[Senate Hearing 108-551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-551
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS, INCLUDING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, THE DEFINITION OF A
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, THE DEFINITION OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AS IT
RELATES TO NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AS UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM,
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRIORITIZING PROPOSED STUDIES AND DESIGNATIONS, AND
OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING A NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA PROGRAM WITHIN THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
__________
MARCH 30, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-195 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Benton-Short, Lisa, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Geography, The
George Washington University................................... 30
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 2
Carlino, August R., President and CEO, Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area.................................................. 23
Frenchman, Dennis, Professor of the Practice of Urban Design,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.......................... 37
Hill, Barry, Director, Natural Resource and Environment, General
Accounting Office.............................................. 8
Jones, A. Durand, Deputy Director, National Park Service......... 2
LaGrasse, Carol W., President, Property Rights Foundation of
America........................................................ 42
Sanderson, Edward F., President, National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers................................. 33
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 55
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 75
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. We welcome you for being here, certainly.
We will be talking today about oversight on National Heritage
Areas. So I welcome the Deputy Director of the Park Service and
other witnesses who are here.
Now, at a hearing approximately a year ago, the
subcommittee received testimony from the administration and
various interest groups. Following that discussion Senator
Domenici and Senator Bingaman and I requested that the General
Accounting Office review National Heritage Areas. We call
today's hearing to hear and discuss the results of that GAO
review. We have asked scholars, private property rights
advocates and other interest groups to join in the dialogue.
Twenty-four National Heritage Areas currently exist, and
this subcommittee has received legislative requests for 20, I
think, or more new heritage areas. The potential for growth
seems to be unlimited in the fact that Heritage Areas can be as
narrow as the Rivers of Steel or as broad as the entire State
of Tennessee. So each request for a new area is accompanied
also by a request for $1 million per year, generally for 10-
year periods; some have gone beyond that, I believe. I do
believe there are unique places in the country where it is
appropriate to provide Federal assistance for a State or local
organization to be able to assume responsibility for protecting
a designated resource. However, I am concerned, and I think
many of us are concerned about the total number that are being
established, the lack of clear definition and criteria, I think
which is really the key to have some real idea of what the
basic criteria should be. And the apparent inability for the
sunset of the Federal role for heritage areas. So I think the
time has come for us to define the role, define the Park
Service's role in national heritage, define the funding and put
together some substantive definition of what they ought to be.
So that is really what it is all about today. And I want to
thank the witnesses for coming. So I think we can go, I think,
right ahead and start, Mr. Jones, with you sir, if you will. If
you want to kind of limit your testimony a little bit; we will
have your full testimony in the report.
[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we are all aware, our Public Lands are
among the greatest treasures we have as a country. Whether they are
National Parks, Wilderness, or national heritage Areas, they are all
important in preserving the natural splendor and history that abounds
in our nation.
In Colorado, we are fortunate to have the first National Heritage
Area west of the Mississippi, the Cache La Poudre Corridor, local
citizens have formed a non-profit organization, the Poudre Heritage
Alliance to advance the goals of the heritage area. Working in
partnership with the National Park Service and Rocky Mountain National
Park, the heritage area has worked to advance the goals of the original
congressionally directed designation to provide for the interpretation
of the unique and significant contributions to our national heritage of
cultural and historic lands, waterways and structures within the
Corridor.
As Richard Brady, the Chair of the Poudre Heritage Alliance, has
said, ``The Poudre River is a living history lesson. A water system
that is evolving, but still functioning much the way it did a century
ago''.
In managing public lands such as these, we must also realize that
while there are many deserving areas, we unfortunately do not have an
endless supply of money and need first and foremost to care for the
lands already entrusted to the Federal Government.
There are many land designations and we need to expressly state
criteria for the designation and management of public lands, that we
may make the best use of our limited resources, which is the purpose of
our hearing today.
I look forward to hearing testimony on this matter from our
witnesses today. Thank You.
STATEMENT OF A. DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will hit the
highlights of the testimony. First, I want to start by thanking
you for your leadership. For example, last year, you sponsored
the 2-day seminar that was held to brainstorm the whole
Heritage Area issues with your staff and I think it brought a
lot of good ideas to the table and got a lot of concepts out,
which I think has helped further the dialogue toward where we
are today. And also, especially the good news is that this
morning we have formal cleared legislation, which I'd like to
attach to our testimony as a formal recommendation to our
proposal for implementing and putting some sideboards and
direction and study requirements to determine significance as a
legislative proposal that addresses the issues that we've heard
in the various dialogues, issues that have been raised through
the GAO review. And so, we think it's important to move forward
on that, and it's a really good opportunity to help define the
program for where it goes in the future and what we've learned.
Just to hit a few things from my prepared testimony. After
two decades of experience with National Heritage Areas, the
Department recognizes the need to enact Heritage Area
legislation to provide criteria for evaluation of potential
areas, standards for planning, limitations on funding and
guidance to the National Park Service, assistance and how we
accomplish that assistance.
The Heritage Areas are intended to preserve nationally
important cultural, natural, historic and recreational
resources through the creation of partnerships among Federal,
State and local entities. Heritage Areas are locally driven,
initiated and managed by the people who live there and do not
impose Federal zoning, land controls nor do they require land
acquisition. One of the issues that, for example, we have
learned over the years is that at the beginning some of the
early Heritage Areas were managed through Federally-designated
commissions. We are increasingly convinced that having local
nonprofit groups, local organizations or state entities be the
managing entity rather than Federal commissions is the
direction to go in, because it helps ensure local control,
which is what Heritage Areas need to be. The program has grown
without specific criteria for assessing an area's national
importance and the ability of an area to become self-
sufficient. For these reasons the Department proposes
legislation that will set limits and guide future National
Heritage Area proposals.
So far, no area has graduated from the program, if you
will, even after 20 years in some cases and nearly $100 million
invested overall in Heritage Areas. In 2004, 24 designated
areas receive either grants or line-item construction funding
through the National Park Service.
The Department's legislative proposal is crafted to address
the successes and challenges identified in our decades of
experience working with these community partnerships.
Successful National Heritage Areas embody locally driven
partnerships and emphasize local control of land use and blend
education, cultural conservation, resource preservation,
recreation and community revitalization, all of which are
integral parts of the mission of the National Park Service. Our
legislative proposal supports this conservation strategy by
recognizing the people who live in a Heritage Area are uniquely
qualified to preserve it. The draft GAO report notes that at
this time no criteria have been adopted for determining the
significance or importance of National Heritage Area proposals.
We agree with that concern and our legislative proposal would
address that by laying out criteria that we feel each proposed
Heritage Area should meet to determine national significance.
We believe that a feasibility study should be required for
every proposal for a National Heritage Area, and the study
should be evaluated against legislatively established criteria
before its designation. In a historical perspective, one of the
reasons why we feel that this is a very important programmatic
piece of the legislation is, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, from
your days in Congress, that we also had an era of rapid growth
of the National Park System, similar to some of the concerns we
hear being expressed about Heritage Areas today. And the
response for that came out of this committee, legislation that
put very strict sideboards on doing formal studies to determine
national significance before coming back to the Congress to
recommend whether an area should or should not be added to the
National Park System. This legislative package would put a
parallel concept in place that would help put out some guidance
for new Heritage Areas in the future.
The GAO report expressed concern that in the past the
Department's authority to approve management plans was not
always consistently applied. Our legislative proposal clarifies
the timeframe for developing a management plan and a
requirement for Secretarial approval. In the legislative
proposal plans not approved within the specified 3 years would
be denied future funding. Under our proposal management plans
are an essential starting point for successful national
heritage areas, as they strengthen community development, build
necessary partnerships, establish performance goals and expand
capacity. One of the other things that we're proposing as being
part of that management plan is building in something that
we're finding increasingly successful in park management, and
that is that there be a business plan associated with the
management plan for the Heritage Area that would lay out a
proposal for their eventual self-sufficiency from an economic
viability point of view. So they have a goal during their 15
years under Federal assistance to achieve so that they can
graduate from the program and continue.
Actually, at this point, Mr. Chairman, why don't I just
conclude that we have, so far, an answer to one of the issues
that you had raised earlier. Congress has appropriated over
$100 million to date for National Park Service under the
Heritage Area Partnership Program. One good news item out of
Heritage Areas, however, is that that $100 million has
leveraged over $900 million of funding from other sources that
have met it. So, almost a nine-to-one return for our investment
to help local communities do these programs. And we feel that's
one of the successes of this program.
So at this point I'd be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of A. Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today to discuss the National Park Service's National
Heritage Area Program, to respond to the findings of the General
Accounting Office's report, and to present the Department of the
Interior's legislative proposal for a National Heritage Partnership
Act.
After two decades of experience with national heritage areas, the
Department recognizes the need to enact national heritage area
legislation to provide criteria for evaluation of potential areas,
standards for planning, limitations on funding, and guidance on
National Park Service assistance.
National heritage areas are intended to preserve nationally
important natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources
through the creation of partnerships among Federal, State and local
entities. National heritage areas are locally driven, initiated and
managed by the people who live there and do not impose Federal zoning,
land use controls nor do they require land acquisition. At its best,
the collaborative approach of this program embodies Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton's ``Four Cs''--Communication, Consultation and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. However, this program
may include areas receiving Federal support where national importance
has not been demonstrated. The program has grown without specific
criteria for assessing an area's national importance and the ability of
an area to become self-sufficient. For these reasons, the Department
proposes legislation that will set limits and guide future national
heritage area proposals.
The National Park Service's 2005 Budget requested less funding for
national heritage areas, because we are now focusing our available
resources on maintaining and operating national parks. The budget
request also reflected concerns that the program lacks an overall
authorization or a process for areas to become self-sufficient. So far,
no area has ``graduated'' from the program, even after 20 years in some
cases and nearly $100 million invested overall. In 2004, all 24
designated areas received either grants or line-item construction
funding.
The Department's legislative proposal is crafted to address the
successes and challenges identified in our two decades of experience
working in these community partnerships. As you know, over the last
year, this subcommittee has held oversight hearings, facilitated
meetings with interested parties, and requested a review by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) on the national heritage area program. These
efforts have been critical in gaining insight from all parties and
clarifying essential elements for legislative action. In particular,
the draft report from the GAO, based on almost a year of research in
the field, has cast light on some of the most difficult issues facing
the program, and has made valuable recommendations on what can be
improved.
The National Park Service mission statement speaks to the
importance of partnerships in resource conservation. Successful
national heritage areas embody locally driven partnerships that
emphasize local control of land use, and blend education, cultural
conservation, resource preservation, recreation and community
revitalization, all of which are integral parts of the mission of the
National Park Service. Our legislative proposal supports this
conservation strategy by recognizing that the people who live in a
heritage area are uniquely qualified to preserve it. Being designated
as a national heritage area can benefit visitors, community residents,
existing National Park units located in the area, and other Federal
lands by expanding the opportunity to interpret and protect resources
over a larger landscape and by telling our shared national stories.
The national heritage area strategy is about fostering a
partnership culture at every level of government with each level having
an appropriate and complementary role to play. The National Park
Service should be the lead partner only when the resources within a
proposed heritage area are of national importance. The draft GAO report
notes that, at this time, no criteria have been adopted for determining
the significance or importance of national heritage area proposals. The
Department's legislative proposal addresses this concern by limiting
our involvement to regions that have a collection of resources ``that
together tell nationally important stories based on our country's
heritage''. While many places in this nation have special meaning to
the people that live there, in many cases designation as a State or
local heritage area may be most appropriate.
The Department believes that a feasibility study should be required
for every proposed national heritage area and the study should be
evaluated against legislatively established criteria before
designation. These criteria, outlined in our legislative proposal,
require that an area provide evidence of place-based resources to tell
a nationally important story and of the support and involvement from
the local community. This approach has been field-tested and has been
shown to increase the future success of the heritage area. Critical
elements in the process are public involvement in preparing the
feasibility study, demonstration of significant public support for the
designation, documented commitment to the proposal from units of
government and other parties, the identification of a responsible local
coordinating entity, consultation with and concurrence from the
managers of any Federal lands within the proposed national heritage
area, and the development of a conceptual financial plan outlining the
roles of all participants including the Federal government.
After congressional designation, the local coordinating entity for
the heritage area develops a management plan to serve as a road map for
all stakeholders and a work plan for the expenditure of Federal
dollars. The GAO report expressed concern that in the past the
Department's authority to approve management plans was not always
consistently applied. Our legislative proposal clarifies the timeframe
for developing a management plan and the requirement for Secretarial
approval. Plans not approved within the specified three years will be
denied funding. Under our proposal, management plans are an essential
starting point for a successful national heritage area as they
strengthen community involvement, build necessary partnerships,
establish performance goals, and expand capacity for collaborative
action that will attract a wide range of fundraising dollars.
To be successful, national heritage areas must be guided and
supported by local communities and the people that live there. These
areas also must work closely with all partners in the region including
Federal land management agencies. This is of particular importance in
the west where a national heritage area boundary may encompass Federal
land designated for many uses. To ensure a constructive partnership,
our legislative proposal requires the consultation and concurrence of
Federal land management agencies within the boundaries of a proposed
national heritage area. In addition to clarifying respective missions,
this process of consultation will help identify potential partnerships
as envisioned by the Administration's recent Preserve America Executive
Order. Under this initiative, local communities and public land
partners will collaborate for the promotion of local economic
development and heritage tourism through the preservation and
productive reuse of historic assets.
Almost 47 million people across 18 states live within a national
heritage area. The draft GAO report concluded that national heritage
area designation does not impinge on the rights of private property
owners. Our legislative proposal contains safeguards to ensure that
private property owners are provided with reasonable protections.
National heritage area designation does not involve the acquisition of
land, or impose zoning or land use controls by the Federal government
or local coordinating entities. In fact, the support of private
property owners and other community members for a national heritage
area designation is an integral part of the feasibility study.
When the first national heritage corridors were designated twenty
years ago, a Federal commission provided management for the areas and
the National Park Service provided most of the staff. The national
heritage corridor or area was conceived as a less expensive alternative
to the acquisition and operating costs of creating a new unit of the
National Park System. These areas were originally authorized for five
years with a five-year extension; over time, the corridors have been
reauthorized for additional periods. For the 18 national heritage areas
established after 1995, the National Park Service encouraged greater
involvement by local entities and a more cost-effective use of Federal
resources. These newer areas are managed by a non-profit entity or a
State government and include a funding formula of not more than $10
million federal dollars over a fifteen-year period. Our legislative
proposal codifies this approach and for the first time requires that a
business plan be developed as part of management planning for proposed
new areas. This will ensure that from the beginning, national heritage
areas are working towards and have an established plan for self-
sufficiency. We also recognize the need to work with existing areas to
assist them in a transition strategy as they reach the end of their
funding authorization. As areas become self-sufficient, available
resources could be reallocated to newly designated areas or other
priorities.
National heritage areas demonstrate excellence in the areas of
partnership, leveraging funding from a variety of sources, and
education. Partnerships are the way that heritage areas conduct
business. In 2003, the 24 national heritage areas reported 996
formalized partnerships (based on project agreements) and 2,480
informal partnerships. These partnerships help us achieve that part of
our mission statement that declares ``. . . the Park Service cooperates
with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation through the country . . .''. Last
year, national heritage areas awarded 117 grants to assist National
Register listed or eligible properties and 67 grants for recreational
trails. In total, 367 project grants leveraged $29,276,585 in
additional funds for resource conservation.
Although funding for national heritage areas require a one-for-one
match, these areas go on to leverage a great deal more than that. The
draft GAO report cited National Park Service dollars were used to
leverage funds from State and local governments, other Federal
agencies, and private sources. In our review a year ago, the National
Park Service found that since 1985, Congress has appropriated
$107,225,378 to the National Park Service under the Heritage
Partnership Program to support heritage area projects and programs.
This allocation has leveraged $929,097,491 in non-National Park Service
partnership funds, an impressive 1 to 8.7 match. A well-established
national heritage area will have a balanced funding mix from the
National Park Service, U.S. Department of Transportation Enhancement
Funds, other Federal programs, State government, local government, and
the private sector. The national heritage area model of collaborative
funding demonstrates the value of partnership.
National heritage areas understand the value of telling the story
of their region's heritage to both visitors and more importantly, to
the next generation of citizens. Some examples of their award winning
programs include the work of Ranger Chuck Arning in the John F. Chaffee
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, who won both the
1997 National Freeman Tilden Award for Interpretive Ranger of the Year
for the television series entitled ``Along the Blackstone'', and the
National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom's Freedom Star Award
for this series. In 2003, Ranger Suzanne Buchanan from the Blackstone
won the Northeast Region's Freeman Tilden Award for the Volunteer
Program in the Blackstone River Valley. Last year, the Silos and
Smokestacks National Heritage Area's website (http://www.campsilos.org)
won a 2nd place Media Award from the National Association for
Interpretation; this website reaches 25,000 regional and worldwide
visitors monthly. Overall in 2003, national heritage areas managed 513
different educational program reaching 740,775 people.
