain available in such fund
until appropriated by the Congress to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Fees (h) The Secretary may assess appropriate and reasonable fees in connection with
insuring loans under this section. Any such fees shall be covered into the Historic
Preservation Fund, in addition to the amounts covered into such fund pursuant to
section 108 and subsection (g) of this section, and shall remain available in such
fund until appropriated by the Congress to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Loans to be considered non-Federal funds (i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any loan insured under this
section shall be treated as non-Federal funds for the purposes of satisfying any
requirement of any other provision of law under which Federal funds to be used for
any project or activity are conditioned upon the use of non-Federal funds by the
recipient for payment of any portion of the costs of such project or activity.

Appropriation authorization (j) Effective after the fiscal year 1981 there are authorized to be appropriated, such
sums as may be necessary to cover payments incurred pursuant to subsection (e).

Prohibition against acquisition by Federal (k) No debt obligation whichismadeor committed to be made, or which is insured
Financing Bank or committed to be insured, by the Secretary under this section shall be eligible for
purchase by, or commitment to purchase by, or sale or issuance to, the Federal
Financing Bank.

Section 105 (16 U.S.C. 470e)

Recordkeeping The beneficiary of assistance under this Act shall keep such records as the Secretary
shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the disposition by the
beneficiary of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the project or
undertaking in connection with which such assistance is given or used, and the
amount and nature of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking supplied
by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit.
123
 Section 106 (16 U.S.C.'470f)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The head of any Federal agencv having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a
comment on Federal undertakings proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of a
Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any
undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on
the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into
account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head
of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to
comment with regard to such undertaking.

SectionlGV (16 U.S.C: 470g)

Exemption of White House, Supreme Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be applicable to the White House and its
Court, and Capitol grounds/ the Supreme Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol
and its related buildings and grounds.

Sectionl08 (16 U.S.C. 470h)

Establishment of Historic Preservation To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby established the Historic
Fund; authorization for appropriations. Preservation Fund (hereafter referred to as the "fund") in the Treasury of the United
States.
There shall be covered into such fund $24,400,000 for fiscal year 1977, $100,000,000
for fiscal year 1978, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1979, $150,000,000 for fiscal year
.1980, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1981, and $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1982
through 1987, from revenues due and payable to the United States under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (67 Stat. 462,469) as amended (43 U.S.C. 338) and/or
under the. Act of June4,1920(41 Stat. 813)as amended (30U.S.C. 191),
notwithstanding any provision of law that such proceeds shall be credited to
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. Such moneys shall be used only to carry out
the purposes of this Act and shall be available for expenditure only when
appropriated by the Congress. Any moneys not appropriated shall remain available
in thefund until appropriated for said purposes: Provided, that appropriations
made pursuant to this paragraph may be made without fiscal year limitation.

Section 109 (16 U.S.C. 470h-l)

Donations to the Secretary (a) In furtherance of the purposes of sections of this Act, the Secretary may accept
the donation of funds which may be expended by him for projects to acquire,
restore, preserve, or recover data from any district, building, structure, site, or
object which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places established
pursuant to section 101 of this Act, so long as the project is owned by a State, any
unit of local government, or any nonprofit entity.

Expenditu re of dona ted funds (b) In expending said funds, the Secretary shall give due consideration to the
following factors: the national significance of the project; its historical value to the
community; the imminence of its destruction or loss; and the expressed intentions
of the donor. Funds expended under this subsection shall be made available
without regard to the matching requirements established by section 102 of this Act,
but the recipient of such funds shall be permitted to utilize them to match any grants
from the Historic Preservation Fund established by section 108 of this Act.

Transfer offunds donated for the National" (c) The Secretary is hereby authorized to transfer unobligated funds previously
Park Service ' donated to the Secretary for purposes of the National Park Service, with the consent
of the donor, and any funds so transferred shall be used or expended in accordance
wjth the provisions of this Act.

124
 Section 110 (16 U.S.C. 470h-2)

Federal agencies' responsibility to preserve (a)(1) The heads of all Federal agencies shall assume responsibility for the
and use historic buildings preservation of historic properties which are owned or controlled by such agency.
Prior to acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings for purposes of carrying out
agency responsibilities, each Federal agency shall use, to the maximum extent
feasible, historic properties available to the agency. Each agency shall undertake,
consistent with the preservation of such properties and the mission of the agency
and the professional standards established pursuant to section 101(f), any
preservation, as may be necessary to carry out this section.

