← Back to home

National Historic Preservation Act

The following article delves into the intricate legislative framework of the National Historic Preservation Act, a pivotal piece of United States law designed to safeguard the nation’s cultural heritage.

National Historic Preservation Act

Other short titles National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Long title An Act to establish a program for the preservation of additional historic properties throughout the Nation, and for other purposes.
Acronyms (colloquial) NHPA
Enacted by the 89th United States Congress
Effective October 15, 1966
Citations Public law 89-665
Statutes at Large 80 Stat. 915
Codification Titles amended 54 U.S.C.: National Park Service and Related Programs
U.S.C. sections created 16 U.S.C. ch. 1A, subch. II; § 470
Legislative history • Introduced in the Senate as S. 3035 by Henry M. Jackson (D-WA) on March 7, 1966
• Committee consideration by Senate Interior and Insular Affairs, House Interior and Insular Affairs
• Passed the Senate on July 11, 1966 (passed)
• Passed the House on October 10, 1966 (passed) with amendment
• Senate agreed to House amendment on October 11, 1966 (agreed)
• Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 15, 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), formally designated Pub. L. 89–665 and recorded in 80 Stat. 915, stands as a monumental piece of United States legislation. Its primary objective, as its name suggests, is the preservation of historic and archaeological sites across the nation. This act, a product of a burgeoning public consciousness regarding the rapid disappearance of tangible links to the past, fundamentally reshaped the landscape of cultural heritage management. It wasn't merely a statement of intent; it was a blueprint for action, establishing critical institutions and processes that continue to influence development and conservation today.

Among its most significant achievements, the NHPA brought into existence the National Register of Historic Places, a comprehensive and continually updated inventory of the nation's most significant cultural resources. It formalized the recognition of National Historic Landmarks, designating properties of exceptional national significance. Furthermore, it mandated the creation of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), decentralizing preservation efforts and ensuring that local and state perspectives were integrated into the national framework.

Senate Bill 3035, the legislative precursor to the NHPA, was ultimately signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 15, 1966. Its enactment marked a profound shift, becoming arguably the most extensive and far-reaching preservation legislation ever implemented in the United States. While the initial act laid a robust foundation, it has not remained static; numerous amendments have been introduced and passed over the decades, refining its scope and strengthening its provisions to address evolving challenges and understandings of heritage. A cornerstone of the NHPA’s regulatory power lies in its requirement for federal agencies to meticulously evaluate the potential impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on properties deemed historically significant. This critical evaluation is conducted through a structured administrative process, famously known as Section 106 Review. This process ensures that federal actions, whether direct or indirect, do not inadvertently contribute to the destruction or degradation of irreplaceable historic and archaeological assets without due consideration and, ideally, mitigation.

It is worth noting that many of the historic preservation provisions originally codified under 16 U.S.C. have since been reorganized and recodified within 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101–320303. This legislative update occurred with the passage of Pub. L. 113–287 (text) (PDF), which President Barack Obama signed into law on December 19, 2014, reflecting an ongoing effort to streamline and clarify federal statutes related to the National Park Service and Related Programs.

Early development

Prior to the transformative legislation of the 1960s, the concept of "historic preservation" as a formalized public policy was, frankly, an anomaly. As a 2015 column in The Washington Post bluntly observed, it was "neither a public policy issue nor part of America's architectural, planning and real estate development culture." Laws specifically designed for historic preservation were, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. One might surmise that the value of the past was either taken for granted or simply deemed less important than the relentless march of perceived progress.

Despite the absence of a national, coherent policy until 1966, the seeds of a preservation movement were sown in the 19th century through various individual and localized endeavors. These early efforts, often driven by sentimentality or a nascent sense of national identity, initiated the protracted journey towards comprehensive legislation. One of the earliest and most celebrated instances of this nascent preservation movement unfolded around the 1850s, centered on the dilapidated state of President George Washington's ancestral home, Mount Vernon. In a rather audacious move, Washington's own nephew attempted to offload the historic estate to the federal government for a princely sum of $200,000. However, the government, with its characteristic bureaucratic inertia, declined to authorize such a purchase. It seemed even the birthplace of the nation's first leader wasn't immune to the indignities of neglect and financial disinterest.

It was in this vacuum that Ann Pamela Cunningham, a determined woman with a clear vision, stepped forward. To prevent the further decay of the property or, perhaps worse, its conversion into some sort of ignoble commercial resort, Cunningham founded the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. This organization, pioneering in its mission, tirelessly campaigned and successfully raised the necessary funds to acquire the property, thereby safeguarding it from ruin. Their success was not merely about saving a building; it was about establishing a precedent. Mount Vernon subsequently became a powerful symbol, representing the very birth of independence and the enduring spirit of the nation. More pragmatically, its preservation "served as a blueprint for later organizations," demonstrating that collective action could indeed protect significant cultural assets.

The turn of the 20th century saw the first federal legislative stirrings in this domain. In 1906, President Teddy Roosevelt, a man known for his robust conservation ethic, signed the Antiquities Act into law. This act, a crucial precursor to later preservation efforts, "prohibited the excavation of antiquities from public lands without a permit from the Secretary of Interior." It was a modest but significant step, acknowledging that certain cultural resources on public lands held inherent value and required protection. Crucially, it also bestowed upon the President the authority to unilaterally declare specific pieces of land as national monuments, thereby shielding them from scavengers and proclaiming them as sites of national identity and importance. One might observe this as the government slowly realizing that history, much like natural resources, could be depleted.

A decade later, in 1916, the Department of the Interior further cemented the federal government's role in land and resource management by establishing the National Park Service. This agency became the nation's inaugural entity specifically tasked with the regulation and management of public spaces, a broad mandate that encompassed not only areas of natural beauty but also the burgeoning collection of national monuments. Over its first five decades, the NPS expanded its stewardship dramatically, acquiring "more than 26,000,000 acres (110,000 km2) of land, including not only the great chain of parks preserved for their natural beauty and value, but an extraordinary variety of historic buildings, monuments, and sites." This expansion demonstrated a growing, albeit still fragmented, recognition of the interconnectedness of natural and cultural heritage.

By 1935, Congress had passed the Historic Sites Act, a more direct legislative intervention that articulated a national policy specifically for preservation. This act empowered the Secretary of Interior to create and implement programs dedicated to preservation efforts. It was a clear acknowledgment that preservation was a legitimate federal concern. During the trying era of the Great Depression, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration initiated the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). This program, while serving the immediate need to provide employment for out-of-work architects, engineers, and surveyors, simultaneously generated an invaluable archive. These professionals were tasked with meticulously surveying, recording, documenting, and interpreting historic properties across the nation, creating a vast and enduring repository of information on countless buildings and structures that might otherwise have been lost to time or neglect. The Historic Sites Act also played a crucial role in consolidating the management of national parks under the National Park Service, thereby establishing the foundational administrative structure that would later facilitate the development of the National Register of Historic Places. Despite these significant legislative and programmatic advancements, both the Antiquities Act and the Historic Sites Act fell short of generating a broad, widespread "national awareness" regarding the urgency and importance of historic preservation. The efforts, while vital, remained somewhat niche, failing to fully capture the public imagination or translate into a comprehensive, universally accepted ethic of heritage protection.

A further institutional development occurred on October 26, 1949, when President Harry Truman signed legislation that brought into being the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This organization was explicitly chartered "to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or international interest." Its mandate was to "enforce public participation in preserving and protecting the sites, buildings, objects of national significance in American history." Initially, the National Trust for Historic Preservation did not possess the financial wherewithal to directly fund preservation projects. However, its role has evolved considerably. Today, it stands as a significant provider of funds for planning and educational initiatives, and it serves as an invaluable resource, offering a wealth of information, techniques, and methodologies to assist individuals and local organizations in their grassroots preservation endeavors. It’s a classic example of creating an organization first, and then figuring out how to fund it later.

Post WWII and urban renewal

The period following World War II ushered in an era of unprecedented national growth and, concomitantly, widespread urban transformation – often, frankly, destruction. In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law, a landmark piece of legislation that initiated the construction of the Interstate Highway System. This ambitious infrastructure project, conceived partly as a means to facilitate rapid troop deployment in the event of an attack, inadvertently became a colossal engine of historical erasure. As new highways carved their paths through cities and landscapes, countless historic properties, often unrecorded and unprotected, were simply bulldozed out of existence in the name of progress and efficiency.