Recent studies and our own experiences have shown that the national
heritage area approach links people and place, nature and culture, and
the present with the past. National heritage areas capitalize on the
unique role local communities play in caring for their heritage and
telling their stories. Our legislative proposal respects these
principles. It also recognizes the need to target our assistance to
those areas where there is a national interest and where the local
partners meet established criteria for success. We hope to work with
all parties to craft a program that responds to the draft GAO report,
is held accountable for public investment, and builds on the successful
practices in the field.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Chairman Thomas for his
assistance in evaluating the national heritage area program, in
identifying areas for improvement, and supporting our efforts to draft
program legislation. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The following was received from the Park Service:]
National Park Service Response to the U.S. General Accounting Office
gao report: gao-04-593t
National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing
National
Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are
Needed
The National Park Service appreciates the time, attention,
and spirit of collegiality under which the General Accounting
Office conducted this inquiry. On the whole, the National Park
Service believes the findings are accurate. We look forward to
using the report as the basis for continuing program
improvements and changes in consultation with key program
customers and constituencies.
The National Park Service is fully supportive of the
National Heritage Area concept. We concur with the report's
recommendation that national program legislation is needed to
evaluate better and more consistently proposed areas for
designation. to ensure consistent Service technical assistance
and support, and to strengthen the administration of the
program. Accordingly, this agency has recently developed draft
program legislation in response to Congressional interest in
establishing criteria and a process for designation of national
heritage areas.
The National Park Service also agrees with the report that
there is a need to develop more explicit administrative
guidelines and management standards and controls (including a
National Park Service Director's Order) to provide guidance to
the Service's Washington, DC headquarters, regional offices and
park units as we administer this important program or provide
technical assistance and support (this is especially true for
the review and approval of management plans). Additionally, we
agree that consistent and replicable financial and management
controls and systems must be improved to ensure internal
control, accountability, and oversight of federal funding.
The National Park Service is pleased that the GAO report so
effectively demonstrates the wide diversity of funding
leveraged to date by the National Heritage Areas. To this
agency, this is a prime indicator of program health in heritage
areas' abilities to leverage funding other than National Park
Service appropriations--a key element of the ``seed money''
idea behind the program. We were heartened to see not only non-
NPS funding but private sources as well as public funding from
state. local, and other federal sources. We think this is a
critical accomplishment in the evolution of this important
national program.
On the matter of current National Park Service appropriated
funding support for the Heritage Areas Program, the National
Park Service would suggest the report describe more clearly and
specifically the level of NPS appropriations: 1) specifically
directed for NPS administration of this program; separate from,
2) NPS appropriated line items to the individual heritage
areas; separate from, 3) other appropriated general heritage
areas operating funds. As it is currently written, there is no
clear distinction and we believe important information may be
misunderstood, lost, or confused on this important matter.
The National Park Service concurs with the report's
recommendations on developing consistent program performance
measures in compliance with the Government Performance and
Results Act. This agency has, in partnership with the
designated national heritage areas, recently taken steps to
identify appropriate goals and measures for the program
including measuring outcomes in terms of resource conservation,
educational offerings, leveraging of funding and formation of
partnerships. As an example, a number of national heritage
areas have piloted a regional tourism impact model adapted from
a successful National Park Service planning model already in
use on a regional scale.
The National Park Service supports protections for private
property owners located within the boundaries of nation
heritage areas. The agency's draft legislative proposal cited
above and most of the legislation establishing the existing
individual areas specifically prohibits the federal
government's funding to be used for acquiring land within a
national heritage area or for imposing zoning or land use
controls. The report supports this agency's position that this
program does not infringe on the rights of private property
owners.
For more information: de Teel Patterson Tiller, Deputy Associate
Director, Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Washington, DC,
202-208-7625 or Brenda Barrett, National Heritage Areas Program
Coordinator, Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Washington, DC,
203-354-2222.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you very much. We will go ahead
and hear from Mr. Hill first and then there may be some
questions.
STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin I'd like
to mention that I am accompanied today by Vince Price and
Preston Heard, who are responsible for conducting the work we
will be presenting today.
I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our
work on a number of issues concerning the designation, funding
and oversight of National Heritage Areas, work that we
conducted at the request of this subcommittee. And I must say
my statement today will be based on what was in place at the
time we did our review, and we have not had the benefit of
seeing the draft legislation that Mr. Jones is referring to.
Over the past two decades, 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 non-
Federal sources and are managed by local entities. The number
of bills to study or designate new areas has grown considerably
in recent years and, as you can see from the map that is to my
right over here, in addition to the 24 existing Heritage Areas,
which are shown in orange, there are currently also seven
areas, which are shown in gold, with pending study legislation
and another 15 areas, shown in purple, with pending designation
legislation. This growing interest in new areas has raised
concerns about the rising Federal costs and the risks of limits
on private land use. In this context, my testimony today
addresses the process for designating Heritage Areas, the
amount of Federal funding to these areas, the process for
overseeing areas' activities and use of Federal funds, and the
effects, if any, Heritage Areas are having on private property
rights.
In summary, we found that no systematic process currently
exists for identifying qualified sites and designating them as
National Heritage Areas. While the Congress generally has
designated Heritage Areas with the Park Service's advice it
designated ten of the 24 areas without a thorough Agency
review. In six of these ten cases the Agency recommended
deferring action. And even when the Agency fully studied sites
it found few that were unsuitable, primarily because the
Agency's criteria are very broad and open to interpretation.
According to data we obtained from 22 of the 24 Heritage
Areas, in fiscal years 1997 through 2002, 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 an additional $61
million from 11 other Federal sources. Generally, each area's
designating legislation imposes matching requirements and
sunset provisions to limit the Federal funds. However, since
1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates had their
funding extended.
The process the Park Service is using to oversee Heritage
Areas' activities primarily focuses on monitoring their
implementation of the cooperative agreements. This process,
however, does not include several key management controls.
Specifically, the Agency has not always reviewed areas'
financial audit reports, developed consistent standards for
reviewing areas' management plans, and developed results-
oriented goals or measures for the Agency's Heritage Area
activities, or required the areas to adopt a similar approach.
Park Service officials said the Agency has not taken these
actions because without a formal program it lacks adequate
direction and funding.
As far as private property rights, we found no evidence
that Heritage Areas to date have affected property owners'
rights. In fact, the designating legislation of 13 areas and
the management plans of at least six provide assurances that
such rights will be protected. Property rights advocates,
however, are fearful of the effects that provisions in some
management plans may have in the future. These provisions
encourage local governments to implement land use policies that
are consistent with the Heritage Areas' plans, which may allow
the areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning
in ways that could restrict owners' use of their property.
Nevertheless, Heritage Area officials, Park Service
headquarters and regional staff, and representatives of
national property rights groups that we contacted were unable
to provide us with any examples of Heritage Areas directly
affecting, either positively or negatively, private property
values or use.
To address the issues I've just highlighted, we are
recommending that the Park Service take a number of steps to
improve the effectiveness of its Heritage Area activities.
These include developing consistent standards and processes for
reviewing areas' management plans, requiring regions to review
areas' financial audits reports, and developing results-
oriented goals and measures for the Agency's activities, and
requiring areas to adopt a similar approach.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment
A MORE SYSTEMATIC PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AND
ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY ARE NEEDED
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 review the (1) process for designating heritage
areas, (2) amount of federal funding to these areas, (3) process for
overseeing areas' activities and use of federal funds, and (4) effects,
if any, they have on private property rights.
WHAT GAO RECOMMENDS
GAO recommends that the Park Service (1) develop consistent
standards and processes for reviewing areas' management plans; (2)
require regions to review areas' financial audit reports, and (3)
develop results-oriented goals and measures for the agency's activities
and require areas to adopt a similar approach.
______
WHAT GAO FOUND
No systematic process currently exists for identifying qualified
sites and designating them as national heritage areas. While the
Congress generally has designated heritage areas with the Park
Service's advice, it designated 11 of the 24 areas without a thorough
agency review; in 6 of these 10 cases, the agency recommended deferring
action. Even when the agency fully studied sites, it found few that
were unsuitable. The agency's criteria are very general. For example,
one criterion states that a proposed area should reflect ``traditions,
customs, beliefs, and folk life that are a valuable part of the
national story.'' These criteria are open to interpretation and, using
them, the agency has eliminated few sites as prospective heritage
areas.
According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, in fiscal years
1997 through 2002, 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. Generally, each area's designating legislation imposes
matching requirements and sunset provisions to limit the federal funds.
However, since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates had
their funding extended.
The Park Service oversees heritage areas' activities by monitoring
their implementation of the terms set forth in the cooperative
agreements. These terms, however, do not include several key management
controls. That is, the agency has not (1) always reviewed areas'
financial audit reports, (2) developed consistent standards for
reviewing areas' management plans, and (3) developed results-oriented
goals and measures for the agency's heritage area activities, or
required the areas to adopt a similar approach. Park Service officials
said that the agency has not taken these actions because, without a
program, it lacks adequate direction and funding.
Heritage areas do not appear to have affected property owners'
rights. In fact, the designating legislation of 13 areas and the
management plans of at least 6 provide assurances that such rights will
be protected. However, property rights advocates fear the effects of
provisions in some management plans. These provisions encourage local
governments to implement land us policies that are consistent with the
heritage areas' plans, which may allow the heritage areas to indirectly
influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could restrict
owners' use of their property. Nevertheless, heritage area officials,
Park Service headquarters and regional staff, and representatives of
national property rights groups that, we contacted were unable to
provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly affecting
positively or negatively-private property values or use.
______
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here
today to discuss a number of issues concerning the designation,
funding, and oversight of national heritage areas. As you know, over
the past two decades, the Congress has established, or ``designated,''
24 national heritage areas and provided them with millions of dollars
in financial assistance through the National Park Service. By providing
this designation, the Congress has determined that these areas' local
cultures, traditions, history, and resources are worthy of being
recognized and preserved because of their contributions to the nation's
heritage. These areas can encompass large tracts of land and
incorporate public as well as private property. The number of bills
introduced to study or designate new areas has grown considerably in
recent years. In the 108th Congress alone, as of early March 2004, over
30 bills had been introduced to either study or establish new areas.
This growing interest in creating new heritage areas has raised
concerns that their numbers may expand rapidly and significantly
increase the amount of federal funds supporting them. In addition,
private property rights advocates are concerned that heritage area
designations could increase the risk that federal controls or other
limits will be placed on private land use.
Once designated, heritage areas can receive funding through the
National Park Service's budget, although the agency has no formal
heritage area program. The Park Service provides technical assistance
to the areas, and the Congress appropriates the agency limited funds
for these activities.\1\ The Park Service allocates funding to the
areas through cooperative agreements. These funds are considered to be
``seed'' money to assist each area in becoming sufficiently established
to develop partnerships with state and local governments, businesses,
and other nonfederal organizations as their principal funding sources.
Heritage areas also receive funds from other federal agencies through a
variety of programs, primarily the Department of Transportation for
road and infrastructure improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although no heritage area program exists within the Park
Service, the Congress has provided the Park Service an annual
appropriation for administering its heritage area activities. The
agency has allocated these amounts to fund a national coordinator
position in the Park Service's headquarters, which directs and monitors
the agency's heritage area activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this context, my testimony today focuses on the results of our
work on national heritage areas conducted at the request of this
Committee. Specifically, it addresses the (1) process for identifying
and designating national heritage areas, (2) amount of federal funding
provided to support these areas, (3) process for overseeing and holding
national heritage areas accountable for their use of federal funds, and
(4) extent to which, if at all, these areas have affected private
property rights.
To address these issues, we obtained information on the Park
Service's heritage area activities from the Heritage Area national
coordinator and program managers in the four Park Service regions that
include heritage areas. We also obtained funding information from 22 of
the 24 existing areas for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and discussed
this information with the executive directors and staff of each
area.\2\ In addition, we visited 8 of the 24 heritage areas to view
their operations and accomplishments, and discussed various issues with
their executive directors. Finally, we discussed concerns about,
private property rights with representatives of several organizations
advocating property rights. We conducted our work between May 2003 and
March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. A more complete description of our methodology is included
in app. I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As of mid-March 2004, two heritage areas had not provided us
with funding data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
In summary, we found the following:
No systematic process exists for identifying qualified
candidate sites and designating them as national heritage
areas. 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. In this regard, the Congress designated
10 of the 24 heritage areas without a thorough Park Service
review of their qualifications; in 6 of these 10 cases, the
agency recommended deferring action. Furthermore, even when the
Park Service fully studied prospective sites' qualifications as
heritage areas, it found that few of these were unsuitable. The
Park Service's criteria are not specific. For example, one
criterion states that a proposed area should reflect
``traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life that are a
valuable part of the national story.'' Using these criteria,
the agency has determined that relatively few of the sites it
has evaluated would not qualify as heritage areas.
According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, in
fiscal years 1997 through 2002, 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. About
$51 million of the federal total was dedicated heritage area
funds provided through the Park Service. An additional $44
million came from other Park Service programs and about $61
million from 11 other federal sources. Generally, each area's
designating legislation specifies the total amount of federal
funds that will be provided and imposes certain conditions,
such as matching requirements and sunset, provisions, to limit
the amount of federal funds for each heritage area. However,
the sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting
federal funding: since 1984, five areas that reached their
sunset dates received funding reauthorization from the
Congress.
In the absence of a formal program, the Park Service
oversees heritage areas' activities by monitoring the
implementation of the terms set forth in the cooperative
agreements. These terms, however, do not include several key
management controls. Although the Park Service has primary
federal responsibility for heritage areas, the agency does not
always review data that it obtains from the areas on their
sources and expenditures of all federal funds. As a result, the
agency cannot determine how much federal funds have been
provided to the areas or whether these funds are being spent
appropriately. Furthermore, the Park Service has not yet
developed clear and consistent standards and processes for
reviewing areas' management plans, even though this review is
one of the agency's primary heritage area responsibilities. As
a result, staff in each Park Service region use different
approaches to review and approve areas' plans. Finally, the
Park Service has not yet developed results-oriented performance
goals and measures--consistent with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act--for the agency's
heritage area activities, or required the areas to adopt a
similar results-oriented management approach. Such an approach
would help ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the
agency's heritage area activities and enable both the areas and
the agency to determine what is being accomplished with federal
funds. According to Park Service officials, the agency has not
taken these actions because, without a formal program, it does
not have the direction or funding it needs to effectively carry
out its national heritage area activities.
National heritage areas do not appear to have directly
affected the rights of property owners. To address property
concerns, the designating legislation of 13 of the 24 heritage
areas and management plans of at least 6 provide explicit
assurances that the areas will not affect property owners'
rights. However, some management plans encourage local
governments to implement land use policies that are consistent
with the heritage areas' plans and offer to aid their planning
activities through matching grants. Property rights advocates
fear that such provisions may allow heritage areas to
indirectly influence zoning and land use planning it ways that,
could restrict owners' use of their property. Nevertheless,
heritage area officials, Park Service headquarters and regional
staff, and representatives of national property rights groups
who we contacted were unable to provide us with any examples of
a heritage area directly affecting--positively or negatively--
private property use.
To improve the heritage area designation process and the Park
Service's oversight of areas' use of federal funds, we are recommending
that the agency (1) develop consistent standards and processes for
reviewing areas' management plans; (2) require regions to review areas'
financial audit reports, and (3) develop results-oriented goals and
measures for the agency's activities and require areas to adopt a
similar approach.
BACKGROUND
To date, the Congress has designated 24 national heritage areas,
primarily in the eastern half of the country (see fig. 1).
Generally, national heritage areas focus oil local efforts to
preserve and interpret the role that certain sites, events, and
resources have played in local history and their significance in the
broader national context. For example, the Rivers of Steel Heritage
Area commemorates the contribution of southwestern Pennsylvania to the
development of the nation's steel industry by providing visitors with
interpretive tours of historic sites and other activities. Heritage
areas share many similarities--such as recreational resources and
historic sites--with national parks and other park system units but
lack the stature and national significance to qualify them as these
units.
The process of becoming a national heritage area usually begins
when local residents, businesses, and governments ask the Park Service,
within the Department of the Interior, or the Congress for help in
preserving their local heritage and resources. In response, although
the Park Service has no program governing these activities, the agency
provides technical assistance, such as conducting or reviewing studies
to determine an area's eligibility for heritage area status. The
Congress then may designate the site as a national heritage area and
set up a management entity for it. This entity could be a state or
local governmental agency, an independent federal commission, or a
private nonprofit corporation. Usually within 3 years of designation,
the area is required to develop a management plan, which is to detail,
among other things, the area's goals and its plans for achieving those
goals. The Park Service then reviews these plans, which must be
approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
After the Congress designates a heritage area, the Park Service
enters into a cooperative agreement with the area's management entity
to assist the local community in organizing and planning the area. Each
area can receive funding through the Park Service's budget-generally
limited to not more than $1 million a year for 10 or 15 years. The
agency allocates the funds to the area through the cooperative
agreement.