Protection and nomination to the National (2) With the advice of the Secretary and in cooperation with the State Historic
Register of Federal properties Preservation Officer for the State involved, each Federal agency shall establish a
program to locate, inventory, and nominate to the Secretary all properties under the
agency's ownership or control by the agency, that appear to qualify for inclusion on
the National Register in accordance with the regulations promulgated under
section 101(a)(2)(A). Each Federal agency shall exercise caution to assure that any
such property that might qualify for inclusion is not inadvertently transferred, sold,
demolished, substantially altered, or allowed to deteriorate significantly.

Recordation of historic properties prior to (b) Each Federal agency shall initiate measures to assure that where, as a result of
demolition Federal action or assistance carried out by such agency, an historic property is to be
substantially altered or demolished, timely steps are taken to make or have made
appropriate records, and that such records then be deposited, in accordance with
section 101(a), in the Library of Congress or with such other appropriate agency as
may be designated by the Secretary, for future use and reference.

Designation of Federal agency preservation (c) The head of each Federal agency shall, unless exempted under section 214,
officers designate a qualified official tobe known as the agency's "preservation officer" who
shall be responsible for coordinating that agency's activities under this Act. Each
Preservation Officer may, in order to be considered qualified, satisfactorily
complete an appropriate training program established by the Secretary under
section 101(g).

Conduct of agency programs consistent (d) Consistent with the agency's mission and mandates, all Federal agencies shall
with Act carry out agency programs and projects (including those under which any Federal
assistance is provided or any Federal license, permit, or other approval is required)
in accordance with the purposes of this Act and, give consideration to programs
and projects which will further the purposes of this Act.

Transfer of surplus Federal historic (e) The Secretary shall review and approve the plans of transferees of surplus
properties federally owned historic properties not later than ninety days after his receipt of
such plans to ensure that the prehistorical, historical, architectural, or culturally
significant values will be preserved or enhanced.

Federal undertakings affecting National (f) Prior to the approval of any Federal undertaking which may directly and
Historic Landmarks adversely affect any National Historic Landmark, the head of the responsible
Federal agency shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning
and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to such landmark, and shall
afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the undertaking.

Preservation activities as an eligible project (g) Each Federal agency may include the costs of preservation activities of such
cost agency under this Act as eligible project costs in all undertakings of such agency or
assisted by such agency. The eligible project costs may also include amounts paid
by a Federal agency to any State to be used in carrying out such preservation
responsibilities of the Federal agency under this Act, and reasonable costs may be
charged to Federal licensees and permittees as a condition to the issuance of such
license or permit, ' •-<
Preservation awards program (h) The Secretary shall establish an annual preservation awards program under
which he may make monetary awards in amounts not to exceed $1,000 and provide
citations for special achievements to officers and employees of Federal, State, and
certified local governments in recognition of their outstanding contributions to the
preservation of historic resources. Such program may include the issuance of
annual awards by the President of the United States to any citizen of the United
States recommended for such award by the Secretary.

125
Applicability of National Environmental (i) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the preparation of an
Policy Act environmental impact statement where such a statement would not otherwise be
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and nothing in this
Act shall be construed to provide any exemption from any requirement respecting
the preparation of such a statement under such Act.

(j) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations under which the requirements of
this section may be waived in whole or in part in the event of a major natural
disaster or an imminent threat to the national security.

Section 111 (16 U.S.C. 470h-3)

Leases or exchanges of Federal historic (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any Federal agency may, after
properties consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, lease an historic
property owned by the agency to any person or organization, or exchange any
property owned by the agency with Comparable historic property, if the agency
head determines that the lease or exchange will adequately insure the preservation
of the historic property.

Use of proceeds (b) The proceeds of any lease under subsection (a) may, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, be retained by the agency entering into such lease and used to
defray the costs of administration; maintenance, repair, and related expenses
incurred by the agency with respect to such property or other properties which are
on the National Register which are owned by, or are under the jurisdiction or
control of, such agency. Any surplus proceeds from such leases shall be deposited
into the Treasury of the United States at the end of the second fiscal year following
the fiscal year in which such proceeds were received.

Management contracts (c) The head of any Federal agency having responsibility for the management of
any historic property may, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, enter into contracts for the management of such property. Any such
contract shall contain such terms and conditions as the head of such agency deems
necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the United States and insure
adequate preservation of historic property.

126
 TITLE II

Section 201 (16 U.S.C. 470i)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; (a) There is established as an independent agency of the United States Government
membership an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter referred to as the
"Council") which shall be composed of the following members;

(1) a Chairman appointed by the President selected from the general public;

(2) the Secretary of the Interior;

(3) the Architect of the Capitol;

,(4) the Secretary of Agriculture and the heads of four other agencies of the United
States (other than the Department of the Interior), the activities of which affect
historic preservation, appointed by the President;

(5) one Governor appointed by the President;

(6) one mayor appointed by the President;

(7) the President of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation

Officers;

(8) the Chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preservation;

(9) four experts in the field of historic preservation appointed by the President
from the disciplines of architecture, history, archeology, and other appropriate
disciplines; and,

(10) three at-large members from the general public, appointed by the President.

Designees (b) Each member of the Council specified in paragraphs (2) through (8) (other than
(5) and (6)) may designate another officer of his department, agency, or
organization to serve on the Council in his stead, except that, in the case of
paragraphs (2) and (4), no such officer other than an Assistant Secretary or an officer
having major department-wide or agency-wide responsibilities may be so
designated. •

Term of office (c) Each member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1), and under
paragraphs (9) and (10) of subsection (a) shall serve for a term of four years from the
expiration of his predecessor's term; except that the members first appointed under
that paragraph shall serve for terms of one to four years, as designated by the
President at the time of appointment, in such manner as to insure that the terms of
not more than two of them will expire in any one year. The members appointed
under paragraphs (5) and (6) shall serve for the term of their elected office but not in
excess of four years. An appointed member whose term has expired shall serve
until that member's successor has been appointed.

Vacancies (d) A vacancy in the Council shall hot affect its powers, but shall be filled not later
than sixty days after such vacancy commences, in the same manner as the original
appointment (and for the balance of any unexpired terms). The members of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation appointed by the President under this
Act as in effect on the day before the enactment of the National Historic
Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 shall remain in office until all members of the
Council, as specified in this section, have been appointed. The members first
appointed under this section shall be appointed not later than one hundred and
eighty days after the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980.

127
ViceClwirman (e) The President shall designate a Vice Chairman, from the members appointed
under paragraphs (5), (6), (9), or (10). The Vice Chairman may act in place of the
Chairman during the absence or disability of the Chairman or when the office is
vacant.

Quorum (f) Nine members of the Council shall constitute a quorum.

Section202 (16 U.S.C. 470j)

Duties of Council (a) The Council shall—

(1) advise the President and the Congress on matters relating to historic
preservation, recommend measures to coordinate activities of Federal, State, and
local agencies and private institutions and individuals relating to historic
preservation; and advise on the dissemination of information pertaining to such
activities;

(2) encourage, in cooperation with the National Trust for Historic Preservation
and appropriate private agencies, public interest and participation in historic
preservation;

(3) recommend the conduct of studies in such areas as the adequacy of legislative
and administrative statutes and regulations pertaining to historic preservation
activities of State and local governments and the effects of tax policies at all levels of
government on historic preservation;

(4) advise as to guidelines for the assistance of State and local governments in
drafting legislation relating to historic preservation;

(5) encourage, in cooperation with appropriate public and private agencies and
institutions, training and education in the field of historic preservation;

(6) review the policies and programs of Federal agencies and recommend to such
agencies methods to improve the effectiveness, coordination, and consistency of
those policies and programs with the policies and programs carried out under this
Act; and,

(7) inform and educate Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian
tribes, other nations and international organizations and private groups and
individuals as to the Council's authorized activities.

Annual and special reports (b) The Council shall submit annually a comprehensive report of its activities and
the results of its studies to the President and the Congress and shall from time to
time submit such additional and special reports as it deems advisable. Each report
shall propose such legislative enactments and other actions as, in the judgment of
the Council, are necessary and appropriate to carry out its recommendations and
shall provide the Council's assessment of current and emerging problems in the
field of historic preservation and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs
of Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector in carrying
out the purposes of this Act.