The 1960s brought another wave of transformative, and often destructive, federal initiatives. President John F. Kennedy launched the Urban Renewal Program, an ambitious federal initiative designed to rejuvenate America's ailing cities. The stated intention was noble: to revitalize urban centers, clear slums, and stimulate economic growth. However, the reality often diverged sharply from the ideal. Far from rejuvenating cities, the program frequently exacerbated destruction in downtown areas, replacing historic fabric with sterile, modernist structures that often failed to integrate with existing communities or address underlying social issues.

This era was also marked by a significant increase in population and the widespread adoption of the automobile, factors that collectively demanded rapid changes to the built environment. The relentless pace of development, driven by these demographic and technological shifts, regrettably hindered the nation's ability to preserve its cultural heritage. As one might grimly observe, "With the urbanization, tear downs, and rebuilding America... it is destroying the physical evidence of the past." The scale of this loss began to register deeply with citizens. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a growing number of people witnessed the negative, often irreversible, changes unfolding in their cities. This widespread concern eventually coalesced into a broader movement focused on the "quality of life that reflected their identity," recognizing that the built environment was inextricably linked to community character and a sense of belonging.

In response to this nationwide wave of destruction, much of it ironically spurred by federally initiated programs, a critical report was coordinated by Lady Bird Johnson. The resulting publication, With Heritage So Rich, was a powerful accumulation of essays that meticulously analyzed the state of the country's historic resources and the devastating effects of urban renewal policies. This seminal work laid out a comprehensive vision for a new national preservation strategy. It called for "an expansive inventory of properties reflecting the nation's heritage, a mechanism to protect those properties from unnecessary harm caused by federal activities, a program of financial incentives, and an independent federal preservation body to coordinate the actions of federal agencies affecting historic preservation." The book served as a crucial catalyst, igniting public awareness of the pressing issue of heritage loss and, perhaps more importantly, offering a tangible proposition for a systemic solution: the National Historic Preservation Act. It was a moment where, for once, a problem was identified, and a coherent, actionable solution was proposed, rather than simply lamented.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act, a legislative response to the escalating crisis of heritage loss, was officially signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 15, 1966. This act was not merely a declaration of intent; it was a structural overhaul, establishing several crucial institutions and processes that would fundamentally reshape how the nation approached its historic resources. These foundational elements included the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) system, the National Register of Historic Places, and the procedural cornerstone of the act, the Section 106 review process. The intricacies and operational definitions of the Section 106 Process are further elaborated and detailed within 36 CFR Part 800, providing the regulatory teeth necessary for its implementation.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is a federal agency that plays a critical oversight role in the implementation of the NHPA. Composed of 23 members drawn from both public and private sectors, with its chairman appointed directly by the President, the council convenes four times annually. Its multifaceted role encompasses advising both the President and Congress on a wide array of historic preservation issues, developing policies and guidelines to navigate potential conflicts arising from the actions of federal agencies, and, crucially, participating directly in the Section 106 review process when called upon. This body serves as a high-level arbiter and advisor, ensuring that preservation concerns are considered at the highest levels of government.

The National Register of Historic Places, administered under the watchful eye of the National Park Service, represents the nation's official and comprehensive inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects deemed worthy of preservation. These officially designated "historic properties" are recognized regardless of whether their primary significance is archaeological or historical. To be considered eligible for inclusion on this prestigious list, a property must meticulously satisfy one of four established criteria and demonstrate sufficient "integrity," meaning it retains enough of its original physical fabric and associative value to convey its significance. It is a common misconception that listing on, or even eligibility for listing on, the National Register automatically confers absolute protection against damage or destruction. While it does not unilaterally halt development, it is a powerful tool, qualifying approved properties for various federal and state-level benefits, including grants, loans, and valuable tax incentives that can make preservation economically viable. The act, therefore, created a system of recognition and encouragement, rather than an outright prohibition on change.