NO SYSTEMATIC PROCESS EXISTS FOR IDENTIFYING AND DESIGNATING
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
No systematic process is in place to identify qualified candidate
sites and designate them as national heritage areas. In this regard,
the Park Service conducts studies--or reviews studies prepared by local
communities--to evaluate the qualifications of sites proposed for
national heritage designation. On the basis of these studies, the
agency advises the Congress as to whether a particular location
warrants designation. The agency usually provides its advice to the
Congress by testifying in hearings on bills to authorize a particular
heritage area. The Park Services' studies of prospective sites'
suitability help the agency ensure that the basic components necessary
to a successful heritage area--such as natural and cultural resources
and community support--are either already in place or are planned. Park
Service data show that the agency conducted or reviewed some type of
study addressing the qualifications of all 24 heritage areas. However,
in some cases, these studies were limited in scope so that questions
concerning the merits of the location persisted after the studies were
completed. As a result, the Congress designated 10 of the 24 areas with
only a limited evaluation of their suitability as heritage areas. Of
these 10 areas, the Park Service opposed or suggested that the Congress
defer action on 6, primarily because of continuing questions about,
among other issues, whether the areas had adequately identified goals
or management entities or demonstrated community support. Furthermore,
of the 14 areas that were designated after a full evaluation, the
Congress designated 8 consistent with the Park Service's
recommendations, 5 without the agency's advice, and 1 after the agency
had recommended that action be deferred.
Furthermore, the criteria the Park Service uses to evaluate the
suitability of prospective heritage areas are not specific and, in
using them, the agency has determined that a large portion of the sites
studied qualify as heritage areas. According to the Heritage Area
national coordinator, before the early 1990s, the Park Service used an
ad hoc approach to determining sites' eligibility as heritage areas,
with little in the way of objective criteria as a guide. Since then,
however, the Park Service developed general guidelines to use in
evaluating and advising the Congress on the suitability of sites as
heritage areas. Based on these guidelines, in 1999, the agency
developed a more formal approach to evaluating sites. This approach
consisted of four actions that the agency believed were critical before
a site could be designated as well as 10 criteria to be considered when
conducting studies to assess an area's suitability.
The four critical steps include the following:
complete a suitability/feasibility study;
involve the public in the suitability/feasibility study;
demonstrate widespread public support for the proposed
designation; and
demonstrate commitment to the proposal from governments,
industry, and private, nonprofit organizations.
A suitability/feasibility study, should examine a proposed area
using the following criteria:
The area has natural, historic, or cultural resources that
represent distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy of
recognition, conservation, interpretation, and continuing use,
and are best managed through partnerships among public and
private entities, and by combining diverse and sometimes
noncontiguous resources and active communities;
The area's traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life area
valuable part of the national story;
The area provides outstanding opportunities to conserve
natural, cultural, historic, and/or scenic features;
The area provides outstanding recreational and educational
opportunities;
Resources that are important to the identified themes of the
area retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting
interpretation;
Residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and
governments within the area that are involved in the planning
have developed a conceptual financial plan that outlines the
roles for all participants, including the federal government,
and have demonstrated support for designation of the area;
The proposed management entity and units of government
supporting the designation are willing to commit to working in
partnership to develop the area;
The proposal is consistent with continued economic activity
in the area;
A conceptual boundary map is supported by the public; and
The management entity proposed to plan and implement the
project is described.
These criteria are broad and subject to multiple interpretations,
as noted by an official in the agency's Midwest region charged with
applying these criteria to prospective areas. Similarly, according to
officials in the agency's Northeast region, they believe that the
criteria were developed to be inclusive and that they are inadequate
for screening purposes. The national coordinator believes, however,
that the criteria are valuable but that the regions need additional
guidance to apply them more consistently The Park Service has developed
draft guidance for applying these criteria but has no plans to issue
them as final guidance. Rather, the agency is incorporating this
guidance into a legislative proposal for a formal heritage area
program. According to the national coordinator, some regions have used
this guidance despite its draft status, but it has not been widely
adopted or used to date.
The Park Service's application of these broad criteria has
identified a large number of potential heritage areas. Since 1989, the
Park Service has determined that most of the candidate sites it has
evaluated would qualify as national heritage areas.
national heritage areas annually receive millions in federal funding
According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, about half of
their total funding of $310 million in fiscal years 1997 through 2002
came from the federal government and the other half from state and
local governments and private sources. Table 1 shows the areas' funding
sources from fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
Table 1.--NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES
Fiscal Years 1997-2002
Source Amount Percentage
Total Park Service funds.............. $95,393,506 30.8
=============================
Dedicated heritage area funds\1\.......... 150,922,562 16.5
Other Park Service support funds\2\....... 44,470,944 14.3
-----------------------------
Total other federal funds............. $60,545,816 19.5
=============================
Department of Transportation.............. 55,852,269 18.0
Department of Education................... 2,000,000 0.6
Department of Agriculture................. 547,009 0.2
Housing and Urban Development............. 420,183 0.1
Environmental Protection Agency........... 400,000 0.1
Army Corps of Engineers................... 266,000 0.1
Department of Commerce.................... 96,555 0.0
National Railroad Passenger Corporation... 23,800 0.0
National Endowment for the Arts........... 5,000 0.0
Federal earmarks and awards\3\............ 935,000 0.3
-----------------------------
Total nonfederal funds................ $154,078,203 49.7
=============================
State governments......................... 61,404,323 19.8
Local governments......................... 46,612,624 15.0
Nonprofit organizations................... 7,255,416 2.3
Private foundations....................... 14,515,996 4.7
Corporate sponsors........................ 2,126,870 0.7
Other nonfederal funding sources.......... 22,163,473 7.2
-----------------------------
Total............................. $310,017,525 100.0
=============================
Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from 22 of the 24 heritage areas.
\1\ These funds were provided through the Park Service's Heritage
Partnership Program and Statutory and Contractual Aid budget line
items. The Heritage Partnership Program promotes the conservation of
natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources. Statutory and
Contractual Aid provides financial assistance in the planning,
development, or operation of natural, historical, cultural, or
recreation areas that are not managed by the Park Service.
\2\ These are funds from other Park Service budget line items-including
the Land and Water Conservation Fund; Operation of the National Park
Service, and the Construction Fund-that are no typically reported as
part of heritage area funding, but include funding for specific
projects undertake by heritage areas.
\3\ Funds earmarked for Federal Government Pass-Through Awards
($610,000) and Hugh Moore Historical Park & Museums, Inc. ($325,000).
As figure 2 shows, the federal government's total funding to these
heritage areas increased from about $14 million in fiscal year 1997 to
about $28 million in fiscal year 2002, peaking at over $34 million in
fiscal year 2000.
The Congress sets the overall level of funding for heritage areas,
determining which areas will receive funding and specifying the amounts
provided. Newly designated heritage areas usually receive limited
federal funds while they develop their management plans and then
receive increasing financial support through Park Service
appropriations after their plans are established. The first heritage
areas received pass-through grants from the Park Service and funding
through the agency's Statutory and Contractual Aid appropriations.
However, in 1998, the Congress began appropriating funds to support
heritage areas through the Heritage Partnership Program.
In addition, the Congress has placed in each area's designating
legislation certain conditions on the receipt of federal funds. While
the legislation designating the earliest heritage areas resulted in
different funding structures, generally those created since 1996 have
been authorized funding of up to $10 million over 15 years, not to
exceed $1 million in any single year. In conjunction with this limit,
the designating legislation attempts to identify a specific date when
heritage areas no longer receive federal financial or technical
assistance. Although heritage areas are ultimately expected to become
self-sufficient without federal support, to date the sunset provisions
have not limited federal funding. Since the first national heritage
area was designated in 1984, five have reached the sunset date
specified in their designating legislation. However, in each case, the
sunset date was extended and the heritage area continued to receive
funding from the Congress.
Finally, the areas' designating legislation typically requires the
heritage areas to match the amount of federal funds they receive with a
specified percentage of funds from nonfederal sources. Twenty-two of
the 24 heritage areas are required to match the federal funds they
receive. Of these 22 areas, 21 have a 50-percent match requirement-they
must show that at least 50 percent of the funding for their projects
has come from nonfederal sources-and one has a 25-percent match
requirement.
THE PARK SERVICE LACKS AN EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR ENSURING THAT NATIONAL
HERITAGE AREAS ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS
In the absence of a formal program, the Park Service oversees
heritage areas' activities by monitoring the implementation of the
terms set forth in the cooperative agreements. According to Park
Service headquarters officials, the agency's cooperative agreements
with heritage areas allow the agency to effectively oversee their
activities and hold them accountable. These officials maintain that
they can withhold funds from heritage areas-and have, in some
circumstances, done so-if the areas are not carrying out the
requirements of the cooperative agreements. However, regional managers
have differing views on their authority for withholding funds from
areas and the conditions under which they should do so.
Although the Park Service has oversight opportunities through the
cooperative agreements, it has not taken advantage of these
opportunities to help to improve oversight and ensure these areas'
accountability. In this regard, the agency generally oversees heritage
areas' funding through routine monitoring and oversight activities, and
focuses specific attention on the areas' activities only when problems
or potential concerns arise. However, the Park Service regions that
manage the cooperative agreements with the heritage areas do not always
review the areas' annual financial audit reports, although the agency
is ultimately the federal agency responsible for heritage area projects
that are financed with federal funds.\3\ For example, managers in two
Park Service regions told us that they regularly review heritage areas'
annual audit reports, but a manager in another region said that he does
not. As a result, the agency cannot determine the total amount of
federal funds provided or their use. According to these managers, the
inconsistencies among regions in reviewing areas' financial reports
primarily result from a lack of clear guidance and the collateral
nature of the Park Service regions' heritage area activities-they
receive no funding for oversight, and their oversight efforts divert
them from other mission-critical activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under regulations implementing the Single Audit Act, recipients
spending $500,000 or more of federal funds during a fiscal year are
required to have an audit conducted for that year. They are also
required to (1) maintain internal controls; (2) comply with laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; (3) prepare appropriate
financial statements; (4) ensure that audits are properly performed and
submitted when due; and (5) take corrective actions on audit findings.
This act is intended to, among other things, promote sound financial
management of federally funded projects administered by state and local
governments and nonprofit organizations. Prior to 2003, the dollar
threshold for a single audit was $300,000 or more in expenditures in a
fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Park Service has not yet developed clearly
defined, consistent, and systematic standards and processes for
regional staff to use in reviewing the adequacy of areas' management
plans, although these reviews are one of the Park Service's primary
heritage area responsibilities. Heritage areas' management plans are
blueprints that discuss how the heritage area will be managed and
operated and what goals it expects to achieve, among other issues. The
Secretary of the Interior must approve the plans after Park Service
review. According to the national coordinator, heritage area managers
in the agency's Northeast region have developed a checklist of what
they consider to be the necessary elements of a management plan to
assist reviewers in evaluating the plans. While this checklist has not
been officially adopted, managers in the Northeast and other regions
consult it in reviewing plans, according to the national coordinator.
Heritage area managers in the Park Service regions use different
criteria for reviewing these plans, however. For example, managers in
the regions told us that, to judge the adequacy of the plans, one
region uses the specific requirements in the areas' designating
legislation, another uses the designating legislation in conjunction
with the Park Service's general designation criteria, and a third
adapts the process used for reviewing national park management plans.
While these approaches may guide the regions in determining the content
of the plans, they provide little guidance in judging the adequacy of
the plans for ensuring successful heritage areas.
Finally, the Park Service has not yet developed results-oriented
performance goals and measures-consistent with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act-that would help to ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of its heritage area activities. The act
requires agencies to, among other actions, set strategic and annual
goals and measure their performance against these goals. Effectively
measuring performance requires developing measures that demonstrate
results, which, in turn, requires data. According to the national
coordinator, the principal obstacles to measuring performance are the
difficulty of identifying meaningful indicators of success and the lack
of funding to collect the needed data. With regard to indicators, the
national coordinator told us that the agency has tried to establish
meaningful and measurable goals both for their activities and the
heritage areas. The agency has identified a series of ``output''
measures of accomplishment, such as numbers of heritage areas visitors,
formal and informal partners, educational programs managed, and grants
awarded. However, the national coordinator acknowledged that these
measures are insufficient, and the agency continues to pursue
identifying alternative measures that would be more meaningful and
useful. However, without clearly defined performance measures for its
activities, the agency will continue to be unable to effectively gauge
what it is accomplishing and whether its resources are being employed
efficiently and cost-effectively.
The Park Service also has not required heritage areas to adopt a
results-oriented management approach-linked to the goals set out in
their management plans-which would enable both the areas and the agency
to determine what is being accomplished with the funds that have been
provided. In this regard, the heritage areas have not yet developed an
effective, outcome-oriented method for measuring their own performance
and are therefore unable to determine what benefits the heritage area--
and through it, the federal funds--have provided to the local
community. For example, for many heritage areas, increasing tourism is
a goal, but while they may be able to measure an increase in tourism,
they cannot demonstrate whether this increase is directly associated
with the efforts of the heritage area. To address these issues, the
Alliance of National Heritage Areas is currently working with Michigan
State University to develop a way to measure various impacts associated
with a national heritage area. These impacts include, among others, the
effects on tourism and local economies through jobs created and
increases in tax revenues.
According to Park Service officials, the agency has not taken
actions to improve oversight because, without a formal program, it does
not have the direction or funding it needs to effectively administer
its national heritage area activities.
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AFFECTED
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
National heritage areas do not appear to have affected private
property rights, although private property rights advocates have raised
a number of concerns about the potential effects of heritage areas on
property owners' rights and land use. These advocates are concerned
that heritage areas may be allowed to acquire or otherwise impose
federal controls on nonfederal lands. However, the designating
legislation and the management plans of some areas explicitly place
limits on the areas' ability to affect private property rights and use.
In this regard, eight areas' designating legislation stated that the
federal government cannot impose zoning or land use controls on the
heritage areas. Moreover, in some cases, the legislation included
explicit assurances that the areas would not affect the rights of
private property owners. For example, the legislation creating 13 of
the 24 heritage areas stated that the area's managing entity cannot
interfere with any person's rights with respect to private property or
have authority over local zoning ordinances or land use planning. While
management entities of heritage areas are allowed to receive or
purchase real property from a willing seller, under their designating
legislation, most areas are prohibited from using appropriated funds
for this purpose.\4\ In addition, the designating legislation for five
heritage areas requires them to convey the property to an appropriate
public or private land managing agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Shenandoah River Valley Battlefields National Historic
District is the only heritage area that has received authority and
appropriations to acquire land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a further protection of property rights, the management plans of
some heritage areas deny the managing entity authority to influence
zoning or land use. For example, at least, six management plans state
that the managing entities have no authority over local zoning laws or
land use regulations. However, most of the management plans state that
local governments' participation will be crucial to the success of the
heritage area and encourage local governments to implement land use
policies that are consistent with the plan. Some plans offer to aid
local government planning activities through information sharing or
technical or financial assistance to achieve their cooperation.
Property rights advocates are concerned that such provisions give
heritage areas an opportunity to indirectly influence zoning and land
use planning, which could restrict owners' use of their property. Some
of the management plans state the need to develop strong partnerships
with private landowners or recommend that management entities enter
into cooperative agreements with landowners for any actions that
include private property.
Despite concerns about private property rights, officials at the 24
heritage areas, Park Service headquarters and regional staff working
with these areas, and representatives of six national property rights
groups that we contacted were unable to provide us with a single
example of a heritage area directly affecting positively or negatively-
private property values or use.
CONCLUSIONS
National heritage areas have become an established part of the
nation's efforts to preserve its history and culture in local areas.
The growing interest in establishing additional areas will put
increasing pressure on the Park Service's resources, especially since
the agency receives limited funding for the technical and
administrative assistance it provides to these areas. Under these
circumstances, it is important to ensure that only those sites' that
are most qualified are designated as heritage areas. However, no
systematic process for designating these areas exists, and the Park
Service does not have well-defined criteria for assessing sites'
qualifications or effective oversight of the areas' use of federal
funds and adherence to their management plan. As a result, the Congress
and the public cannot be assured that future sites will have the
necessary resources and local support needed to be viable or that
federal funds supporting them will be well spent.
Given the Park Service's resource constraints, it is important to
ensure that the agency carries out its heritage area responsibilities
as efficiently and effectively as possible. Park Service officials
pointed to the absence of a formal program as a significant obstacle to
effective management of the agency's heritage area efforts and
oversight of the areas' activities. In this regard, without a program,
the agency has not developed consistent standards and processes for
reviewing areas' management plans, the areas' blueprints for becoming
viable and self-sustaining. It also has not required regional heritage
area managers to regularly and consistently review the areas' annual
financial audit reports to ensure that the Park Service--the agency
with lead responsibility for these areas--has complete information on
their use of funds from all federal agencies as a basis for holding
them accountable. Finally, the Park Service has not defined results-
oriented performance goals and measures--both for its own heritage area
efforts and those of the individual areas. As a result, it is
constrained in its ability to determine both the agency's and areas'
accomplishments, whether the agency's resources are being employed
efficiently and effectively, and if federal funds could be better
utilized to accomplish its goals.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION
In the absence of congressional action to establish a formal
heritage area program within the National Park Service or to otherwise
provide direction and funding for the agency's heritage area
activities, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the
Park Service to take actions within its existing authority to improve
the effectiveness of its heritage area activities and increase areas'
accountability. These actions should include:
developing well-defined, consistent standards and processes
for regional staff to use in reviewing and approving heritage
areas' management plans;
requiring regional heritage area managers to regularly and
consistently review heritage areas' annual financial audit
reports to ensure that the agency has a full accounting of
their use of funds from all federal sources, and
developing results-oriented performance goals and measures
for the agency's heritage area activities, and requiring--in
the cooperative agreements-heritage areas to adopt such a
results-oriented management approach as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This
concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any
questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.