Section203 (16 U.S.C. 470k)

Information from agencies The Council is authorized to secure directly from any department, bureau, agency,
board, commission, office, independent establishment or instrumentality of the
executive branch of the Federal Government information, suggestions, estimates,
and statistics for the purpose of this title; and each such department or
instrumentality is authorized to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates,
and statistics to the extent permitted by law and within available funds.

128
 Section204 (16 U.S.C. 4701)

Compensation of members The members of the Council specified in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 201(a)
shall serve without additional compensation. The other members of the Council
shall receive $100 per diem when engaged in the performances of the duties of the
Council. All members of the Council shall receive reimbursement for necessary .
traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by them in the performance of the
duties of the Council.

Section205 (16 U.S.C. 470m)

Executive Director (a) There shall be an Executive Director of the Council w h o shall be appointed in
the competitive service by the Chairman with the concurrence of the Council. The
Executive Director shall report directly to the Council and perform such functions
and duties as the Council may prescribe.

General Counsel and attorneys (b) The Council shall have a General Counsel, who shall be appointed by the
Executive Director. The General Counsel shall report directly to the Executive
Director and serve as the Council's legal advisor. The Executive Director shall
appoint such other attorneys as may be necessary to assist the General Counsel,
represent the Council in courts of law whenever appropriate, including
enforcement of agreements with Federal agencies to which the Council is a party,
assist the Department of Justice in handling litigation concerning the Council in
courts of law, and perform such other legal duties and functions as the Executive
Director and the Council may direct.

Appointment and compensation of staff (c) The Executive Director of the Council may appoint and fix the compensation of
such officers and employees in the competitive service as are necessary to perform
the functions of the Council at rates not to exceed that now or hereafter prescribed
for the highest rate for grade 15 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code: Provided, however, That the Executive Director, with the
concurrence of the Chairman, may appoint and fix the compensation of not to
exceed five employees in the competitive service at rates not to exceed that now or
hereafter prescribed for the highest rate of grade 17 of the General Schedule under
section 5332 of Title 5, United States Code.

Appointment and compensation of (d) The Executive Director shall have power to appoint and fix the compensation
additional personnel of such additional personnel as may be necessary to carry out its duties, without
regard to the provisions of the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949.
Consultants (e) The Executive Director of the Council is authorized to procure expert and
consultant services in accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5,
United States Code.

Financial and administrative services (f) Financial and administrative services (including those related to budgeting;
accounting, financial reporting, personnel and procurement) shall be provided the
Council by the Department of the Interior, for which payments shall be made in
advance, or by reimbursement, from funds of the Council in such amounts as may
be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Council and the Secretary of the Interior;
Provided, That the regulations of the Department of the Interior for the collection of
indebtedness of personnel resulting from erroneous payments (5 U.S.C. 46e) shall
apply to the collection of erroneous payments made to or on behalf of a Council
employee, and regulations of said Secretary for the administrative control of funds
(31 U.S.C. 665(g)) shall apply to appropriations of the Council: And provided further.
That the Council shall not be required to prescribe such regulations.

Provision of assistance by members (g) The members of the Council specified in paragraphs (2) through (4) of section
201 (a) shall provide the Council, with or without reimbursement as may be agreed
upon by the Chairman and the members, with such funds, personnel, facilities, and
services under their jurisdiction and control as may be needed by the Council to
carry out its duties, to the extent that such funds, personnel, facilities, and services
are requested by the Council and are otherwise available for that purpose. To the
extent of available appropriations, the Council may obtain, by purchase, rental,
donation, or otherwise, such additional property, facilities, and services as may be
needed to carry out its duties and may also receive donations of moneys for such
purpose, and the Executive Director is authorized, in his discretion, to accept, hold,
use, expend, and administer the same for the purposes of this Act.

129
 Section206 (26 U.S.C. 470n) ,
International Centre for the Study of the (a) The participation of the United States as a member of the International Centre
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property is hereby
Property; authorization authorized.

Members of official delegation (b) The Council shall recommend to the Secretary of State, after consultation with
the Smithsonian Institution and other public and private organizations concerned
with the technical problems of preservation, the members of the official delegation
which will participate in the activities of the Centre on behalf of the United States.
The Secretary of Stateshall appoint the members of the official delegation from the
persons recommended to him by the Council.

