S. 2543 Would Establish a Systematic Process for Identifying and Designating Proposed National Heritage Areas

As proposed, S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for determining  the suitability of proposed sites as national heritage areas and for  designating those areas found to be qualified. We noted that, while the Congress generally has made designation  decisions with the advice of the Park Service, it has, in some instances,  designated heritage areas before the agency has fully evaluated them. S. 2543,  however, would create a more systematic process that would make the  Congress’ designation of a heritage area contingent on the prior  completion of a suitability-feasibility study and the Secretary’s  determination that the area meets certain criteria. The Park Service has recently developed  guidance for applying these criteria, which will help to clarify how both  the existing criteria and the criteria proposed in S. 2543 could be applied  to better determine the suitability of a prospective heritage area. Provisions in S. 2543 Would Limit the Amount of Federal Funds Dedicated to National Heritage Areas

S. 2543 would impose some limits on the amount of federal funds that can  be provided to national heritage areas through the National Park Service’s  budget. In our March 2004 testimony, we stated that from fiscal years 1997  through 2002 about half of heritage areas’ funding came from the federal  government. According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, the areas  received about $310 million in total funding. Of this total, about $154  million came from state and local governments and private sources and  another $156 million came from the federal government. Over $50 million  was dedicated heritage area funds provided through the Park Service, with  another $44 million coming from other Park Service programs and about  $61 million from 11 other federal sources. Of this amount,  not more than $1 million may be provided to an individual area in a given  fiscal year and not more than $10 million over 15 years. S. 2543 Includes a Number of Provisions to Enhance the Park Service’s Ability to Hold National Heritage Areas Accountable for Their Use of Federal Funds

S. 2543 includes a number of provisions that could enhance the Park  Service’s ability to hold national heritage areas accountable for their use of  federal funds. We recommended that, in the absence of a  formal heritage area program within the Park Service, the Secretary of the  Interior direct the Park Service to develop well-defined, consistent  standards and processes for regional staff to use in reviewing and  approving heritage areas’ management plans; require regional heritage  area managers to regularly and consistently review heritage areas’ annual  financial reports to ensure that the agency has a full accounting of their  use of funds from all federal sources; develop results-oriented  performance goals and measures for the agency’s heritage area activities,  and require, in the cooperative agreements, that heritage areas adopt such  a results-oriented management approach as well. By establishing this program,  the bill would provide the Park Service with the direction and funding that  agency officials believe they need to impose management controls on their  own and heritage areas’ activities. Furthermore, S. 2543 includes a number  of provisions that address the concerns we raised in March. First, the bill  establishes a schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving or  disapproving heritage areas’ management plans. S. 2543 also requires that the management plans include information on,  among others, performance goals, the roles and functions of partners, and  specific commitments by the partners to accomplish the activities outlined  in the management plan. This report  must specify, among other things, the local coordinating entity’s  performance goals and accomplishments, expenses and income, amount  and sources of matching funds, amounts and sources of leveraged federal  funds, and grants made to any other entity during the fiscal year. S. 2543 provides property owners the right to refrain from participating in  any planned project or activity conducted within the national heritage  area. Furthermore, it does not require any property owner to permit public  access, nor does it modify public access under any other federal, state, or  local law. It also does not alter any adopted land use regulation, approved  land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any federal, state, or local  authority.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Congress has established, or "designated," 24 national heritage areas to recognize the value of their local traditions, history, and resources to the nation's heritage. These areas, including public and private lands, receive funds and assistance through cooperative agreements with the National Park Service, which has no formal program for them. They also receive funds from other agencies and nonfederal sources, and are managed by local entities. Growing interest in new areas has raised concerns about rising federal costs and the risk of limits on private land use. GAO was asked to comment on how provisions of S. 2543 might affect issues identified in GAO's March 2004 testimony addressing the process for (1) designating heritage areas, (2) determining the amount of federal funding to these areas, (3) overseeing areas' activities and use of federal funds, and (4) determining the effects, if any, they have on private property rights.

What GAO Found

Provisions of S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for identifying and designating national heritage areas, addressing many of the concerns identified in GAO's March 2004 testimony. At that time, GAO reported that no such systematic process exists, noting that the Congress has, in some instances, designated heritage areas before the Park Service has fully evaluated them. S. 2543 contains provisions that would require that a suitability study be completed and the Park Service determine the area meets certain criteria before the Congress designates a heritage area. While the bill defines heritage areas more specifically in terms of their national significance, the criteria outlined in S. 2543 will benefit from guidance that the Park Service has recently developed to guide the application of the criteria. This guidance will improve the designation process. Provisions of S. 2543 would limit the amount of federal funds that can be provided to heritage areas through the Park Service's budget. In March 2004, GAO testified that from fiscal years 1997 through 2002 about half of heritage areas' funding came from the federal government. Specifically, for 22 of the 24 heritage areas where data were available, $156 million of the areas' $310 million in total funding came from the federal government. Of this, over $50 million came from Park Service funds dedicated for this purpose, $44 million from other Park Service programs, and about $61 million from 11 other federal sources. S. 2543 would restrict annual dedicated Park Service funding for heritage areas to $15 million. Individual areas may not receive more than $1 million in a given fiscal year and $10 million over 15 years. Furthermore, S. 2543 includes provisions that could enhance the Park Service's ability to hold heritage areas accountable for their use of federal funds. In this regard, S. 2543 (1) establishes a program that would provide the Park Service with the direction and funding needed to manage the agency's and the heritage areas' activities; (2) establishes a schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving heritage areas' management plans; (3) identifies criteria for use in reviewing areas' plans; (4) requires that the plans include information on, among other things, performance goals and the roles and functions of partners; and (5) requires areas to submit annual reports specifying, among other things, performance goals and accomplishments, expenses and income, and amounts and sources of funds. GAO has identified potential amendments to S. 2543 that would further enhance areas' accountability. S. 2543 includes provisions that address some of the concerns GAO identified in March with regard to heritage areas' potential restrictions on property owners' rights and land use. For example, S. 2543 allows property owners to refrain from participating in any planned project or activity within the heritage area. Furthermore, the bill does not require any owner to permit public access to property and does not alter any existing land use regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority.