Historic Preservation Fund

***Latest News*** On April 19, 2007, NCSHPO President Jay D. Vogt testified before the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The testimony requested $50million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) amd $10million for competitive grants to SHPOs for survey digitization and emergency preparedness. Click here to read the testimony.

Background

In 1976, Congress specifically authorized the deposit of a portion of Outer Continental Shelf oil lease revenues into a Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to carry out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). (Authorization for these deposits into the HPF expired on September 30, 2005 and legislation has been introduced to extend authorization. See below for more information.) Annual appropriations to the HPF provide matching grants to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) which encourages investment in historic preservation efforts and accelerates historic preservation activities nationwide - leveraging private investment, revitalizing communities, promoting heritage tourism, and building public-private partnerships (see below for more detailed information).

The HPF is authorized to receive $150 million annually in Outer Continental Shelf oil lease revenues; however, rarely has Congress appropriated more than one-half of that amount, leaving a $2.8 billion unexpended balance. Between 1968, the first year of appropriations to the States, and 1979, funding for the SHPOs rose steadily from $82,500 to $50.2 million. Unfortunately, beginning in 1980, appropriations began a downward trend reaching a low of $19.5 million for SHPOsin 1986. The only exception was a 1983 appropriation increase of $25 million to fund a one time Job Creation initiative. For a decade, between 1991 and 2000, funding for SHPOs remained relatively flat hovering at approximately $30 million. In 2001, the SHPOs recevied a huge boost, due in part to efforts to enact the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA).

CARA, introduced in 1999, proposed a dramatic increase in federal appropriations to programs supported by proceeds from Outer Continental Shelf oil leases including the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) and the HPF. CARA would have fully-funded these and other programs at their authorized amounts - $150 million annually for the HPF - and guaranteed those levels for 15 years. In 2000, the bill passed the House of Representatives by an impressive 315 to 102 vote, moved through the Senate Resources Committee, and drew the support of 63 Senators who signed a letter to Senate Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) asking that he bring the bill to the floor for a vote. However, members of Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate objected to CARA’s plan to take nearly $3 billion "off-budget, " that is, to guarantee federal expenditures to programs at their authorized amount. As an alternative, the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill contained a new title called the Land Conservation Preservation Infrastructure Improvement program, which subsequently became known as the Conservation Spending Category (Category). The Category added significant funding to CARA programs and seemed to obviate the need to enact CARA. The deal resulted in a $12 million increase for SHPOs, but this important gain was short lived. In FY2002, funding for SHPOs was reduced by $7 million and another $5 million in FY2003. Since 2003, funding for SHPOs has remained relatively flat - hovering in the mid-$30 million range - and while the dollar amounts remain constant, their buying power has decreased significantly. This trend has thwarted the HPF’s ability to achieve the nation’s historic resource protection objectives and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) has made full funding of the HPF a priority legislative objective.

Back to Top

HPF Funding Chart (in millions of dollars)

SHPOs - State Historic Preservation Offices
THPOs - Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
SAT - Save America's Treasures
HBCUs - Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Sites - Presidential Sites
PA - Preserve America

* - 5 million set-aside for Preserve America
** - Program not in place
*** - Funing for all government program for FY07 was done through a continuing resultion - H.J.R.20 - which is based on FY06 levels and an elimination of earmark projects
**** - 12.6 million for both Preserve America and the competitive grants of Save America's Treasures. Save America's Treasures earmark funding was eliminated.
****** - President's budget

Back to Top

The Importance of the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)

Why is full funding of the HPF important? Under-funding seriously jeopardizes the federal preservation program and, by extension, state and local preservation efforts. For example, the NHPA prescribed a comprehensive state-by-state survey and inventory of historic resources that could serve as the basis for developing preservation plans and ensuring that growth and development, although inevitable, would occur without obliterating the past. Just one state, Rhode Island, has actually completed its survey. In every other state, lack of funding has made for piecemeal survey efforts, triggered, more often than not, by a specific threat to a region or resource. Without comprehensive survey and documentation, communities have been ill-equipped to deal with economic upheaval and abandonment in urban historic districts, or the march of sprawl across their rural districts. Further, without comprehensive and usable data, preservationists cannot participate as effective partners at the planning table. Reviewers, charged with implementing the NHPA’s Section 106 review, are left to scramble to figure out what historically-significant resources lie in the path of a proposed cellular communications tower or highway right-of-way.