Authorization for membership payment (c) For the purposes of this section there is authorized to be appropriated an
amount equal to the assessment for United States membership in the Centre for
fiscal years 1979,1980,1981, and 1982: Provided, That ho appropriation is authorized
and no payment shall be made to the Centre in excess of 25 per centum of the total
annual assessment of such organization. Authorization for payment of such
assessment shall begin in fiscal year 1981, but shall include earlier costs.

Section207 (16 U.S.C'. 470o)

Transfer offunds So much of the personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of
appropriations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, programmed,
or available or to be made available by the Department of the Interior in connection
with the functions of the Council, as the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall determine, shall be transferred from the Department to the Council
within 60 days of the effective date of this Act.

Section208 (16 U.S.C. 470p)

Rights of Council employees Any employee in-the competitive service of the United States transferred to the
Council under the provisions of this section shall retain all rights, benefits, and
privileges pertaining thereto held prior to such transfer.

Section 209 (26 U.S.C. 470a)

Exemption from Federal Advisory The Council is exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
Committee Act (86 Stat. 770), and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (80 Stat. 381)
shall govern the operations of the Council.

Section210 (26 U.S.C. 476Y)

Submission to the Congress No officer or agency of the United States shall have any authority to require the
Council to submit its legislative recommendations, or testimony, or comments on
legislation to any officer or agency of the United States for approval, comments, or
review, prior to the submission of such recommendations, testimony, or comments
to the Congress. In instances in which the Council voluntarily seeks to obtain the
comments or review of any officer or agency of the United States, the Council shall
include a description of such actions in its legislative recommendations, testimony,
or comments on legislation which it transmits to the Congress.

Sectipn211 (26 U.S:C. 470s)

Regulations for Section 106; local The Council is authorized tq.promulgate such rules and regulations it deems
government participation necessary to govern the implementation of section 106 of this Act. The Council
shall, by regulation/establish such procedures as may be necessary to provide for
participation by local governments in proceedings and other actions taken by the
Council with respect to undertakings referred to in section 106 which affect such
local governments. .''

130
 Section212 (16 U.S.C. 470t)
Council appropriation authorization (a) The Council shall submit its budget annually as a related agency of the
Department of the Interior. To carry out the provisions of this title, there are
authorized to be appropriated not more than $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1977,
$1,750,000 in fiscal year 1978, and $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1979. There are
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $2,250,000 in fiscal year 1980,
$2,500,000 in fiscal year 1981, $2,500,000 in fiscal year 1982, and $2,500,000 in fiscal
year 1983.

Concurrent submission of budget to (b) Whenever the Council submits any budget estimate or request to the
Congress President of the Office of Management and Budget, it shall concurrently
transmit copies of that estimate or request to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees and the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Sectioh213 (16 U.S.C 470u)

Reports from Secretary at request of CouncilTo assist the Council in discharging its responsibilities under this Act, the Secretary
at therequest of the Chairman/shall provide a report to the Council detailing the
significance of any historic property, describing the effects of any proposed
uridertakingph the affected property, and recommending measures to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

Section214 (16 U.S.C 470v)

Exemptions for Federal activities from The Council, with the concurrence of the Secretary, shall promulgate regulations or
provisions of the Act guidelines, as appropriate, under which Federal programs or undertakings may be
exempted from any of all of the requirements of this Act when such exemption is
determined to be consistent with the purposes of this Act, taking into consideration
the magnitude of the exempted undertaking or program and the likelihood of
impairment of historic properties. •

131
 TITLE III

Section301 (16 U.S.C. 470w)

Definitions As used in this Act, the term—

(1) "Agency" means agency as such term is defined in section 551 of title 5,
United States Code, except that jn the case of any Federal program exempted under
section 214, the agency administering such program shall not be treated as an
agency with respect to such program.

(2) "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the
Pacific Islands.

(3) "Localgovernment" meansa city, county, parish, township, municipality, or

borough, or any other general purpose political subdivision of any State.

(4) "Indian tribe" means the governing body of any Indian tribe, band, nation, or
other group which is recognized as an Indian tribe by the Secretary of the Interior
for which the United States holds land in trust or restricted status for the entity or its
members. Such term also includes any Native village corporation, regional
corporation, and Native Group established pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

(5) "Historic property" or "historic resource" means any prehistoric or historic

district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on
the National Register; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are
related to such a district, site, building, structure, or object.