______
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To examine the establishment, funding, and oversight of national
heritage areas and their potential effect on private property rights,
we (1) evaluated the process for identifying and designating national
heritage areas, (2) determined the amount of federal funding provided
to support these areas, (3) evaluated the process for overseeing and
holding national heritage areas accountable for their use of federal
funds, and (4) determined the extent to which, if at all, these areas
have affected private property rights.
To address the first issue, we discussed the process for
identifying and designating heritage areas with the Park Service's
Heritage Area national coordinator and obtained information on how the
24 existing heritage areas were evaluated and designated. To determine
the amount of federal funding provided to support these areas, we
discussed funding issues and the availability of funding data with the
national coordinator, the Park Service's Comptroller, and officials
from the agency's Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and Intermountain
Regional Offices. We also obtained funding information from 22 of the
24 heritage areas for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and discussed
this information with the executive directors and staff of each area.
As of mid-March 2004, two heritage areas had not provided us with
funding data. To verify the accuracy of the data we obtained from these
sources, we compared the data provided to us with data included in the
heritage areas' annual audit and other reports that we obtained from
the individual areas and the Park Service regions. We also discussed
these data with the executive directors and other officials of the
individual heritage areas and regional office officials.
To evaluate the processes for holding national heritage areas
accountable for their use of federal funds, we discussed these
processes with the national coordinator and regional officials, and
obtained information and documents supporting their statements.
To determine the extent to which, if at all, private property
rights have been affected by these areas, we discussed this issue with
the national coordinator, regional officials, the Executive Director of
the Alliance of National Heritage Areas--an organization that
coordinates and supports heritage areas' efforts and is their
collective interface with the Park Service--officials of the 24
heritage areas, and representatives of private property rights advocacy
groups and individuals, including the American Land Rights Association,
the American Policy Center, the Center for Private Conservation, the
Heritage Foundation, the National Wilderness Institute, and the Private
Property Foundation of America. In each of these discussions, we asked
the individuals if they were aware of any cases in which a heritage
area had positively or negatively affected an individual's property
rights or restricted its use. None of these individuals were able to
provide such an example.
In addition, we visited the Augusta Canal, Ohio and Erie Canal,
Rivers of Steel, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields, South Carolina,
Southwestern Pennsylvania (Path of Progress), Tennessee Civil War, and
Wheeling National Heritage Areas to discuss these issues in person with
the areas' officials and staff, and to view the areas' features and
accomplishments first hand.
We conducted our work between May 2003 and March 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate
that very much.
So, Mr. Jones, you do have draft legislation. Is that
correct?
Mr. Jones. Yes it is, Senator. And it addresses all of the
issues that have been raised by the GAO in their draft report.
Our comments on their report have been generally that we agree
with their conclusions and feel that they are right on point as
far as some of the things that need to be fixed.
Senator Thomas. I see. In terms of oversight, does the Park
Service have oversight beyond the time that there is a
contribution of Federal money or does it end? How does that
work?
Mr. Jones. The Heritage Areas we have to date are a variety
of mixes of entities. Some of them actually have National Park
Service employees who work full-time at a given Heritage Area;
others do not. Each Heritage Area from an oversight
responsibility is assigned now either for regional office
oversight or if there is a nearby National Park System unit to
provide oversight for what those are at the Heritage Area.
In Washington, with me today is Brenda Barrett, who is our
entire Heritage Area program staff.
Senator Thomas. Really? Well if, as we generally say, these
are local initiatives, they are, in your report, funded largely
by private sector, once the Federal funding is over, usually 10
years, you said fifteen, then why should the Park Service have
any oversight?
Mr. Jones. It should be at a most general term in that a
Heritage Area, we find, consistent is that they want to be able
to use the National Park Service arrowhead and be associated
with the National Park Service and the National Park System.
Again, there are variations from area to area.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Jones. And so therefore as an ongoing relationship,
technical support, advice and to ensure that they're doing a
good job.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Jones. But certainly after an area has graduated from
the program our involvement should be very minimal after that
date.
Senator Thomas. So the use of the designation is probably
one of the most important things to many of these groups.
Mr. Jones. Not to all but to many.
Senator Thomas. How specific can you be with national
significance? Who makes the judgment on national significance?
Mr. Jones. Well, ultimately the decision would be made here
in the Congress as to whether they would choose to enact
legislation designating it. In our proposed legislation we have
laid out a series of some ten different criteria that would
determine recreational, cultural, historic significance, a
variety of factors that would be taken as a whole to determine
whether an area has national significance. We certainly have
looked at some areas in the past that may have important state
or local significance, and then we would feel in those cases
they should not be National Heritage Areas; there should be
some national significance to be designated as a National
Heritage Area.
Senator Thomas. I suppose that is a variable criteria,
national significance; some people think it would be and others
would not. But nevertheless. We have had more applications for
Heritage Areas in the last several years? We are seeing
increasing numbers?
Mr. Jones. Yes, Senator. In addition to the various bills
that have been introduced and are before this committee, we
have four formal studies going on. And sometimes the studies
are done by us, sometimes they are done totally by a local
organization in consultation with us.
Senator Thomas. I see. Actually, there have been some that
have not had studies, is not that correct?
Mr. Jones. That's correct. Some of the Heritage Areas have
just been incredible, wonderful success stories that I think
have done a good job locally and have protected areas of
national significance that are best in a Heritage Area as
opposed to, as you might recall, some of the concept of when
the Heritage Area philosophy was developed was in lieu of
creating more units of the National Park System where areas had
significance, but not of the level that would merit inclusion
in the National Park System. We have also had some Heritage
Areas that have been less successful and either through the
lack of a good, solid management entity who is ready and
capable of taking it on; in some cases where insufficient plans
have been done to really guide the direction in which they want
to go. And so our legislation, we hope, would provide some
clear sideboards as to what are the steps to go through.
Senator Thomas. Well, we appreciate you having it ready.
Mr. Hill, is your review available now for public
distribution?
Mr. Hill. Yes, it will be available. I mean, the fact that
I'm testifying will release the testimony, and it will be
available on our web site either later today or first thing in
the morning.
Senator Thomas. I see. Okay, that is good. Well, I
appreciate the efforts that you made on that.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. What would you say is the most significant
finding that you have as a result of this study? Or lack of
what is needed?
Mr. Hill. I think what we found was, the thing that
concerned us the most is there's a lack of an effective process
for overseeing activities of the Heritage Areas. And in
particular for tracking and accounting for the flow of funds
that are provided and funds that are used by the Heritage
Areas. The Park Service does not maintain data in terms of the
amounts--at least Federal funds--that are going to the Heritage
Areas. We had to go to the Heritage Areas, all 24 of them, to
try to collect that information. And there's a lot of money
flowing into these Heritage Areas, half of which is coming from
the Federal Government. We're a little concerned about the lack
of accountability over those funds, both in terms of the
receipt as well as, you know, how these funds are being used
and are they being used in a way that they're cost efficient
and cost effectively achieving the objectives that these
Heritage Areas were set up to serve. And then, of course, it's
already been mentioned that we're concerned about the criteria
being used for designating these areas. It's not very clear
what the standards and processes are that are being used for
reviewing and approving this management plan. We went to the
three regions that had reviewed these management plans; they
were using various criteria for doing it. And I think there's a
need for some clear and consistent guidance in terms of what
these management plans are supposed to be containing. And then,
also, we're concerned about the lack of performance goals and
measures. Here again, from a GPR standpoint--Government
Performance and Results Act--you really need to clearly lay out
what the goals are, not only for the program or the activities
that the Park Service is overseeing but also for the Heritage
Areas themselves in order for Congress and others to see what's
going on here and determine whether or not they're achieving
what they are supposed to be set up to do.
Senator Thomas. It is a little unclear, you know. We start
here with the premise that these are largely local and on-the-
ground support, and your figures, Mr. Jones, of the $900
million, apparently are the full-time. Yours are from 1997 on,
is that correct?
Mr. Jones. That's correct.
Senator Thomas. Because you have different figures as to
what the Federal Government has contributed compared to the
privates. But it is a little unclear. Maybe it is just the
significance of the title but if once the Federal payments are
over you both seem to think there ought to be continuing
requirements of management and so on. Once the Federal
Government is not in it financially, how do you justify the
Park still having oversight?
Mr. Jones. We would see the oversight in a very limited
way, much in the way we have now with national landmarks and
national historic landmarks. It's more of a periodic annual
review and report of what they're doing so that we know what's
going on.
Senator Thomas. Based on the authority that it is called
the National Heritage?
Mr. Jones. Yes. And I differentiate that as opposed to a
much higher level of oversight because I agree with the
comments from the GAO that we do have to make sure that when
there are the Federal dollars flowing to the area that those
dollars are spent correctly.
Senator Thomas. Sure. There is no question about that. You
define the culture of the criteria, Mr. Hill. How do you
enforce that to continue and to continue to be? Is that through
your management plan? Is that it?
Mr. Hill. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Senator Thomas. Well, you have a criteria.
Mr. Hill. Right.
Senator Thomas. And over 10 years that criteria is no
longer part of the management scheme, things have changed.
Mr. Hill. Right.
Senator Thomas. Then what do you do?
Mr. Hill. Well, I think these things could be revised. I
think the management plans and the cooperative agreements, if
there is a change in direction or as these Heritage Areas are
being developed there's a little wrinkle or a curve, I think
the Park Service has a responsibility to at least annually
revisit the cooperative agreements and make sure that the
direction these things are taking are consistent with the
original intent of the activity.
Senator Thomas. The cost to the Park Service is more than
just the amount of dollars that goes to the heritage sites;
oversight, staff, people working there, those are all costs to
the Park Service, is not that right?
Mr. Jones. Yes, it is.
Senator Thomas. It is kind of interesting, your map there.
First of all, I understand most of the Heritage Areas are in
the East, which I understand, since Wyoming is half-owned by
the Federal Government anyway, so I guess it is easier to do
that. But I see some huge purple things there in states that
have very large parks and tourist service and other kinds of
things. It is kind of interesting that it would be that way.
All right. I had another question but it slipped my mind.
That is all right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your
having a proposal there and certainly, Mr. Hill, we appreciate
what you all have done because I think you are doing exactly
what we had hoped would happen and that is to establish a
criteria and a plan so that we can look forward to the future
the way it is now. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. There may be some other questions from
other members in the next few days, and we will leave the
record open for a little while.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Okay, on panel two we have Augie Carlino,
president of the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area; Mr. Edward
Sanderson, president of the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers; Carol LaGrasse, president of
Property Rights Foundation; Dr. Lisa Benton-Short, assistant
professor of Geography, George Washington University, and Mr.
Dennis Frenchman, Department of Urban Planning, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Thank you all for being here. Again,
we would like you to express your views and if you can, fairly
concisely. Your entire statements will go into the record.
Mr. Carlino, would you begin.
STATEMENT OF AUGUST R. CARLINO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RIVERS OF
STEEL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA/STEEL INDUSTRY HERITAGE
CORPORATION, HOMESTEAD, PA
Mr. Carlino. Thank you, yes sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is
August Carlino, I'm president and CEO of Rivers of Steel
National Heritage Area, managed by the Steel Industry Heritage
Corporation in Homestead, Pennsylvania. I'm also here today as
chairman of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, which is
an organization that's made up of the 24 National Heritage
Areas plus other partners in heritage development. I think a
lot of my testimony at the beginning was covered by the
previous two witnesses fairly well. I won't reiterate that but
maybe if I could just go to some of the views of Heritage Areas
and how they work, basically on the ground in the regions.
While there are some inconsistencies with Heritage Areas they
all do share five fundamental goals. That is to conserve
historic and cultural resources; to conserve natural areas and
enhance the development of recreational resources; to develop
educational interpretive programs and resources; to help
stimulate heritage tourism and the economic redevelopment of
communities and to establish partnerships to help steward and
manage the resources that are being protected.
Given these goals, each Heritage Area might prioritize
their work in different ways. For example, some may focus
primarily on tourism or interpretation while others may look
toward historic preservation and community revitalization. But
all five of those goals are fairly consistently sought by all
of the Heritage Areas. Over the past 20 years as you have said
and the previous witnesses have said, this program has grown
considerably but I think it's good in a way. In my opinion,
there are probably few government programs that can point to
such broad success and growing levels of accomplishment as the
Heritage Areas. At the outset of their creation few would have
predicted that but they are popular and they are growing and
not just at the national level but at State and local levels.
Heritage Areas are upheld as some of the best examples of how
government and local communities can work together in
partnership and they're recognized for their entrepreneurial
practices and encouraging private sector development while
protecting and conserving significant historic and cultural
resources.
We've heard the numbers from both the National Park
Service, Mr. Jones and Mr. Hill; I would basically just ask the
simple question, there probably again few Federal programs that
can return that level of investment and with the investment
that's provided by the Park Service money as seed. And I think
that's done for a couple reasons. One is the National Park
Service money is often the first money in on these Heritage
Area projects. And so it's not only providing the critical seed
that we can use to go out and leverage other funding from
either other Federal agencies or State and local government or
private sector but also gives a level of credibility. And
that's why the Park Service's role as a partner with us is so
important in the work that we do. Heritage Areas, as the GAO
report states, and we have not had a chance to see the report
but at least I've heard, and as the testimony stated, they are
not Federal land control or zoning practices and no Heritage
Area has violated private property rights. Fundamentally, it
won't and can't work within Heritage Areas. The Heritage Areas
have an extremely deliberative process of developing programs
and projects with their community partners. And if a property
owner does not want to be involved then Heritage Area basically
can't provide grant money or any type of other support of
counsel or conservation to that site, if the property owner
doesn't want to be involved.
Feasibility study and management planning are critical to
the Heritage Areas. I'd like to make a couple of
recommendations as you consider what programmatic legislation
might be for what the steps should be in order to make a
Heritage Area's program successful. First, the Alliance of
National Heritage Areas would recommend that all planning
should be completed before designation, not just feasibility
study but management plan, too. We think that gives you, the
Congress, the best amount of information at your hands in order
to make the determination of whether or not an area should be
designated as a National Heritage Area.
We believe that Heritage Areas, once they're designated,
should receive direct funding from the Park Service through
their appropriations; that is, through the cooperative
agreements. We've heard it proposed by some that there might be
a grant program established for Heritage Areas, a competitive
grant program. We think that would break down the relationship
of how the Heritage Areas work with the partners and basically
strip the management entities of their roles and
responsibilities.
We believe that Heritage Areas should be able to be
reauthorized. They have a lot of work that can't be done,
necessarily, in the 10 or 15 years but that if the Congress had
information to its avail at the end of the program that the
Park Service and the Congress agreed, that Heritage Area should
be or could be considered for reauthorization.
There must be a test of national significance. If there
isn't any national significance found then it doesn't need to
be a National Heritage Area but there are other programs at the
State or local levels.
And there's a couple of other suggestions here. I see the
light blinking. Just one other, if I can make. I think the Park
Service needs to be appropriated sufficient funding in order to
administer the program. Right now funding only exists, as Mr.
Jones has said, for Washington-area staff and other funding is
used by the regions within the Park Service for staffing that
is provided as technical assistance. But that's inconsistent.
And the levels of staff assistance provided to the 24 areas is
inconsistent within all the areas. So I think that is important
that they have sufficient funding to administer the program.
I won't elaborate any further, Mr. Chairman. I'll be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlino follows:]
Prepared Statement of August R. Carlino, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area/Steel Industry Heritage
Corporation, Homestead, PA, and Chairman of the Board, Alliance of
National Heritage Areas, Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
August R. Carlino. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, the management entity of the
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area located in and around Pittsburgh
and parts of southwestern Pennsylvania. I am also here today testifying
in my capacity as Chairman of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas,
an organization whose membership includes, among others, the 24
congressionally designated NHAs. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the Committee today to discuss National Heritage Areas, their
growing popularity, and the possibility of programmatic legislation for
NHAs.
In the last two decades, heritage areas have grown from a nebulous
concept to a powerful national movement. Heritage areas span a wide
spectrum of activities. They can range from a single effort to save a
group of historic buildings to a multifaceted approach to regional
conservation, preservation, tourism and economic revitalization--or
heritage development, as the industry defines it today. Heritage areas
can be located in one neighborhood, or they can be multi-
jurisdictional, crossing the boundaries of counties and even states.
Heritage areas can be fostered by the philanthropy of an individual, or
by the collective participation of foundations, businesses and
governments in a regional project. Our latest estimate indicates that
heritage areas have sprouted in more than 150 places throughout the
U.S. This ``niche'' in the preservation industry has become the
catalyst for the creation of investment and economic development
strategies in a number of states and through the federally-sponsored
initiatives in the National Heritage Areas with National Park Service
and many other federal agencies and departments.
HISTORY OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
The origin of National Heritage Areas dates to the 1980s, with the
first NHAs designated by the Congress as experiments that involved
local constituencies as the primary stewards for the protection of
resources. This new conservation strategy was a clear departure from
the Department of Interior, and specifically the National Park Service,
from owning and operating historic and natural resources that made up
the NHA. Over the ensuing years Congress created a handful of other
NHAs.
In the mid-1990's the idea of NHAs as a ``new'' approach to a
comprehensive conservation and community development strategy began to
emerge. Pushed in part by the emergence of several state heritage
programs, local efforts sprouted in many states, with most in the
eastern United States. The organizers of heritage areas became more
politically astute and several sought congressional designation as
NHAs. Legislation was proposed to create a group of NHAs along with a
program for them to exist within the National Park Service; however,
after several attempts at passage in the 103rd Congress, the
programmatic legislation failed. Having been reintroduced in the 104'h
Congress the legislation was stalled, but at the eleventh hour of the
second session of the 104th Congress, the program language was stripped
from the National Heritage Area bill, and the proposed NHAs were
packaged within a larger omnibus parks bill that ultimately passed
Congress and was signed into law. Thus, the failure of programmatic
legislation to pass reinforced the process today under which NHAs are
currently designated--NHAs are designated individually without any
overarching program or regulation. Today, the Congress has created 24
NHAs. At the mid-point of the 108th Congress, legislation is pending to
create at least four new NHAs, with several dozen other bills proposing
planning studies as potential NHAs.
HOW NHAS WORK
From New England to the deep south, through the mid-west and now
advancing to the far west, citizens have come together to conserve
their heritage, create recreational resources and protect greenways,
all working to conserve and interpret their heritage, to develop a
sense of place that helps increase the value of property and improve
the quality of life in their neighborhoods and communities. Not every
NHA is the same. Initially, some might question that, but further
examination shows that NHAs are as unique as the resources they work to
conserve. Each NHA shares a fundamental philosophy to achieve five
specific goals:
to conserve historic and cultural resources
to conserve natural and enhance the development of
recreational resources
to develop educational and interpretative resources
to help stimulate heritage tourism and economic development
to establish partnerships to help steward the advancement of
the heritage area
Given these goals, each NHA might prioritize them in different
ways, focusing on, for example, tourism and interpretation, over
historic preservation and community revitalization; however, all of the
goals for the NHA will be addressed in one way or another.
National Heritage Areas are special places in America, merging
community resources to promote conservation and community and economic
development. They harness a wide range of community assets and
interests--from historic preservation, outdoor recreation, museums,
performing arts, folk life and crafts, and scenic and working
landscapes, to grassroots community-building activities, that, when
combined, create a sum greater than its parts.
NHAs celebrate the special character and culture of places in the
United States. They are neither urban nor rural and often include
communities and sites throughout a region. Typically, NHAs work to
protect historic and cultural resources while encouraging development
for tourism and other economic opportunities. NHAs illuminate the
history and culture of a region so those people within the region feel
proud of their heritage and those who visit come away with an
appreciation of the cultures of the region.
Few government programs can point to such success and broad,
growing levels of accomplishment as National Heritage Areas. At the
outset of their creation, few would have predicted that NHAs would be
as popular as they are today. NHAs are upheld as some of the best
examples of how government and local communities can work together as
partners. NHAs are recognized for their entrepreneurial practices
encouraging private sector development while protecting significant
historic and cultural resources. NHAs are clearinghouses for dialogue
between varieties of divergent interests. These dialogues, often
organized as town meetings--create opportunities for people to come
together to voice their opinions, helping to provide a forum for all
interests in the community, while working toward a consensus within the
community for progress.
NHAs combine a variety of funding partners--even at the federal
level. The funding provided through the National Park Service is
usually the first dollars to be invested into the project, providing
not only the seed investment, but also credibility to the NHA. Over the
years, NHAs have demonstrated an amazing ability to raise matching
funds to these NPS dollars, with additional funding secured through
other federal grants, from state and local government grants, and from
foundations and private investors. Throughout the funding community,
both public and private, NHAs have witnessed steady, if not increasing,
support for the projects and programs that are central to their
missions. Federal support to the NHAs through NPS appropriations has
steadily increased from $8.6 million in Fiscal Year 2000 to $14.5
million in Fiscal Year 2004. What NHAs do with this money is even more
impressive. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003 Congress appropriated
almost $12.5 million to NHAs. In turn, NHAs parlayed those funds into
an additional $75.5 million--or a one-to-six return on the initial
investment. Since the inception of NHAs in the mid-1980s, congressional
appropriations have amounted to $107 million. These funds have
leveraged an incredible $929 million, or more than $8.50 for every
$1.00 in NPS funds, and have paid for historic preservation projects,
tourism initiatives, and educational and interpretive programs, among
other initiatives, within NHAs. It is this relationship of National
Park Service funding to other financial assistance that makes NHAs so
attractive to communities. Few other government programs, frankly, can
make a similar claim on the return on federal funds as investments in
their programs as the National Heritage Areas.
NHAs are not federal land control or zoning projects in disguise,
and suggestions that they might be are without merit and without fact.
The General Accounting Office's report to the Committee today supports
my statement. NHAs work to build consensus on heritage projects. NHAs
make grants, providing funding to applicants wanting to participate in
the NHA. There is no way possible that any funds in any NHA can be
provided for a project where a property owner was an unwilling
participant.
ESTABLISHINQ AN NHA
To become an NHA, the partners working to conserve the region's
heritage must agree to undertake a planning process that produces both
recommendations for the heritage area along with a consensus of the
partners to work together to implement the plan. Planning for NHAs
occurs in two very distinct steps and can often take years to complete.
The feasibility plans comprise an inventory of critical resources
including, but not limited to, historic sites and properties, cultural
and traditional folk life assets and natural and scenic places. In
addition, the themes and stories related to the resources and the
people will be included in the feasibility study. After the initial
resource inventory, heritage projects should examine the significance
of their resources, themes and stories. It is this critical test that
will often separate those projects that will continue to seek NHA
designation from those which will continue on as local or state
projects. If the test of national significance were not a part of the
planning effort, it is conceivable every place in the United States
could become a National Heritage Area. Finally, the feasibility study
will identify the necessary community and government partners that must
be involved in the proposed NHA in order for it to function.
After feasibility, the heritage area will move on to the management
plan phase. At this point the management plan will spell out all of the
requirements necessary to create the National Heritage Area and make
specific recommendations for its implementation. These recommendations
will include who will be the management entity, how much funding will
be necessary to carry out the plan, other potential sources of funds,
and a listing of projects to undertake over then next 10 years. It
should be noted that the management plan is not definitive. Over the
course of its implementation priorities will change and projects may be
added or deleted. At the end of the 10-year plan, the NHA should be at
a point where it can assess its accomplishments, and have a bearing on
what it needs to accomplish over the next 10 years. The flexibility of
implementation within the NHAs permits each management entity (the
organization created or selected to oversee the day-to-day operations
of the NHA) to pursue the recommendations of the plan developed by the
communities and the regional partners. This flexibility enables the
partners to focus their strategies for the heritage development in ways
that will entice and attract funding for their efforts. This
flexibility is critical to the implementation of the NHAs management
plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CREATING AN NHA PROGRAM
If a National Heritage Area program is developed, it must contain
certain requirements for adequate government oversight along with
enough flexibility to meet the regional needs of each individual NHA.
Therefore the purposes of a program must be broad and encompassing and
must meet, at least, the following three objectives:
recognize the distinctive regional combinations of natural,
historic and cultural resources and recreational opportunities
in the United States and the nationally significant themes and
stories of the regions that serve as a framework for
understanding the development of the nation;
conserve those areas worthy of national recognition,
designation and assistance;
encourage partnerships among all levels of government--
federal, state and local--along with non-profit organizations,
foundations and the private sector to conserve and manage the
heritage of the NHA and to enhance the quality of life for the
present and future generations of the nation.
Specifically, I am respectfully requesting that this Committee and
the Congress consider the following recommendations for a National
Heritage Area program:
1. National Heritage Area designation must come after planning.
Recently, the process of designating NHAs has occurred in reverse, with
the designation by Congress first, and then the necessary inventories,
themes and other planning developed after. This creates two problems:
first, the Congress has little information to base its decision on for
the initial designation; therefore, the resulting NHA could contain few
historic or cultural resources, may lack the public's support, or may
indeed lack national significance. Second, placing designation in
advance of the plan often will redirect most if not all of the NPS
appropriations to planning, instead of the investment in the resource
conservation and development. Congress could designate heritage areas
as ``planning areas'' first and provide a small amount of funding to
help seed the planning process, then, when the feasibility and
management plans were complete, Congress, with the completed plans and
recommendations, would have a more thorough assessment of the proposed
NHA.
2. Funds must continue to be appropriated directly to the NHAs and
released by the NPS through a cooperative agreement. Funding cannot be
released to NHAs through annual grants. Under the current structure,
NHAs develop projects and establish the prioritization for their
funding based upon the recommendations of the management plan, and
through a cooperative process with the local partners. If a program
were created that made the appropriations to NHAs only available
through competitive grants, the responsibility of management of the NHA
would shift entirely to a government agency--the National Park Service,
and the management entity would have little purpose. Furthermore a
grant program will remove from the process one of the fundamental
elements that NHAs create--the direct link to establishing funding
priorities in the NHA by the public/private partnership and that
partnership's ability, as it exists now, to communicate those needs
directly to their members of Congress. NHAs are successful because they
connect people to their government and to the process of obtaining
government funding for projects they feel are important to their
communities. To sever this tie now, and make funding for NHAs available
only on a grant process as determined by a bureaucracy undercuts the
spirit of involving the citizenry in, and instilling in them the
responsibility for, the development of their NHA.
3. NHAs must be able to be reauthorized. Some proposals for
creating an NHA program have suggested limiting the NHA to only 10
years of authorization and funding, after which the NPS appropriations
will be cut off. The astounding ratio of match money to the NPS
appropriations is, in part, a result of the federal government's
willingness to invest in the heritage projects first. This seed money
helps the NHA attract other investors, both public and private. If the
other investors know the NPS funding will cease at the end of the
authorization, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to convince the
other public and private funders that the project is worth the
investment. Additionally, if the NPS authorization ends, the
designation of ``national'' will continue, creating confusion in the
public's mind of the relationship of the heritage area to the National
Park Service. Finally, NHAs projects could continue long after the 10-
year authorization. Congress should provide for itself the opportunity
to review each NHAs work at the end of each authorization period for an
NHA and then, with a new plan from the NHA for the next 10 years, make
a determination if the NHA should be reauthorized to continue its work
in the community.
4. NHAs must meet a test of national significance. Simply stated,
if there is not a nationally significant theme or collection of
resources, the heritage area should not be designated as a National
Heritage Area
5. The National Park Service should appropriate sufficient funding
for administration of the program. No program within the government can
properly function without adequate support from the professional staff
of the agency that administers the program. NHAs have been incredibly
successful, in part due to the determination and cooperation of the
partners within each area. The NHAs have succeeded, too, because of the
strong support they receive from the National Park Service, both in
Washington and in the regional offices. For the National Heritage Area
program to continue, funding must be provided on an annual basis to the
NPS for staffing and technical support to both the existing NHAs and
those that will continue to be created. Currently, funding only exists
for one-and-one-half staff members in the Washington office. Funding
for technical assistance through the regional offices of NPS often
comes at the expense of the NHAs as a deduction from their annual
appropriation. This practice not only robs the NHA projects of funding,
but it also creates little ability for the NHA to ensure it receives
the appropriate staff support from NPS for the dollars that come off
the top of the appropriation. Thus I would suggest the program provide
an amount each year to Washington and to the regional offices to for
the necessary technical assistance to the NHAs and administration of
the NHA program.
6. Congress should encourage other federal agencies to partner with
NHAs. National Heritage Area projects include a wide variety of
initiatives, and are not solely focused on historic preservation or
natural resource conservation. NHAs work with schools to help students
learn about their heritage; they help rebuild old downtowns and
neighborhoods; they can help redevelop old factories and brownfield
sites. The breadth of the NHAs projects could attract other federal
agencies and departments, like Education, Commerce, Environmental
Protection, Housing and Urban Development, just to name a few.
Encouraging other departments and agencies to invest in NHAs will help
the NHAs entice other investors, and it will help lessen the burden on
the limited, but critical, annual NPS appropriations.
7. NHAs should be made, at least, affiliated units of the NPS.
Currently NHAs exist as orphans within the National Park Service.
Despite all of the technical assistance and support from the regional
and Washington offices, NHAs are left with inconsistent policies to
follow, varying between regional offices. Under the current system, for
example, NHAs cannot use the NPS Arrowhead without permission of the
NPS, and release of the annual appropriations to each NHA is
inconsistent. More importantly, budgeting for NHAs within the NPS is
often an afterthought, as evidenced by the Fiscal Year 2005 budget that
requests only $2.5 million overall for the 24 NHAs.
CONCLUSION
Each year has seen lawmakers moving to create more heritage areas--
growing from only three in the 1980s, to the 24 that exist at the end
of 2003. In addition, Congress could possibly create a program for
NHAs, which will for the first time provide uniform guidelines and
policies for the establishment of NHAs.
All these facts beg the question: if National Heritage Areas are so
bad as some testifying today would want us to believe, why are more
people looking for ways to create them for their communities and
regions? The answer is simple. National Heritage Areas are one of the
best federal initiatives created in decades. With their deliberative
and sometimes exhausting public involvement process, their planning
exercises that are inclusive of all elements of the community, and
their growing support from all levels of government, anyone who wants
to be involved can be. NHA can point to successful projects and
partnerships at many different levels of the community. It is that
fundamental philosophy that makes NHAs so desired and successful, and
what Congress has the opportunity to make permanent through legislation
creating a program for their designation and operation.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
the Committee, and I am happy to answer any questions that you, or
other members of the Committee, might have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Dr. Benton-Short.
STATEMENT OF LISA BENTON-SHORT, Ph.D., ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Benton-Short. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me
to speak today. My name is Lisa Benton-Short and I'm assistant
professor of Geography and director of the Center for Urban
Environmental Research at the George Washington University. And
for the last 10 years my research has really focused on the
challenges and opportunities facing our national parks. So
today I bring to you my expertise and understanding how the
non-traditional types of parks fit within the broader context
of the Park System and the often unique challenges they face.
And I just want to cover three ideas today.
First, I agree with the GAO report that the ambiguous
concept of heritage as it has been defined in this program
could hinder its success. Heritage is a very vague and hazy
concept and I do find it worrisome that there is no legislative
criteria that exists for designation in the National Heritage
Areas Program. Without at least a working definition of what
criteria define a National Heritage Area it's likely that the
process of designating and protecting these special places
could become compromised or worse these places could become so
diluted that they become meaningless.
Now, I suspect that any definition of cultural heritage is
likely to need modification over time but perhaps we could at
least start with something concrete. So I think before we talk
about expanding the Heritage Areas we should definitely have
some serious and thoughtful discussion on the meaning of this
very elusive term.
Second, on a more positive note, I see promising
opportunity for a well-defined concept of Heritage Areas to be
included in the National Park System. Our national parks and
the Park Service are, without a doubt, the world's leading
system for designating and protecting heritage at the national
level, and if there's any one agency skilled enough to
effectively protect heritage, it's the Park Service. But I
agree they must be allocated enough resources,both personnel
and money, to do this without taking away from the other Park
units under their stewardship.
My third point is that there are some potential challenges
facing National Heritage Areas as I have found to be true for
many non-traditional parks in the Park System. Expanding this
program, especially formalizing them perhaps as park units,
might be inconsistent and ambiguous term of heritage with
indefinite funding could make National Heritage Areas the
newest ugly stepsister of the Park System. And I should explain
that a little bit. Let me tell you why. It has to do with
understanding the history of national parks and what many refer
to as the ``national park ideal.'' Most of you here have heard
of the term ``crown jewels,'' and this is a term that's
reserved for the select national parks--Yellowstone, Yosemite,
Grand Canyon. These are natural wonders with dramatic
topography, falling waterfalls and spectacular scenery. These
were among our first national parks designated and they have
come to represent the national park ideal in the American
imagination. This remains true today even in the 21st century,
despite 100 years of increasing diversity and complexity in the
National Park System.
My research has focused especially on the urban park units,
and as many of you know, in the 1970's a new category of parks
were added, titled ``urban recreation areas.'' For example, the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area or the Gateways. Some in
the Park Service at the time derided them as playgrounds or
outdoor gyms, not worthy of inclusion in the Park System. And
partly because these urban parks floated ambiguously outside
the National Park ideals epitomized by the natural area parks
in the crown jewels. And I wrote a book about the struggle to
approve the management plan for the Presidio Army Post of San
Francisco as it transitioned from an Army post to the national
park, and I uncovered an unspoken but very entrenched bias
against the urban and non-traditional parks within the Park
System. Some in the Park Service at the time argued vigorously
against the inclusion of the urban recreation areas, not only
because it would stretch their already-thin budgets but because
they felt that the non-traditional parks would, and I quote
from a former NPS director, ``thin the blood of the Park
System.'' So some in the Park Service do embrace and value our
urban and non-traditional parks but some do not. And so every
time we add a new category of parks we should do so very
carefully, because they are likely to be met, in some ways,
with resistance and possibly even hostility.
I think the National Heritage Areas are much like the urban
units in that they are neither all natural nor all cultural
entities; they are a combination of both. And oftentimes
they're in urban areas. These will be challenges that the
program will face if it expands. They are certainly more
complex places than other parks added earlier into the Park
System; they may even appear contradictory to the National Park
ideals of pristine wilderness and open vistas, especially true
if a Heritage Area contains environmentally contaminated land
prior to remediation or redevelopment. And so there could be
the risk of a bias that could result in disproportionate
allocations of personnel, money and sentiment.