Complementing the national-level institutions, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and its corresponding Officer were established by the NHPA to ensure that preservation efforts were robustly coordinated at the state level. Each SHPO is tasked with a broad range of responsibilities, including maintaining a comprehensive statewide inventory of historic properties, nominating eligible properties to the National Register, developing and maintaining a statewide preservation plan, offering technical assistance to local communities and organizations, and providing crucial advice and education to local stakeholders. Currently, there are 59 SHPO officers overseeing preservation efforts. This number accounts for one officer in each of the 50 states, along with an additional eight representing various U.S. territories and jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, among others. This decentralized structure ensures that local cultural nuances and priorities are considered within the broader national framework.

Section 106 review process

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act stands as one of the most significant and frequently invoked provisions of the legislation. It imposes a clear mandate on federal agencies: they must undergo a structured review process for all federally funded and permitted projects that have the potential to impact sites either officially listed on, or deemed eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. Specifically, the law requires the federal agency to "take into account" the effect a proposed project may have on these historic properties. This provision is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle; it is designed to ensure that the irreversible loss of historic and archaeological assets is given serious consideration before federal actions proceed. It also crucially provides interested parties—from local communities to preservation advocates—a formal opportunity to comment on the potential impact projects may have on significant archaeological or historic sites. The overarching purpose behind the establishment of the Section 106 review process is to systematically identify, assess, and ultimately minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties. It's an acknowledgment that while progress is inevitable, its collateral damage need not be.

Any federal agency whose project, whether through direct funding or the issuance of a permit, might affect a historic property—meaning those either listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places—is legally obligated to consider these effects. They must actively "seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate" any adverse impacts on such properties. The typical Section 106 Review unfolds through a series of four primary, well-defined steps:

  1. Initiation of the Section 106 Review: This is the initial trigger, where the federal agency recognizes its responsibility and begins the process, usually by consulting with the relevant State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and other consulting parties.
  2. Identification of Historic Properties: The agency, or a qualified consultant contracted by them, then undertakes a thorough inventory of the project area. This involves archaeological surveys, historical research, and architectural reconnaissance to determine the presence or absence of historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect.
  3. Assessment of Adverse Effects: Once historic properties are identified, the agency must assess whether the proposed project will have any "adverse effects" on their historic integrity or character. This involves a careful evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
  4. Resolution of Adverse Effects: If adverse effects are identified, the agency is then required to consult with the SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties to explore and agree upon measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects. This step often leads to a formal agreement.

It is important to note that further steps may be necessitated if there is a disagreement among the consulting parties regarding the assessment of adverse effects or the proposed resolution of those effects. Such disagreements can escalate, potentially involving the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

In practical terms, the federal agency overseeing the project (or, more commonly, a qualified consultant hired for the purpose) inventories the project area to ascertain the presence or absence of historic properties. Following this, they submit a Determination of Effect/Finding of Effect (DOE/FOE) to the SHPO. This document meticulously outlines the proposed project, details the efforts undertaken to identify historic properties, and articulates what effects, if any, the project is anticipated to have on these properties. If the project is determined to have no adverse effect on eligible historic resources, and both the SHPO and other consulting parties concur with this finding, the Section 106 process is effectively concluded, and the project may proceed.

Conversely, if an adverse effect is anticipated, the federal agency is legally compelled to engage in further consultation. This requires working closely with the local State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that all interested parties are afforded a comprehensive opportunity to review the proposed work and provide their comments. This crucial consultative step is designed to actively seek out and implement approaches that allow the project to avoid, or at least minimize, having an adverse effect on historic properties. Ideally, this process culminates in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) reached between all consulting parties, which formally outlines the agreed-upon mitigation measures or avoidance strategies for historic properties. However, this ideal outcome is not always achieved, and negotiations can be protracted. Without this structured process, invaluable historical properties would undoubtedly lose a significant layer of protection, leaving them vulnerable to unchecked development. While this process facilitates the exploration of different approaches and solutions to a project, it is critical to understand that it does not possess the power to unilaterally prevent any site from demolition or alteration. It merely ensures that such actions are taken with full awareness and, hopefully, after all other avenues have been explored. It ensures that destruction is at least a conscious decision, rather than an accidental byproduct.

Interestingly, Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act carves out specific exemptions, shielding three iconic Washington, D.C., National Historic Landmarks from the rigorous Section 106 review. These exceptions include the White House, the United States Capitol, and the United States Supreme Court Building. One might cynically observe that some historical properties are simply too important to be subjected to the same bureaucratic scrutiny as the rest.

Motives

The underlying motivations driving historic preservation efforts have evolved considerably over time, reflecting shifts in societal values, economic realities, and our collective understanding of history's role. Early preservation endeavors, particularly those in the 19th and early 20th centuries, were largely fueled by a potent blend of patriotism and a fervent desire to protect the foundational symbols of the newly established nation. These efforts were predominantly spearheaded by wealthy, private individuals and associations, often focusing on singular, iconic structures rather than broader areas like urban neighborhoods or rural landscapes. The preserved structures frequently underwent transformation into museums, serving as showcases for national narrative and, conveniently, generating tourism revenue. It was a sentimental, almost romantic, approach to history.

As the 20th century progressed, the focus of preservation gradually broadened beyond mere patriotism. It began to encompass the aesthetic qualities of a structure or area, recognizing the inherent beauty and architectural significance of the built environment. This aesthetic appreciation eventually matured into a more nuanced understanding of a property's "structural relationships with society at large," acknowledging that buildings and landscapes are not isolated artifacts but integral components of community identity and historical continuity.

According to Robin Elizabeth Datel, a scholar in the field, modern motivations for preservation can be distilled into four key, interconnected points:

  • To retain diverse elements of the past: This acknowledges the richness and complexity of history, moving beyond singular narratives to embrace a multitude of stories embedded in the built environment. It's about preserving all the layers, not just the heroic ones.
  • To perpetuate the distinctive identities of places: Preservation helps maintain the unique character and sense of place that defines communities, preventing a homogenization of the built environment. It’s a bulwark against the relentless march of generic development.
  • To involve amateurs in landscape care: This highlights the democratic aspect of preservation, encouraging community engagement and empowering ordinary citizens to take an active role in safeguarding their local heritage.
  • To practice a conservation approach to environmental change: This frames preservation within a broader sustainability ethic, recognizing that reusing existing structures is often more environmentally responsible than new construction. It's a pragmatic recognition that old buildings are, in fact, "green."

In recent decades, the economic benefits of preservation have increasingly come to the forefront, becoming more thoroughly researched, understood, and meticulously documented. Preservation efforts are now recognized as significant drivers of economic activity, often creating more jobs per dollar invested than new construction. These jobs, which range from skilled trades to specialized professional services, in turn stimulate new businesses, boost local tourism, increase property values in historic districts, and ultimately enhance the overall quality of life within a community. What began as sentiment has matured into demonstrable economic sense – a motive that, perhaps, resonates most deeply in a capitalist society.

Effects

The enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act has undeniably precipitated profound and far-reaching changes in employment trends within specialized historic preservation fields. Prior to this legislation, professionals such as archaeologists, historians, historic architects, and related specialists primarily found gainful employment within the confines of academia, typically working at universities or other institutions of higher learning. Their work, while intellectually rigorous, often remained somewhat detached from immediate real-world development concerns.

However, with the passage of the NHPA in 1966 and its subsequent robust enforcement (often through litigation that clarified its scope and authority), a new professional landscape emerged. An ever-increasing number of these highly educated professionals have since been drawn into the burgeoning field of cultural resources management (CRM). CRM is an expansive umbrella term that encompasses archaeology, historic preservation, and various other related disciplines when these are specifically applied for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the NHPA and other federal and state-mandated historic preservation laws. It created an entire industry dedicated to navigating the complexities of heritage protection within the development process.

Large-scale public works projects—from highway construction to pipeline installation—now routinely necessitate that teams of archaeologists perform limited excavations and systematic surveys. These efforts are undertaken to properly inventory buried archaeological remains and assess their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places before ground is broken. This industry has also democratized participation in archaeology and history to a certain extent. Unlike the often rigid academic arena, where a PhD is frequently a prerequisite for career advancement, the CRM sector offers opportunities for individuals to earn a professional livelihood without necessarily holding an advanced degree.

The Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologists, for instance, typically require a graduate degree coupled with at least one year of full-time professional experience, a minimum of four months of fieldwork, and a demonstrated ability to successfully carry research projects to completion. Crucially, the fundamental fieldwork often required to support cultural resource inventories is frequently conducted by individuals holding or actively pursuing bachelor's degrees. Consequently, numerous undergraduates and recent graduates in the fields that directly support the implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act have found meaningful employment. In the past, without the NHPA, their chances of earning a living in these specialized fields without an advanced degree were considerably slimmer. It's a testament to the act's influence that it created a viable career path for many.

Despite the expanded employment opportunities, it is a rather stark reality that Cultural Resource Management (CRM), for all its importance, often remains one of the lowest-paying fields for educated professionals. One might conclude that while the nation values its history enough to legislate its protection, it remains somewhat less enthusiastic about adequately compensating those tasked with the actual work of safeguarding it.

See also

Notes

  • ^ Lewis, Roger K. (September 11, 2015). "Historic preservation doesn't have a long history in U.S." The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. Retrieved June 18, 2017.
  • ^ Christopher J. Duerken et al., A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law, edited by Christopher J. Duerken (Washington D.C.: Conservation Foundation: National Center for Preservation Law, 1983), 1.
  • ^ Christopher Tunnard, "Landmarks of Beauty," With Heritage So Rich, chaired by Albert Rains, directed by Laurence G. Henderson (New York: Random House, 1966), 30. & Mitchell Schwarzer, "Myths of Permanence and Transience in the Discourse on Historic Preservation in the United States," Journal of Architectural Education 48, no. 1 (September 1994): 3–4.
  • ^ King, Thomas F. (2004). Cultural Resource: Law and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Altamira Press. p. 19.
  • ^ Duerken, 8.
  • ^ King, 19.
  • ^ Walter Muri Whitehall, "The Right of Cities to be Beautiful," With Heritage So Rich, chaired by Albert Rains, directed by Laurence G. Henderson (New York: Random House, 1966), 48.
  • ^ Adina W. Kanefield, Federal Historic Preservation Case Law, 1966-1996, rev. ed., achp.gov Archived 2009-02-07 at the Wayback Machine (accessed April 19, 2008).
  • ^ King, 20.
  • ^ Duekern, 8.
  • ^ a b Kanefield.
  • ^ Whitehall, 49.
  • ^ King, 21.
  • ^ Tunnard, 30.
  • ^ a b c King, 22.
  • ^ Robert Stipe, A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in 21st Century (Chapel Hill: University of Chapel Hill Press, 2003), 35.
  • ^ Stipe, 35.
  • ^ Stipe, 38.
  • ^ Duerken, 9. & Kanefield.
  • ^ King, 40.
  • ^ A property does not have to be officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places to receive protection, they just have to be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. One historian notes that National Park Service administrators "...responded enthusiastically to their growing professional authority by issuing a new, systematic outline of American history to serve as a guideline for the agency." John A. Matzko, Reconstructing Fort Union (University of Nebraska Press, 2001), p. 65.
  • ^ Charles E. Fisher, "Promoting the Preservation of Historic Buildings: Historic Preservation Policy in the United States," APT Bulletin 29, no. ¾ (1998): 8.
  • ^ King, 42.
  • ^ Stipe, 49.
  • ^ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "Protection Historic Properties: A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review," Updated Brochure 2011.
  • ^ National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended. Produced by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in conjunction with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Park Service. 1993. p. 26.
  • ^ Fisher, 7.
  • ^ Schwarzer, 2.
  • ^ Robin Elizabeth Datel, "Preservation and a Sense of Orientation for American Cities," Geographical Review 75, no. 2 (April 1985): 125.
  • ^ Donovan D. Rypkema, The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide (Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1994), 11.

External links

  • Text of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
  • Summary of the National Historic Preservation Act From National Park Service
  • 36 CRF Part 800 Protection of Historic Properties

{{U.S. National Register of Historic Places}} {{Lyndon B. Johnson}}

[[Category:National Register of Historic Places]] [[Category:Lyndon B. Johnson]]