(6) "National Register" or "Register" means the National Register of Historic

Places established under section 101.

(7) "Undertaking" means any action as described in section 106.

(8) "Preservation" or "historic preservation" includes identification, evaluation,

recordation, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management,
rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance and reconstruction, or any
combination of the foregoing activities.

(9)' "Cultural park" means a definable urban area which is distinguished by

• historic resources and land related to such resources and which constitutes an
interpretive, educational, and recreational resource for the public at large.

(10) "Historic conservation district" means an urban area of one or more

neighborhoods and which contains (A) historic properties, (B) buildings having
similar or related architectural characteristics, (C) cultural cohesiveness, or (D) any
combination of the foregoing.

(11) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior except where otherwise
specified.

132
 (12) "State Historic Preservation Review Board" means a board, council,
commission, or other similar collegial body established as provided in section
101(b)(1)(B)-
(A) the members of which are appointed by the State Historic Preservation
Officer (unless otherwise provided for by State law),
(B) a majority of the members of which are professionals qualified in the
following and related disciplines: history, prehistoric and historic archeology,
architectural history, and architecture, and
(C) which has the authority to—
(i) review National Register nominations and appeals from nominations;
(ii) review appropriate documentation submitted in conjunction with the
Historic Preservation Fund;
(iii) provide general advice and guidance to the State Historic Preservation
Officer, and
(iv) perform such other duties as may be appropriate.

(13) "Historic preservation review commission" means a board, council,

commission, or other similar collegial body which is established by State or local
legislation as provided in section 101(c)(1)(B), and the members of which are
appointed, unless otherwise provided by State or local legislation, by the chief
elected official of the jurisdiction concerned from among—
(A) professionals in the disciplines of architecture, history, architectural
history, planning, archeology, or related disciplines, to the extent such
professionals are available in the community concerned, and
(B) such other persons as have demonstrated special interest, experience, or
knowledge in history, architecture, or related disciplines and as will provide for an
adequate and qualified commission.

Section302 (26 U.S.C. 470w-l)

A u thority to expend fu nds for purposes of Where appropriate, each Federal agency is authorized to expend funds
this Act appropriated for its authorized programs for the purposes of activities carried out
pursuant to this Act, except to the extent appropriations legislation expressly
provides otherwise.

Section303 (26 U.S.C. 470w-2)

Donations to Secretary; money and (a) The Secretary is authorized to accept donations and bequests of money and
personal property personal property for the purposes of this Act and shall hold, use, expend, and
administer the same for such purposes.

Donations of less than fee interests in real (b) The Secretary is authorized to accept gifts or donations of less than fee interests
property in any historic property where the acceptance of such interests will facilitate the
conservation or preservation of such properties. Nothing in this section or in any
provision of this Act shall be construed to affect or impair any other authority of the
Secretary under other provision of law to accept or acquire any property for
conservation or preservation or for any other purpose.

Section304 (26 U.S.C. 470w-3)

Confidentiality of the location of sensitive The head of any Federal agency, after consultation with the Secretary, shall
historic resources withhold from disclosure to the public, information relating to the location or
character of historic resources whenever the head of the agency or the Secretary
determines that the disclosure of such information may create a substantial risk of
harm, theft, or destruction to such resources or to the area or place where such
resources are located.

Section305 (26 U.S.C. 470w-4)

Attorneys' fees In any civil action brought in any United States district court by any interested
person to enforce the provisions of this Act, if such person substantially prevails in
such action, the court may award attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and other
costs of participating in such action, as the court deems reasonable.

133
 Section 306 (16 U.S.C. 470w-5)

National Center for the Building Arts (a) In order to provide a national center to commemorate and encourage the
building arts and to preserve and maintain a nationally significant building which
exemplifies the great achievements of the building arts in the United States, the
Secretary and the Administrator of the General Services Administration are
authorized and directed to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Committee
for a National Museum of the Building Arts, Incorporated, a nonprofit corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia, or its successor,
for the operation of a National Museum for the Building Arts in the Federal Building
located in the block bounded by Fourth Street, Fifth Street, F Street, and G Street,
Northwest in Washington, District of Columbia. Such museum shall—

(1) collect and disseminate information concerning the building arts, including
the establishment of a national reference center for current and historic documents,
publications, and research relating to the building arts;

(2) foster educational programs relating to the history, practice and contribution
to society of the building arts, including promotion of imaginative educational
approaches to enhance understanding and appreciation of all facets of the building
arts;

(3) publicly display temporary and permanent exhibits illustrating, interpreting

and demonstrating the building arts;

(4) sponsor or conduct research and study into the history of the building arts
and their role in shaping our civilization; and

(5) encourage contributions to the building arts.