So let me just conclude that I'm a very firm supporter of
protecting heritage and I have high regard for the Park Service
and the role it does in protecting our cultural and natural
heritage. And as we think about the National Heritage Area
Program, I see it as a real challenge and an opportunity that
we should thoughtfully discuss and debate.
Thank you and I'll take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Benton-Short follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Lisa Benton-Short, Ph.D., Director, The
Center for Urban Environmental Research, The George Washington
University
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, thank you for inviting
me to speak today. I am Lisa Benton-Short, an assistant professor of
Geography and Director of the Center for Urban Environmental Research
at the George Washington University. As a geographer, I have spent the
last 10 years researching the challenges and opportunities facing our
national parks. I believe and support the very important role national
parks play in communicating our nation's story--both of the natural
environment and cultural heritage. Yet I am also aware of the limited
ability of the national parks to expand indefinitely.
I bring to you my expertise in understanding the role of non-
traditional parks of the park system: how they fit within the broader
context of the system, and the unique challenges they face. My comments
today reflect my understanding of the context in which the National
Heritage Areas program is situated: the national park system.
There are three ideas I will discuss this afternoon.
First, the ambiguous concept of ``heritage'' and how it is applied
in this instance could hinder the success of the National Heritage
Areas Program. ``Heritage'' is a vague and hazy concept. For example,
the term cultural heritage can describe monuments, architectural
remains, art, and buildings. Natural heritage describes gardens,
landscapes, rivers, mountains and flora and fauna. My own research on
the concept of heritage has shown that what defines heritage has
shifted over time, as we become aware of the complexity of history. I
find it worrisome that no legislative criteria exist for designation in
the National Heritage Areas Program. If the term heritage remains
vaguely articulated it could be used to describe any cultural landscape
anywhere in the U.S. Geographers have reported that these last few
decades have been an era of expanding cultural identities and so the
number of stories about groups of people and their impact on the land
has exponentially increased: it may be there are potentially thousands
of unique and significant landscapes out there waiting to be
designated.
Without at least a working definition of what criteria define a
National Heritage Area, it is highly likely the process of designating
and protecting important places could become compromised or worse, so
diluted these places become meaningless. For example, I have also done
considerable research on the history of UNESCO's World Heritage Program
which began in 1972. I found the World Heritage Program has had to
modify definitions of heritage several times during the past thirty
years. I suspect any definition of cultural heritage is likely to need
modification, but at least the program should start with something
concrete.
For example, one criterion for the Heritage Areas Program is that
it be determined to be nationally significant. One way to evaluate
``national significance'' could be to require there to be a 6 month
long study that gathers visitor information that can be ``geo-coded''.
For example, asking visitors to the site their zip code of origin. This
survey would preserve visitor anonymity because it is not necessarily
asking for names and addresses, and would still allow analysts to map
the location and determine if there is wider interest outside the
local. I have supervised this type of survey for the National Mall and
found that within a6 month time frame each of the 50 states sent at
least one visitor. This seems to me to indicate a national interest.
Something like this will help to give concrete meaning to the term
heritage.
In my profession, geographers have been studying ``cultural
landscape'' for a hundred years. Few have agreed on what this means. In
the 21st century, it has become even more difficult to agree on what
constitutes a cultural landscape. As the story of our nation grows, so
too do the places that contribute to that story. Many have argued that
the entire world is now a cultural landscape: invasive species,
globalization, and increased migrations means there are no places
untouched by human activity. Geographers have also debated what we mean
by such critical heritage concepts such as ``sense of place'' and
``cultural traditions''. These seem vital to the feasibility study
outlined in the Park Service guidelines for the program. But how can we
measure or quantify sense of place?
If nothing else, I hope to convince you that before embarking on
the expansion of heritage areas, we need some serious and thoughtful
discussion on the meaning of these elusive terms. Otherwise, the
category becomes so inclusive it is rendered meaningless. We'll end up
with everything including the kitchen sink being designated a heritage
area.
Second, on a more positive note, I see a promising opportunity for
a well-defined concept of heritage areas to be included in the National
Park system. Our National Parks and the Park Service are the world's
leading system for designating, and protecting heritage at the national
level. They have been charged with a very difficult and demanding
mission: to preserve and protect nationally significant natural and
historic resources for present and future generations. In 1891, this
may have not seemed as daunting as it does now. If there is any one
agency skilled enough to effectively protect heritage, it is the Park
Service. But they must be allocated enough resources--people and
money--to do this without taking away from the other park units under
their stewardship. More and more is asked of the Park Service, yet it
is also difficult to secure increased appropriations. This is something
that must be reconciled for the Heritage Areas program to be
successful.
Third, there are some potential challenges facing National Heritage
Areas, as is true for many non-traditional parks with the national park
system. I understand there are several new proposals. A word of
caution: expanding this program, particularly with an inconsistent and
ambiguous definition and with indefinite funding, will make National
Heritage Areas the newest ``ugly stepsister'' of the national park
system. This could present real problems--not just in terms of funding,
but in terms of belonging within the system.
Let me explain why I say this. It has to do with understanding the
history of the national parks and what many refer to as the ``national
park ideal.'' You may have heard of the term ``Crown Jewels''. This
term is reserved for a select few national parks--Yellowstone,
Yosemite, Grand Canyon for example. These are natural wonders--dramatic
topography, falling waterfalls, spectacular scenery. These were among
the first parks designated and so represent the national park ideal in
American imagination. This remains true today, despite a century of
increasing diversity and complexity within the national park system.
For example, when the Park Service was created in 1916, it did not
include the cultural heritage sites-such as the Statue of Liberty or
the battlefields. This didn't happen until the 1930s. And even then,
some in the park service resisted their inclusion.
In the 1970s, a ``new category'' of parks--urban recreation areas
like the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Cuyahoga
Recreation Area were added. However, these park units were often
referred to as ``non-traditional'' parks. Some in the Park Service
derided them as ``playgrounds'' and ``outdoor gyms'', not worthy of
inclusion in the park system. These urban parks floated ambiguously
outside the national park ideas epitomized in the Crown Jewels. My book
about the struggle to approve the plan for Presidio of San Francisco
helped me uncover the unspoken but entrenched bias against urban and
non-traditional parks within the Park Service.\1\ Some in the Park
Service argued vigorously against the inclusion of the urban recreation
areas--not only because it would stretch their already thin budgets,
but because they felt these nontraditional, non-Crown Jewel type of
parks would, in the words of a former NPS Director, ``thin the blood of
the Park System.'' Let us make no mistake about it: some in the Park
Service embrace and value these urban parks. Some do not. Each time new
``categories'' of units are added they are met with resistance and even
hostility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lisa Benton. 1998. The Presidio: from Army Post to National
Park. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge facing National Heritage Areas is that much like the
urban units they are neither natural nor cultural entities. They are a
little of both. And some may be in urban areas. These will be
challenges the Program will face if it expands. Heritage areas may be
complex and unusual places; they may even appear contradictory to the
national park ideals of pristine wilderness--especially if a heritage
area contains environmentally contaminated land prior to remediation or
redevelopment. Some in the park service will wonder whether these are
places that truly deserve park status. This bias may result in
disproportionate allocations of personnel, money and sentiment. Still
other opponents may wonder if the Heritage Areas Program is simply
urban economic redevelopment projects that belong in HUD. There may be
some truth to this allegation, especially given the vague criteria and
purpose of the program as I see it, but I can not comment on the merits
of this without greater study of the existing and proposed heritage
areas.
In conclusion, I am a firm supporter of protecting heritage. And I
have the highest regard for the heroic job the Park Service does to
protect our cultural and natural heritage here in the United States.
The National Heritage Areas Program--if it continues in its current
form or if it expands will be a challenge and an opportunity that
should be thoughtfully discussed and debated.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Sanderson.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD SANDERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONFERENCE
OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
Mr. Sanderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ted
Sanderson. I'm the executive director of Rhode Island State
Historic Preservation Program and I'm currently the president
of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers, the national organization that represents historic
preservation in each of the states.
I'll briefly summarize my written testimony and just hit on
a couple of key points. As we've already heard, the Heritage
Area concept has been an active conservation tool for about a
quarter of a century and State Historic Officers has supported
and been active in Heritage Areas around the country. For
example, Maryland, Texas and Utah are States where the State
Historic Preservation office has been the principle agency in
Heritage Area designation and administration.
Let me comment briefly on the issue of defining the
significance of historic areas. The creation of historic areas
recognizes that there are places, whole regions in our country,
that retain a historical sense of place, that reveal a coherent
story of America's history within a preserved landscape that
has cultural and natural resources. Some Heritage Areas possess
undisputed national significance for the landmark quality of
their historic sites and the broad scope of the stories they
tell about America's past. However, the real meaning of our
country's heritage is not limited to a few crown jewels and
parks as we just heard from the previous witness. America's
heritage is also embodied in the preserved places close to home
that reflect our regional character and history and that are
closest to our citizens. I can speak with personal experience
of a heritage corridor, having served as a commissioner to the
John H. Chaffee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor since its inception. The Blackstone is a two-State
corridor that spans 24 communities in Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. The Blackstone is nationally significant in the
traditional sense as the birthplace of the American Industrial
Revolution and one of the first places in the country with the
widespread use of water power to power industrial factories.
But Blackstone is just as significant for its wholeness, as for
some academic definition of national significance. Blackstone
is an intact cultural ecosystem of historic, cultural and
natural resources that are related to each other and that give
Blackstone a unique sense of historic place. The importance of
historic areas in our country should not be measured by a
narrow definition of national significance applied to a few
historic sites, but rather Heritage Areas should be judged by
the importance of the whole assemblage of the area's historic
and natural resources and how that assemblage of natural and
cultural resources tells an important story about a region or
about the Nation as a whole.
Next, let me comment about Heritage Area designation
studies. I agree with other speakers that successful Heritage
Areas document values and resources that define the Heritage
Area and this process should happen at the very beginning of
the application and designation process. Local citizens
understand using heritage development principles and the means
to preserve the places that are important to them, and their
chance of success is increased, not decreased by building
public support and establishing an action plan before ever
coming to Congress for designation.
State Historic Preservation Officers have a great deal to
offer to the development of Heritage Areas, particularly in the
initial stages of planning and designation. With Federal
funding from the Historic Preservation Fund and State funding
to match, State Historic Preservation programs carry out the
research and documentation on historic places within each
State; that's the necessary foundation for a Heritage Area
designation. And State Historic Preservation Officers have a
four-decade track record in the successful preservation of
historic buildings and sites. Unfortunately, low Federal
appropriates for SHPO activities has left many potential
Heritage Areas without the data base of information that would
help them to move more rapidly to the point of deciding whether
it was appropriate to have a designation or not.
Finally, let me turn to private property rights, not only
as a commissioner in a Heritage Area but as a resident and
property owner. I can report that Heritage Area designation has
not diminished my right to exercise control over my own
property within the Blackstone Corridor. For my neighbors and
my Heritage Area designation by the Congress has provided
important recognition of the importance and the cultural and
natural values inherent in our 24 communities. But there's been
no Federal land acquisition, there have been no Federal
regulations issued to restrict us in the enjoyment of our
property. The Blackstone Corridor, like other heritage
corridors in the country, works with willing partners, public
and private, to use our resources wisely, whether for education
and interpretation and conservation or for heritage-based
economic development, usually through tourism.
So to conclude, when the first Heritage Areas were
designated almost 20 years ago there were no other models; they
were an experiment. But today Heritage Areas are no longer an
experiment, they're a success. Each Heritage Area has its own
story of achievement and each is unique, and I think in
planning for the future of Heritage Areas it's important to
recognize the uniqueness of Heritage Areas as well as looking
for common threads. One of those common threads is the idea
that citizens and their government partners can come together
to preserve a piece of America's heritage and do it in a way
that unites a region. I hope that Congress will embrace the
public's enthusiasm for a Heritage Area program that's
exemplary of the proper role for the Federal Government in our
society, and I'd advocate that any new legislation look to
what's already working best today, set high standards, and help
this spirit to continue to flourish.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward Sanderson, President, National Conference
of State Historic Preservation Officers, and Executive Director, Rhode
Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The heritage area concept has been an active conservation tool
for a quarter century. The Congress has designated two dozen areas
around the country. Representatives from the nationally designated
areas formed the Alliance of National Heritage Areas which is now the
major non-profit proponent of heritage development. The Alliance now
sponsors the popular, international heritage rally, next scheduled in
2005 for Nashville, Tennessee. The Alliance's heritage training courses
are routinely oversubscribed. State governments have active heritage
area programs. Local groups are using the heritage development
principles informally for conservation and community development. One
estimate indicated that 140 regions in the country considered
themselves heritage areas.
B. The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
has been involved with heritage areas since 1992 when we participated
in a National Park Service conference in Dallas, Texas. State Historic
Preservation Officers are and have been major proponents of heritage
areas. In Maryland, Texas, Utah, for example, the SHPO has been the
principal agency in heritage area designation and administration.
Heritage tourism is a major priority in the National Conference's
strategic plan.
C. At a hearing in the House of Representatives in 1994, the
National Conference presented testimony advocating
1. the establishment of national criteria for heritage area
designation that allowed for consideration of all of America's historic
resources and was not limited to the ``crown jewels,'' or those
resources of national significance;
2. the seminal importance of adequate preparation and planning
before designating heritage areas;
3. partnership, the need to involve more federal agencies than the
National Park Service, perhaps the establishment of a federal level
advisory commission; and
4. support, even thought the funding for the national preservation
program was, and continues to be chronically low, for continued direct
funding for heritage areas.
D. State Historic Preservation Officers have a great deal to offer
to the heritage development movement:
1. research and documentation on historic places within the State;
2. expertise in communication of historic preservation programs to
government officials and the public;
3. experience in consensus building; and
4. a four-decade track record in the successful preservation of
historic resources.
II. DEFINITION OF A NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
A. A heritage area is a geographically cohesive assemblage of
historic, natural and recreational resources that convey a unified
message about America's history at that place and provide opportunities
for educational and recreational benefits to local residents and
tourists. Heritage areas do not entail government land acquisition.
Heritage areas use persuasion to involve residents and property owners
voluntarily into the project.
B. Successful heritage areas have the support of the citizens and
governments within the areas, a well-developed strategic plan in place
prior to designation, and a sound management entity to coordinate
activities.
C. A product of heritage development is resource conservation and
sustainable, historically and environmentally sensitive economic
development. Section 2 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470-1) says it best the federal government shall ``foster
conditions under which our modern society . . . and our historic
resources can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.''
III. DEFINITION OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
A. ``National significance'' raises several difficult questions.
State Historic Preservation Officers believe that the Nation and its
programs and incentives should be available to all Americans and apply
to all of America's historic resources. Nationally significant
resources are the best known and best protected and least in need of
the focused planning and attention of heritage areas. New Orleans,
Louisiana, and the Pennsylvania Dutch Country are two nationally
significant areas that are doing very well without federal designation.
On the other hand, the future of the historic resources in the Cane
River or in the area of oil discovery in Pennsylvania is uncertain-
these are not yet in the forefront of public consciousness and need the
techniques of heritage development to conserve their significant
resources.
B. The ``national significance'' topic may relate more directly to
a financial resource concern. With the popularity of heritage areas and
the experience of two-decades of providing $1,000,000 annually to
heritage areas, some are concerned about the potential drain on the
federal budget. ``National significance'' can be seen as a way to limit
the financial outlay by limiting the number of heritage areas. An
alternative model could involve lessening the requirement for national
significance, designating more areas and limiting funding either
through a competitive grants program or through term-limited funding.
The Nation has many historic areas that could prosper using the
heritage development model.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AS UNITS
OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
A. The heritage area program does not equate with a ``national-
parks-in-waiting'' concept. Heritage areas are not federally owned land
administered by federal employees. Heritage areas designation is not an
ownership scheme rather, heritage areas represent a unified
interpretative approach to enhancing local assets for the people who
live and pay taxes there and for heritage tourists, when economic
development is a goal of the heritage area.
B. The National Park Service is but one of several federal agencies
with expertise beneficial to heritage areas. The Departments of
Agriculture and Commerce are two examples.
C. Frankly, State Historic Preservation Offices also offer
expertise in historic research, restoration techniques, and heritage
tourism practices that can provide close-to-home assistance to existing
and prospective heritage areas. SHPOs are also the repository of
information on the location and significance of historic sites. This
information can form a foundation for educational materials and
interpretation.
V. PRIORITIZING STUDIES AND DESIGNATIONS
A. The concept of prioritizing studies and designations connotes a
``top down'' federal control concept that does not mesh with reality.
Successful heritage areas follow the ``bottom up'' model. Local
citizens understand using heritage development principles ad the means
to conserve the places important to them. Their chance of success is
increased if they build public support and establish an action plan
prior to going to Congress for designation. Heritage area success is
dependent upon local support and local funding. If that is not in
place, a Congressional designation is a paper exercise.
B. If the end-policy decision is to have a few heritage areas, then
rigorous criteria for heritage area designation is necessary. Such
criteria might include equal geographic distribution, demonstration of
themes of unquestioned national significance, rigorous review of local
financial capabilities, preference to areas that have the most local
financial support, and preference to areas with the most local property
owner support. Federal on-going audit systems may be necessary to
ensure that the heritage areas are meeting their goals. Procedures may
need development to de-designate heritage areas that do not meet that
standard.