As the dollars and staff sizes shrink in the State Historic Preservation Offices, SHPOs face difficult choices. SHPOs have no alternative but to realign priorities and eliminate discretionary programs - public education, support for private-sector non-profits, site visits to prospective Certified Local Government (CLG) communities, marketing their rehabilitation tax credits - in order to have sufficient recourse to address the activities about which SHPOs have no discretion - responding to rehabilitation tax credit applications, and commenting on Section 106 reviews.

In addition, most states are simply unable to extend adequate grants-in-aid to specific rehabilitation projects. In the past, such money would seed redevelopment and bring the kind of positive attention needed to translate a dream of rehabilitation into a reality.

These examples illustrate the consequences of under-funding the HPF and serve to suggest the incredible advances that full funding could secure. At a time when Americans, like never before, are searching to understand and celebrate the hallmarks of our democracy and our unique American experience, we can not afford to allow the federal government to eschew its responsibilities to historic resources.

What does the HPF do exactly? HPF-funded programs have established a successful set of incentives, regulations, and assistance that fosters local decision-making and directs private investment to maximize the viability of existing resources. Click here for the Historic Preservation Fund Annual Report for FY2006.

Some of the many activities made possible by the HPF include:

• The Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
  In 2001, this tax incentive program administered by the states on behalf of the federal government, leveraged over $2.6 billion in private investment in existing neighborhoods. The credit recycles and reuses existing building stock and infrastructure, preventing further encroachment on natural resources. It increases the existing tax base and saves both the financial and economic costs of new roads, schools and utilities. It promotes economically viable and liveable communities where people want to live and work.

• Section 106 Review
  Section 106 of the NHPA allows SHPOs and citizens to have a voice in federal actions that may affect irreplaceable historic resources.

• Certified Local Governments (CLGs)
  10% of all funding to the SHPOs is transferred directly to support community-based preservation planning commissions known as Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Currently, close to 1,200 community governments have chosen to participate in the national historic preservation program. Increased funding for the HPF would be passed-through to these communities to enable them to protect their historic resources.

• State Historic Preservation Plans
  Each SHPO has developed a historic preservation plan, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, that sets forth a vision for preservation in the state. Revised every five years, each plan is the product of public input and an analysis of particular state needs. As an example, lighthouse preservation is not a priority in Wyoming but it is extremely important in Michigan. Adequate funding could help states to implement these preservation plans, giving them the means to preserve their unique heritage and creating neighborhoods, cityscapes and landscapes of which all its citizens could be proud.

• National Register of Historic Places Nominations and Context Developments
  SHPOs are the repositories and stewards of a wealth of information on local history and resource types. Limited funding has prevented SHPOs from analyzing that material in depth, using it effectively to set preservation priorities, or making it available through publication. Such historical analysis is of unparalleled value to preservationists, planners and community leaders working to understand, preserve and steward their history.

• Technical Assistance
  SHPOs collectively contain years of expertise on the history and heritage of each state and on historic preservation techniques. This information is not shared with the general public on a consistent, regular basis because mandated, non-discretionary activities take staff away from technical assistance activities.

• Grants-in-Aid
  In the 1980s, when HPF appropriations reached $50 million, SHPOs were able to re-grant a significant portion of their federal award to local preservation projects including bricks-and-mortar grants, and opportunities for training and preservation planning. What was most important about these grants was that they often represented the first such investments that laid the groundwork for future funding and inspired support for the project. Such seed grants have declined as states scramble to meet their mandated responsibilities first and find little left over.

• Putting Heritage on the Internet
  The 40 years of information collected by SHPOs needs to be converted into digital formats. This work is time-consuming and requires a capital investment to do the data entry. Once digitized, the information becomes accessible to local historians, planners and, importantly, to federal project proponents. Low HPF appropriations have limited the SHPOs in making these capital investments. Low HPF funding has also made it extremely difficult to integrate historic resource data into state and local planning processes. Such integration is essential to making appropriate land use decisions and planning for the future.