Cooperative agreement (b) The cooperative agreement referred to in subsection (a) shall include provisions
which—

(1) make the site available to the Committee referred to in subsection (a) without
charge;

(2) provide, subject to available appropriations, such maintenance, security,

information, janitorial and other services as may be necessary to assure the
preservation and operation of the site; and

(3) prescribe reasonable terms and conditions by which the Committee can fulfill
its responsibilities under this Act.

Grants to Committee (c) The Secretary is authorized and directed to provide matching grants-in-aid to
the Committee referred to in subsection (a) for its programs related to historic
preservation. The Committee shall match such grants-in-aid in a manner and with
such funds and services as shall be satisfactory to the Secretary, except that no more
than $500,000 may be provided to the Committee in any one fiscal year.

Site renovation (d) The renovation of the site shall be carried out by the Administrator with the
advice of the Secretary. Such renovation shall, as far as practicable—

(1) be commenced immediately,

(2) preserve, enhance, and restore the distinctive and historically authentic
architectural character of the site consistent with the needs of a national museum of
the building arts and other compatible use, and

(3) retain the availability of the central court of the building, or portions thereof,
for appropriate public activities.

Annual report (e) The Committee shall submit an annual report to the Secretary and the
Administrator concerning its activities under this section and shall provide the
Secretary and the Administrator with such other information as the Secretary may,
from time to time, deem necessary or advisable.

134
Definition of "building arts" (f) For purposes of this section, the term "buildingarts" includes, but shall not be
limited to, all practical and scholarly aspects of prehistoric, historic, and
contemporary architecture, archeology, construction, building technology and
skills, landscape architecture, preservation and conservation, building and
construction, engineering, urban and community design and renewal, city and
regional planning, and related professions, skills, trades and crafts.

Section307 (16 U.S.C. 470w-6)

Transmittal of regulations to Congressional (a) At least thirty days prior to publishing in the Federal Register any proposed
committees regulation required by this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a copy of the regulation
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. The Secretary
also shall transmit to such committees a copy of any final regulation prior to its
publication in the Federal Register. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, no final regulation of the Secretary shall become effective prior to the
expiration of thirty calendar days after it is published in the Federal Register during
which either or both Houses of Congress are in session.

Emergency regulations (b) In the case of an emergency, a final regulation of the Secretary may become
effective without regard to the last sentence of subsection (a) if the Secretary
notified in writing the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United
States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate setting forth the reasons why it is necessary to
. make the regulation effective prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period.

Disapproval by Congress (c) Except as provided in subsection (b), the regulation shall not become effective if,
within ninety calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date of
promulgation, both Houses of Congress adopt a concurrent resolution, the matter
after the resolving clause of which is as follows: "That Congress disapproves the
regulation promulgated by the Secretary dealing with the matter of , which
regulation was transmitted to Congress on ," the blank spaces therein
being appropriately filled.

Inaction by Congress (d) If at the end of sixty calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the
date of promulgation of a regulation, no committee of either House of Congress has
reported or been discharged from further consideration of a concurrent resolution
disapproving the regulation, and neither House has adopted such a resolution, the
regulation may go into effect immediately. If, within such sixty calendar days, such
a committee has reported or been discharged from further consideration of such a
resolution, the regulation may go into effect not sooner than ninety calendar days of
continuous session of Congress after its promulgation unless disapproved as
provided for.

Definitions (e) For the purposes of this section—

(1) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment sine die; and

(2) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of
more than three days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of sixty and
ninety calendar days of continuous session of Congress.

Effect of Congressional inaction (f) Congressional inaction on or rejection of a resolution of disapproval shall not be
, deemed an expression of approval of such regulation.

*U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1986; 624-351/7^9 135