C. If the policy decision is to have many heritage areas (150 for
example), then a more flexible set of criteria would be more
appropriate with less federal funding and less federal oversight.
D. A requirement to have the public participation and planning
components finished prior to designation would also have a controlling
factor on the numbers.
VI. OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING A NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA PROGRAM
IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
A. The National Park Service currently has a one-person staff who
has provided important assistance and coordination to the heritage area
movement. The heritage area program and other ``out house'' programs
within the Park Service will never be able to compete successfully with
the needs of the parks for Park Service resources. The National Park
Service expertise in recreation, interpretation and restoration is an
asset to heritage development but does not cover the gamut of heritage
area needs.
B. Alternative organizational schemes
1. Create a Heritage Development office in the Department of the
Interior, independent of the National Park Service
2. Establish an inter-agency team--similar to American Heritage
Rivers--to draw expertise from many federal agencies
3. Private-public partnership through a cooperative agreement with
the Alliance of National Heritage Areas
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Frenchman.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS FRENCHMAN, PROFESSOR OF THE PRACTICE OF
URBAN DESIGN, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Frenchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By way of
introduction I am a professor of Urban Design at MIT, where I
chair the Master of City Planning Program. My experience with
national heritage began in the 1970's when I prepared the plan
for Lowell National Historical Park, which became a model for
many Heritage Areas. Since then my firm, ICON Architecture, has
helped to plan almost half of the National Heritage Areas in
the United States in one way or another. At MIT I also conduct
research on the role of advanced technologies in the future of
cities and where cities are going. I mention this because those
of us involved with heritage are sometimes seen as nostalgic
and looking to the past. To the contrary, I would argue that
Heritage Areas are a wave of the future.
As evidence of this, Heritage Areas are growing in scope
and number, not only across the United States as we have seen
but also across Europe and in Asia. I've been involved with
projects in Spain, north of Barcelona, in Poland at the Gdansk
Shipyard, and in Italy. In Scandinavia they are called ``eco-
parks.'' In Germany there is Emscher Park, encompassing the
entire Ruhr Valley, and many Heritage Areas are being created
in China.
I think it's important to recognize the two forces that are
driving this growth. First, the worldwide shift to an
information economy has left behind many industrial areas.
Depressed cities have found that they can leverage heritage to
reinvent their identity in a way that attracts people and
business. A good example is Lowell, where the park is credited
with transforming a derelict mill town by attracting almost
half-a-billion dollars in reuse and new development.
The second force is a reaction to the standardized
environment and culture that the information economy is
creating, which looks pretty much the same in San Francisco or
Singapore. Treasured places and qualities of life are being run
over by homogeneous development. For localities, Heritage Areas
offer a strategy to conserve their distinctive stories, sense
of place and lifestyle without sacrificing economic growth.
Heritage Areas are also important at the Federal level.
They offer a way to conserve our national patrimony without
huge Federal expenditures or intervention or, as we have heard
from others, the control of property, because local people take
the responsibility for telling the American story from their
own perspective, and conserving the evidence of it in their own
way. This is a highly efficient and responsive way for the
government to be doing business. And just to provide some kind
of measure, the total NPS funding proposed for all 24 National
Heritage Areas over 15 years would be less than the cost of
billing one museum here in Washington on the Mall, or probably
its operating budget, on an annual basis.
But to fully realize these potentials I agree that the
current approach to ad hoc designation and guidance of National
Heritage Areas needs improvement. To one, assure that the
designated areas are truly of distinct national importance and
to two, that they are sufficiently focused to be meaningful--
and I think meaningful is the important word here--with clear
themes and boundaries and actionable plans. To better meet
these standards I support the creation of a National Heritage
Area as a program administered by the Park Service. In the end
only it has the experience and the name recognition that can
maximize the value of designation, helping to motivate
conservation and attract investment at the same time at the
local level. The National Park Service can do this without
being in charge at the local level, which I feel is a key to
sustainability.
For success, the program must strike a clear balance
between Federal and local roles. Designation is obviously a
Federal responsibility. However, the program would benefit from
the creation of an advisory council that represented the
existing Heritage Areas as well as others that can suggest
criteria for what constitutes, quote, ``a valuable part of our
national story,'' and review the merits and boundaries of
proposed new areas.
Planning is a partnership activity that really does build
local capacity. As a partner in the process, the National Park
Service can motivate broad-based support and commitments and
provide invaluable technical assistance.
Development and management should be, as we have heard, a
local responsibility. The Federal program can offer critical
seed money for planning and catalyst projects but the support
must be kept flexible to allow for innovation and approaches
tailored to the local need.
Finally, while Federal funds may diminish over time, even
evaporate, it is very important that the NPS continues to stay
involved at the local level, to sustain the national identity
and to advocate for quality. And I would agree with Mr.
Carlino, this oversight role would be aided by requiring
National Heritage Areas to be periodically reauthorized.
How do we measure the success of these projects? Given the
diversity of the areas and their partnerships, measuring
success is more challenging than other forms of development
like building roads or national parks, where you can simply
count the cars or the visitors. Nevertheless, performance
indicators can be developed to understand how well the areas
are reaching their own goals and such research, leading to more
effective planning and management, would be a key benefit of a
national program.
In closing, we've been speaking of Heritage Areas but the
issues before the committee are not about preserving the past.
Rather, they deal with how to manage the information and
cultural resources that we have to secure a better future.
Partnership conservation and revitalization projects will
continue to grow because they are needed and they are
efficient. Heritage Areas are showing how we can transition to
a new economy and method of governments without losing our
shirts and the sense of who we are.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frenchman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Frenchman, Professor of the Practice of
Urban Design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking me to appear before your
committee to offer my views on National Heritage Areas.
By way of introduction, I am a professor of urban design at MIT
where I chair the Master of City Planning Program. My experience with
national heritage began in the 1970's when I prepared the plan for
Lowell National Historical Park, which became a model for many heritage
areas. Since then, my firm, ICON architecture, has helped to plan
almost half of the National Heritage Areas in the U.S. At MIT. I also
conduct research on the role of advanced technologies to the future of
cities. I mention this because those of us involved with heritage are
sometimes seen as nostalgic and looking to the past. To the contrary, I
would argue that heritage areas are a wave of the future.
GROWTH OF HERITAGE AREAS
As evidence for this, heritage areas are growing in scope and
number. Congress has designated 24 national heritage areas and many
more are being proposed. Add to these a dozen statewide programs, and
numerous regional efforts that are underway across the country.
Heritage areas are also being created in Europe. I have been involved
with projects in Spain along the Llobregat River that stretches 50
miles from Barcelona to the Pyrenees, in Poland at the Gdansk Shipyard,
and in Italy. In Scandinavia they are called ``eco-parks''; in Germany
there is Emscher Park encompassing the entire Ruhr Valley, and there
are important projects in many counties funded by the European Union.
Heritage areas are also being created in Asia, particularly in China,
paralleling the enormous growth that is occurring there. The goal of
all these projects is the same: To conserve nationally important
cultural landscapes, interpret their stories to the public, and use
them for education, recreation and economic development.
Two forces are driving these projects. First, the worldwide shift
to an information economy has left behind many former industrial cities
and regions. Depressed areas have found that they can leverage heritage
to reinvent their identity in a way that attracts people and business.
The best example is Lowell, MA, where the park is credited with
transforming a derelict mill town into a vibrant community attracting
almost a half-billion dollars in reuse and development; nationwide,
National Heritage Areas generate close to $9 in investment for every $1
of federal money spent. The second force is a reaction to the
standardized environment and culture that the information economy is
creating, which looks pretty Much the same in San Francisco or
Singapore. In the U.S. we are seeing treasured places and qualities of
life that define our American heritage run over by homogeneous
development. In Europe there is concern about the same kind of growth
erasing national identities. For these places, heritage areas offer a
way to conserve their distinctive stories, sense of place and
lifestyle, without sacrificing economic growth.
The U.S. experience with heritage areas over the past 20 years has
provided both the inspiration and a model for these projects. In a
nutshell, National Heritage Areas enhance the identity and value of a
region by confirming that its story is important to the U.S. They
encourage a local commitment to conserve and interpret the natural and
cultural assets that illustrate the story. Finally they are managed by
partnerships that bring together contributions from all levels of
government and the private sector. Because they elevate and empower
communities, heritage areas are popular at the local level.
FEDERAL IMPORTANCE
But they are also important at the federal level. How can we hope
to conserve the American narrative and its values and pass them on to
our children if the evidence is washed away in a sea of globalization?
I would argue that it is more important to conserve these stories and
places in the communities where they originate than, as an example, to
concretize them in Washington in museums on the mall. Every year the
Smithsonian sponsors a National Folk-life Festival celebrating our
diverse American culture. It's a wonderful event. But if it is
important to celebrate that heritage oil the mall, its equally
important to sustain it, living and breathing, in areas across the
country.
National Heritage Areas show a way of doing this without huge
federal expenditures, or intervention, because local people take the
responsibility for telling the American story from their own
perspective and conserving the evidence of it in their own way. This is
a responsive and highly efficient way for the government to do
business. To provide some measure, the total funding proposed for all
24 National Heritage Areas over the next 15 years would be less than
the cost of building one museum now on the mall, or probably its
operating budget on an annual basis.
National Heritage Areas can also accomplish conservation without
federal acquisition of property. The idea that property must be
controlled to be conserved originated in the 19th century with national
parks, but it's now outdated. The federal government cannot hope to
purchase even a fraction of the areas that are significant to our
national heritage nor should it want to. It is more effective to
motivate stewardship at the local level.
NATIONAL PROGRAM
To fully realize these potentials, our current system of ad hoc
designation and guidance of national heritage areas needs to be
improved. First of all, we need to be exceedingly careful that
designated areas involving the NPS are of distinct national importance,
rather than state or local importance. The fear is not so much that
resources will be dissipated by frivolous designations (heritage areas
are a very efficient use of federal funds), but that the brand will be
devalued. Secondly, there is a need for focus. If a National Heritage
Area is to be meaningful, it needs a clear theme. boundaries that
relate to distinctive resources that are important to the story, and an
actionable plan. Not all heritage areas might meet such criteria. These
issues highlight the critical need for a legislative framework and
national program to guide and test proposed projects. ensure
appropriate planning and support, and maintain the value of the
designation.
On the federal side, the National Park Service is best suited to
administer the program. In partnership with local groups, it has
innovated many of the successful techniques for planning heritage
areas. The Park Service also has the credibility to deal with decisions
about national importance, as it has done successfully for many years
in programs like the National Register of Historic Places. But most
importantly, only the Park Service carries the name recognition that
will maximize the value of designation. The Park Service arrowhead, its
brand, is universally recognized as a sign of quality. Its presence
enhances the image and value of a heritage area in the marketplace,
helping to conserve what is important and to attract public and private
investment at the same time. The NPS can do this as a partner, without
being in charge at the local level. In the end, this is the key to
sustainability.
Given this context, what is the best way to construct a National
Heritage Area program? For success, the program must strike a clear
balance between the federal and local roles:
1. Designation is federal responsibility. However, the program
would benefit from the creation of an Advisory Council on Heritage
Areas that can suggest criteria for what constitutes a ``valuable part
of the national story'' and review the merits and boundaries of
proposed new areas. Taking a page from the World Heritage Cites
program, existing National Heritage Areas should be represented on the
council.
2. Planning is a partnership activity. The tasks of discovering
resources and devising conservation, education, and development
strategies helps to build local capacity and is one of the most
important and exciting parts of the process. As a partner, the NPS can
help to motivate broad based support and commitments and provide
invaluable technical assistance.
3. Development should be primarily a local responsibility. The
federal program can offer critical seed money for planning and catalyst
projects. It is important that these funds be kept flexible, allowing
innovation and approaches tailored to the local need. In many areas,
the NPS is represented in local management organizations. Other
agencies can also play a role, like the National Trust, HUD, or DOT,
which has funded many enhancement projects in heritage areas.
4. Monitoring requires continuing NPS involvement. We have found in
Lowell and elsewhere that as local institutions grow in strength,
federal funds can be diminished. But it is important that the NPS stay
involved with areas over the long term to sustain their national
identity and monitor progress. The oversight role would be aided by
requiring National Heritage areas to be periodically reauthorized.
How do we measure success of a National Heritage Area? Given the
diversity of the areas and their partnerships, measuring success is
more challenging than other forms of development, such as building
roads or national parks, where you can simply count the cars or the
visitors. Nevertheless, performance indicators could be developed to
understand how well the areas are reaching their own goals:
Are the resources and qualities that led to the designation
being conserved and respected?
Is there a working partnership and continuing civic
engagement?
Are residents and visitors learning about the resource'?
Has a sustainable flow of income been secured?
Data on such questions would help us to better understand what
works and doesn't work in heritage areas. It could also fuel research
into how to develop them more effectively through. for example, the
application of advanced communications and media. Supporting a research
agenda should be a key role of the national program.
In closing, we have been speaking of ``heritage'' areas, but the
issues before the Committee are not about preserving the past. Rather
they deal with how to manage the information and cultural resources
that we have to secure a better future. Partnership conservation and
revitalization efforts will continue to expand because they are needed
and efficient. In the process, we are discovering that traditional
American stories and prices in the landscape have an enduring value
that can be tapped to renew communities, and our national spirit.
Heritage areas are showing how we can transition to a neweconomy and
method of governance without losing our shirts, and the sense of who we
are.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Ms. LaGrasse.
STATEMENT OF CAROL W. LAGRASSE, PRESIDENT, PROPERTY RIGHTS
FOUNDATION OF AMERICA
Ms. LaGrasse. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity
of testifying today. My name is Carol LaGrasse and I'm
president of the Property Rights Foundation of America, which
is based in Stony Creek, New York, and I'm a retired civil and
environmental engineer.
My criticism has been and remains that National Heritage
Area program is meant to gradually accomplish Federal land use
control. It has found force especially in the East and Midwest.
The Heritage Area program also involves transferring private
land to government. The State and Federal Governments already
own 42 percent of the land in the United States. In 1994, I
published a list kept by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation of over 100 Heritage Areas of State, Federal,
local nature under development. The House Resources Committee
mapped that list and we demonstrated the shocking extent of the
program at that time. Direct national land use control is too
unpopular to be enacted as would the unified national greenway
program, encompassing the full extent of the Heritage Area
program and other Federal areas being individually designated.
In New Jersey there are eight Federal areas covering almost
half of the State. Now in the Congress, in various stages, are
six additional Heritage Areas and the like to cover the rest of
the state.
The main selling points for Heritage Areas are tourism,
economic development, historic preservation and protection of
riverways. The word ``greenway'' is not used yet Heritage Areas
are plainly greenways, areas where the purpose is landscaped
preservation by land use regulation and land acquisition by
government and surrogates. A theme trail is associated with
each greenway. Heritage Area elements fulfill the goal of
landscape connectiveness, a textbook purpose of greenways. A
greenway needs an ensemblage of sites related to a theme, the
ostensible reason for the overall geographic definition,
without which the real goal of landscape preservation could not
be accomplished.
In each Heritage Area, multiple programs called
partnerships in concert with other agencies at State, Federal,
regional, local and especially multi-jurisdictional levels,
along with various non-profits, focus on site development, land
use planning, land acquisition and trail development. The
auspices of the Park Service is diffused so that the public eye
would have to be excruciatingly trained to follow the
relationships and the flow of authority, the instigation and
especially the cash incentives. Local government is subverted
and co-opted, becoming a tool of the skilled Park Service, non-
profit and consultant manipulators. At each Heritage Area at
least one non-profit agency is created, under the tutelage of
the National Park Service to perhaps be the managing entity and
focus the accomplishment of the greenway or develop its related
trail while directing attention away from the National Park
Service. New non-profits are instigated for various trails and
other purposes. This is done surreptitiously. These and
consultants are outside of the Freedom of Information Law.
Initial studies are geared toward landscape preservation,
often under the rule book of historic preservation. Lavish
funds are provided for outreach to popularize the Heritage
Areas. A Heritage Area meeting that I attended recently was
hosted by seven Park Service personnel and consultants.
Sites are developed for tourism and historic preservation.
Congress may not prohibit funding under the Heritage Areas from
being used for land acquisition but this is immaterial because
the Park Service has built relationships with multiple Federal
and State agencies for this. One Heritage Area has put a new
National Park on the agenda, the proposed Homestead Works
National Park advocated by the Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area.
Trails, which are a serious threat to private property are
an important facet of Heritage Areas for connectivity. They are
developed in segments according to the textbook design for
success. Eminent domain may not be directly exercised by the
Park Service for trails but is threatened or exercised by
localities, each often separated from another segment so that
the common thread is unrecognized. One of the ironies of trails
being advocated by environmentalists is that in species-rich
riparian areas they'll serve as avenues for invasus, such as
cowbirds that replace eggs of neotropical migrants, songbirds
and weeds that replace native plants.
Mature planning studies are instigated in connection with
the funding for site improvements and in connection with the
management plan. These facilitate strict land use controls, an
issue really left hanging by the GAO report. Prohibiting the
Park Service from imposing zoning is irrelevant because the
Park Service does not do this directly but rather instigates
the imposition of land use controls.