• Historic Preservation is Smart Growth
  Historic preservation - through the federal rehabilitation tax credit, and programs such as Main Street - is smart growth. By enhancing historic cities and communities across the country, preservation creates a sought-after environment that is the essence of livability. Reusing historic resources reduces greenfield development and helps to preserve open space and farmland; allows cities and communities to fund the maintenance of existing infrastructure, rather than the construction of new infrastructure; and keeps building materials out of landfills. Increases in the HPF will allow for education and training for the general public and local decision-makers in using historic preservation as a smart growth tool.

Back to Top

Congressional Action in Support of the HPF

On February 27, 2007 in the House of Representatives, Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus co-chairs, Representatives Brad Miller (D-NC) and Michael Turner (R-OH), circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter asking that their fellow legislators support adequate funding for core Historic Preservation Fund programs including: $50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), $12 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), $30 million for Save America's Treasures, $10million for disaster preparedness inventory and $10 million for Preserve America.

The Senate followed suit on April 13, 2007. Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) circulated their letter requesting adequate funding for core Historic Preservation Fund programs including: $50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), $12 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), $30 million for Save America's Treasures, and $10 million for Preserve America.

Ideas for Working with Elected Officials

Over the years, the Nevada SHPO has had some successes and failures dealing with elected officials and in particular with members of Congress. Ron James, the Nevada SHPO, has provided his thoughts on what has worked best. Click here to read more. . .

Back to Top

Latest News

FY2007 HPF Appropriations

When the 109th Congress adjourned on December 9, 2006, only 2 of the 11 spending bills had been enacted - the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security bills. Unable to complete work on the remaining FY2007 appropriations bills totaling approximately $460 billion, Congress approved a (third) continuing resolution thereby funding most government programs through February 15, 2007.

As one of its first orders of business, the 110th Congress faced the job of finishing the appropriations process for FY2007. On December 11, 2006, incoming House of Representatives Appropriations Committee chair Representative David Obey (D-WI) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), announced that upon their return in January 2007, they planned to adopt a joint funding resolution to support FY2007 spending and also stated that there would be no Congressional earmarks in the joint funding resolution - a moratorium would be placed on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place.

On January 29, 2007, Representative David Obey (D-WI) introduced a joint resolution to fund the government through the remainder of FY2007 which ends September 30, 2007. House Joint Resolution 20 (H.J.R.20) was passed by the House of Representatives on January 31, 2007 by a vote of 286-140. The Senate passed the bill on February 14, 2007 by a vote of 81-15. On February 15, 2007, the bill was signed into law by the President.

H.J.R.20 is based on FY2006 levels, but the bill was stripped of many specially-designated projects known as "earmarks". The resolution provides $55.6million for Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) programs in FY2007: State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), $35.7million; Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) $3.9million, Preserve America and competitive Save America’s Treasures grants, $12.6million; and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), $2.9million. The FY2006 figure was $72million with the elimination of Save America's Treasure's earmark funds constituting the difference.

FY2008 HPF Appropriations

On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his proposed budget for FY2008. A press release issued by the National Park Service indicates a total of $63.7million for historic preservation: $35.7million for SHPOs; $3.9million for THPOs, $10million each for Preserve America and Save America's Treasures; and $4million in grants for historic resources inventory.

On April 19, 2007, NCSHPO President Jay D. Vogt testified before the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The testimony requested $50million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) amd $10million for competitive grants to SHPOs for survey digitization and emergency preparedness. Click here to read the testimony.

Funding the HPF was one of the issues preservationists advocated for during their 2007 Annual Meeting.

For current information regarding the HPF, please see the NCSHPO Weekly Legislative Update (available to NCSHPO members only).

Reauthorization of the HPF

In the House of Representatives, the final hours of the 109th Congress witnessed a flurry of activity regarding the legislation reauthorizing deposits into the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) until 2015. The House of Representatives had previously passed H.R. 5861, which contained several provisions relating to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Certified Local Government program not included in the Senate bill. Last minute negotiations focused on whether the House or Senate bill would be the final vehicle for reauthorization. In the end, the House accepted the Senate version and on December 9, 2006, S. 1378 was passed.

On December 22, 2006 President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law. The legislation, signed without fanfare, was the final piece of a years-long discussion about potential changes to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Click here for more information about the reauthorization of the HPF.

Reauthorizing the HPF was one of the issues preservationists advocated for during their 2006 Annual Meeting.

Back to Top

	National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Suite 342 Hall of the States 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-1512 202-624-5465      FAX 202-624-5419