Legislation of an opt-in provision with notification has
been discussed and is feasible considering that tax notices are
routinely sent to all property owners. But this provision and
the old opt-out provision wouldn't take care of the fact that
the boundary of the Heritage Area would still exist. Land
located within the greenway would still bear the brunt of
landscape preservation, trail development, economic design to
eliminate non-compatible uses and gearing the land for tourism
and nature. Land prices and the tax burden do increase.
Ordinary people cannot ultimately survive there.
Congress should enact changes geared to eliminate the
greenway potential of the heritage program. Eliminate the
geographic delineation. The heritage program could be directed
to block grants of moneys allocated State-by-State through an
agency that's not geared toward landscape preservation, such as
Housing and Urban Development. The partnerships should be
prohibited. The National Park Service should be prohibited from
promotional work for its policies at the local level and from
studies of historic and regional areas. It should be prohibited
from working with non-profit agencies. Park Service personnel
should be prohibited from participating in the study and
development of trails, or developing support organizations. All
the trails should be laid out in their full length, including
their width and the other ramifications from the proposal
stage, and the property owners notified. Trail development
could be administered by the Department of Transportation and
the eminent domain protections under the Federal highway law
applied.
No additional Heritage Area should be established and no
further development of trails should take place until there is
a full inventory of lands owned by the Federal and State
government and of the Federal areas, such as National Heritage
Areas and trails.
The National Heritage Program isn't really just pork
barrel, as some say it is. I don't believe it's economic
development. I believe that it is Federal land use control and
should be drastically curtailed.
[The prepared statement of Ms. LaGrasse follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carol W. LaGrasse, President, Property Rights
Foundation of America
Thank you for the honor and opportunity of testifying today at the
oversight hearing on National Heritage Areas. My name is Carol W.
LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of America, based in
Stony Creek, New York. I am a retired civil and environmental engineer.
The National Heritage Area program is designed to gradually
accomplish federal land use control, across especially the Eastern and
Midwestern parts of the United States, without passage of national land
use planning legislation by the Congress. The Heritage Area program
also has the goal of transferring private land to government. The state
and federal governments already own over 42 percent of the land in the
United States. In 1994, I publicized a list kept by the National Trust
for Historic Preservation of over 100 Heritage Areas under development.
The House Natural Resources Committee made a map from that list, which
showed the shocking extent to the program already at that time. As you
know, direct national land use control would be much too unpopular to
be enacted, as would be one single national greenway program
encompassing the full extent of the National Heritage Areas, American
Heritage Rivers, Stewardship areas, National Park Service trails, and
other federal areas being individually enacted.
In the State of New Jersey, there are eight federal areas under the
Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service covering almost half the
state. Now proposed in the Congress in various stages are six
additional Heritage Areas and the like to cover virtually the entire
rest of the state.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See PRFA web site for two color coded diagrams of New Jersey
at: http//www.prfamerica.org/NJ-Existing-Proposed.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main selling points for National Heritage Areas are tourism,
economic development, historic preservation, and protection of
riverways. The word ``greenway'' is not used. Yet, National Heritage
Areas are plainly greenways, areas where the purpose is landscape
preservation by land use regulation and land acquisition by government
and its surrogates.\2\ In addition, and importantly, a theme trail is
associated with each greenway. The elements of the National Heritage
Areas fulfill the goal of ``landscape connectedness,'' a textbook
purpose of greenways. It is important for a greenway to have what is
referred to as an ``ensemblage'' [not ``ensemble,'' a dictionary word
of commonly understood meaning] of sites related to the supposed theme.
This is an important element that gives the ostensible reason for the
overall geographic definition of the Heritage Area. If the Heritage
Area did not have a geographic definition, it would be impossible for
the real goal of landscape preservation to be accomplished.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the seminal work Greenways for America commissioned by the
Conservation Fund, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the
Rockefellers' American Conservation Association, author Charles E.
Little bemoans the ``mess'' created by the lack of regional planning in
America and welcomes greenways as a way toward better ``settlement
patterns.''
Referring to a landscape preservationist, Little writes, ``In the
phrase of author Tony Hiss, what the urban-rural greenway
infrastructure can create is `landscape connectedness.' And
connectedness has been the goal of regional planners for at least the
past one hundred years.''
``But comprehensive land-use planning on more than the most
elementary level--mainly zoning in towns and cities--seems to be beyond
us,'' laments Little.
``As I have said, regional greenways networks will not themselves
clean up the mess,'' Little writes. ``But the idea of establishing such
an infrastructure might very well give us a new and less controversial
approach to regional planning by providing a geophysical framework for
it, which, unlike that of highways and high-tension lines, is the
framework of the landscape itself.'' (Little, Greenways for America,
John Hopkins, 1990, Opp. 135,136, italics in original)
\3\ The bill for the Crossroads of the American Revolution National
Heritage Area focuses on regulation of the landscape. In the
``findings,'' the bill declares, ``Congress finds that . . . portions
of the landscapes important to the strategies of the British and
Continental armies, including waterways, mountains, farms, wetlands,
villages, and roadways . . . retain the integrity of the period of the
American Revolution, an . . . offer outstanding opportunities for
conservation, education, and recreation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the powerful tool of National Heritage Areas, the National
Park Service focuses its efforts at the greenway model. The enabling
statutes effectively provide for it to have this function. In each
area, multiple programs in concert with other agencies at state,
federal, regional, local and especially multi jurisdictional levels,
along with various not-profits, focus on land use planning, land
acquisition, and trail development. All of the relationships among
agencies and non-profits are referred to as ``partnerships.'' The
auspices of the National Park Service is effectively diffused, so that
the public eye would have to be excruciatingly trained to follow the
relationships and the flow of authority, instigation, and especially
cash incentives. In addition, local government is subverted and co-
opted, becoming a tool of the skilled Park Service, non-profit, and
consultant manipulators. At each National Heritage Area, at least one
not-profit agency \4\ is generally created expressly under the tutelage
of the National Park Service to perhaps be the so-called ``management
entity'' and focus the accomplishment of the greenway or to develop its
related trail or multiple trails or canalway trails while concomitantly
directing attention away from the Park Service. Multiple new non-
profits are instigated for various trails, quite surreptitiously. New
and existing not-profits serve also as channels for cash from various
federal agencies to consultants, outside of public inspection under
freedom of information law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ I witnessed the National Park Service and New York Parks and
Conservation Consultant tutoring the members of such an infant agency
in Schuylerville, NY, for the Champlain Canalway Trail, along the
northerly branch of the Erie Canal toward Lake Champlain, part of the
Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional funding is used for several purposes: The first is
studies, which, unfortunately, are geared to landscape preservation,
often under the supposed rationale of historical preservation. Congress
may proscribe funding under the Heritage Area law from being used for
land acquisition, but this is immaterial, because the National Park
Service has built relationships with multiple federal and state
agencies where land acquisition funds can be exploited.
Lavish funds are provided for outreach. A National Heritage Area
meeting that I attended recently, which was one of a series of
informational affairs and was attended by about thirty to forty
individuals, was hosted by seven National Park Service personnel and
consultants. National Park Service personnel refused to divulge the
annual budget for this Heritage Area until queried several times, and
then could not reveal the funding available from other agencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The budget for Erie Canal National Heritage Area was $400,000
for fiscal 2003, NPS submitted $600,000 for fiscal 2004. These appear
to be largely administrative and promotional expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sites are developed for tourism and historical preservation. the
``connectedness'' of these sites is a rational for regional land use
controls.
A National Heritage Area can put a new National Park on the agenda.
Such an example is the proposed Homestead Works National Park advocated
by the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area on their web site.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area is working to preserve
this site's rich industrial heritage and its priceless artifacts for
generations to come through the creation of the Homestead Works
National Park.''--http//www.riversofsteel.com/
ros.aspx?id=23&h=80&sn=95--3/28/04
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trails are a serious threat to private property today. As spin-offs
of the specific legislation or under parallel legislation,\7\ trails
are an important facet of National Heritage Areas, where connectivity
is essential. They are developed in segments, again according to
textbook design for success. Eminent domain may not be directly
exercised by the National Park Service, but is indeed threatened or
exercised by the associated localities for the segments of a trail,
each often separated from another segment so that the common threat is
unrecognized. During public questioning, the Park Service refuses to
address how these ``partnerships,'' as I've called them, drawing on the
Park Service term, to accomplish condemnation of private property
work.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Example: The Crossroads of the American Revolution National
Heritage Area in New Jersey is to be buttressed as a greenway with a
separately enacted Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route multi-
state trail, under study.
\8\ Examples: The City of Schenectady, NY, threatened condemnation
of the property belonging to Janice Revella for cross-state NPS Erie
Canalway Trail within the Erie Canal National Heritage Area. The Town
of Wawarsing, NY, condemned a historic railroad station owned by Herter
Diener for the cross-state NPS Delaware and Hudson Canalway Trail
within the Delaware and Hudson Heritage Area (not yet a NPS National
Heritage Area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning studies are instigated, in connection with funding for
site improvements and in connection with the management plan, which is
also funded by Congress. Strict land use controls are facilitated with
planning projects.
Reforms proposed in response objections by those concerned with
infringements on private property rights have been largely irrelevant.
Prohibiting funding from the program from being used to acquire
land, and prohibiting condemnation, will have no effect, because
funding and condemnation are available through other programs and
agencies, as I explained above. Prohibiting the National Park Service
from imposing zoning in connection with the program is irrelevant
because the Park Service does not do this directly. However, the Park
Service argues for and instigates the imposition of stronger zoning
controls.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ At the House Natural Resources Committee hearing on H.R. 2949
to establish the Augusta Canal National Heritage Corridor on June 28,
2994, Denis P. Galvin, Associate Director, Planning and Development,
National Park Service, recommended, that the bill to establish the
Heritage Corridor ``shall not take effect until the Secretary of the
Interior approves the partnership compact for the heritage corridor
that is now under development.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inclusion of an opt-out provision might appear desirable, but
is irrelevant because people would not know about it, and because the
Heritage Area boundary would remain. The inclusion of an opt-in
provision is feasible, considering that tax notices are routinely sent
to all property owners. Even a complex geographically bounded roster
can be culled easily in many jurisdictions by utilizing GIS. However,
this provision is not worthwhile enacting because the boundary of the
Heritage Area would still exist, along with the related greenway goals
and programs. A property owner might opt out of the Heritage Area, but
the land would be located in it and bear the brunt of the landscape
preservation, trail development, economic design to eliminate non-
compatible uses and gear the area toward tourism and nature, and the
gradual increase in tax burden.
What reforms could preserve the opportunity for federal funding to
preserve heritage, while eliminating the enabling framework for the
National Park Service to develop greenways, to accomplish landscape
preservation? It is not necessary to eliminate promotion and
preservation of important historic sites in order to get the federal
government out of landscape preservation.
First, on a mundane level, Congress should legislate requirements
to improve fiscal accountability and increase openness to public
scrutiny. In addition, Congress should enact changes geared to
eliminate the greenway potential of the Heritage promotion program.
Eliminate the definition of a geographic area where the heritage
program would exist. Instead, the Heritage program, perhaps called
``Heritage Promotion,'' could be directed to Heritage block grants of
moneys allocated state-by-state in proportion to population or federal
tax contribution through an agency that is not geared to landscape
preservation, such as Housing and Urban Development, National Endowment
for the Arts, or Department of Commerce. No gatekeepers for funding
grants should be allowed at the state level, to prevent the program
from falling under the auspices of a state greenway agency.
Prohibit all the partnerships with the agency presiding over the
block grants or grants to multiple grantee agencies, confining the
transfer of federal moneys expressly to straightforward block grants
competitively proposed under a process established by Congress.
Prohibit the National Park Service or any other agency from promotional
work for its policies at the local level, and from studies of
historical areas or regional areas. Keep the National Park Service out
of all programs except for parks. Prohibit the Park Service from
working with non-profit agencies to promote its goals.
The National Park Service trails program should be inventoried and
defined, as to its current and envisioned extent, as decided by
Congress. Studies of new trails should be scrutinized by Congress.
National Park Service personnel should be prohibited from participating
in the feasibility studies, development of trails, or participating in
developing support organizations. All federal trails should be publicly
laid out in their full extent from the beginning, at the proposal stage
and all property owners notified at that stage. The full width and
ramifications of the trail should be spelled out legislatively in the
conceptual stage. Protections for property owners should be put in
place.
Trail development could be administered by the Department of
Transportation and all eminent domain protections that exist under the
federal highway laws applied to federal trail construction.
Legislation should prohibit segmented development of trails and the
adoption of pieces of trails by separate local jurisdictions or non-
profits for future joining into a full-length federal trail.
No additional federal areas should be established and no further
development of trails in the United States should take place until a
full inventory of lands owned by the federal and state government, and
of federal areas such as National Heritage Areas, is completed.
Where funding for National Heritage programs or studies is to be
renewed, similar reforms should be instituted.
Living in a town controlled by overarching regional zoning and
overlapping designations, and experiencing the influence of not-profit
organizations, with half the town owned by the State government, I know
first-hand how these programs hurt the local culture and economy. The
National Heritage Area program is not just pork-barrel. It certainly is
not economic development. It is pure preservationism, and should be
drastically curtailed.
Senator Thomas. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate
you being here and I appreciate your thoughts. I have a couple
of questions, perhaps, for you.
A good many things, Mr. Carlino, that are mentioned are
travel, business, all that sort of economic activity. Do you
think that's the main function of a heritage?
Mr. Carlino. It's not the main function but it's certainly
an outcome of the work that we do. If we work in older
communities, a lot of times the investment of the money will go
into main street programs and historic revitalization of old
buildings. The purpose of those in partnership with either
local businesses or----
Senator Thomas. Yeah. If it's economic development, why
should it be a Federal program? Or why shouldn't it just be one
of the grants for Federal instead of trying to make it a park?
Mr. Carlino. Well, it's part of what we do. It's not the
only thing we do. But it's an investment strategy that comes
out----
Senator Thomas. I get the feeling many times, particularly
from small communities, that that's the main purpose of it, is
to get Main Street the national heritage so they can increase
their business activity.
Mr. Carlino. It might be the purpose of a community within
the Heritage Area but it's not always the only goal of the
Heritage Area.
Senator Thomas. Well, that's where the thrust comes from,
is the community. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's
interesting. For instance, we talked about these being
significant. The whole State of Tennessee is a Heritage Area.
Mr. Carlino. Yes sir.
Senator Thomas. Now, how do you justify that?
Mr. Carlino. I wasn't the one that designated----
Senator Thomas. Well, I know not but it sort of gives you a
little idea of whether you're really sustaining historical
things or whether you're doing something else, doesn't it?
Mr. Carlino. Well, from my understanding the argument for
the Tennessee project is that a good amount of the Civil War
occurred throughout the State.
Senator Thomas. We had a lot of Indian wars in Wyoming.
Maybe it ought to be a Heritage Area, do you suppose?
Mr. Carlino. I couldn't tell you sir, I've not visited your
State.
Senator Thomas. I guess that's the reason it doesn't seem
to have been a logical criteria for doing it and that the
differences that do exist.
Now, you mentioned authorization. Now, these don't have a
time authorization in them when they're granted do they? They
don't run out of being a heritage?
Mr. Carlino. Well, yeah. Most of the Heritage Areas that I
know of do have either an authorization that caps at funding or
at time.
Senator Thomas. Oh, well that caps funding but it doesn't
eliminate the Heritage Area, does it?
Mr. Carlino. It doesn't say that the heritage necessarily
will go away. It says that the funding will run out either at a
cap of funding or at time.
Senator Thomas. Well, are you saying that they have to have
capital funding from the Federal Government forever?
Mr. Carlino. I'm not saying that, no sir. What I'm saying
is that the restriction put into the legislation creates a
timeline in order for us to work. There are some projects that
can be accomplished within that time period.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Carlino. There are some that take longer than that. And
all I'm suggesting is that there be a process that we can
report back to Congress and the Park Service that demonstrates
the work we've achieved. And if there's a need for
reauthorization and it's demonstrated by the work that we're
doing and support then it should be left open----
Senator Thomas. I just am not familiar; my impression has
always been that there is supposed to have been a 10-year time
limit on funding but that hasn't always been the case,
sometimes it's been further. But I didn't think there was ever,
in the authorization, an end to the heritage system.
Mr. Carlino. Well, that's been our question. If the
Heritage Area runs out of authorization from the Park Service--
--
Senator Thomas. Are you talking about money or
authorization?
Mr. Carlino. Both.
Senator Thomas. Oh, Okay.
Mr. Carlino. Both.
Senator Thomas. That's what I wanted to make clear. There
comes a time, if I understand it correctly, where the Federal
Government aren't any longer responsible for the funding. Isn't
that true?
Mr. Carlino. The Park Service, the National Park Service.
Senator Thomas. The Park Service through the Federal
Government.
Mr. Carlino. Yes sir.
Senator Thomas. That doesn't mean the Heritage Area goes
away. You've all talked about----
Mr. Carlino. No, that's exactly right. But that's the
question. We still have the national label and yet it creates a
public perception that it has some relationship with the
National Park Service. So if the authorization has expired we
have a difficult time with that relationship and explaining it
to the public. Are we not or are we a part of the----
Senator Thomas. Well, I think it's criteria you guys are
going to have to come to grips with and that is you keep
talking about local, regional on your managing. Ed, you said
$900 million from the private, $1 million, but you sound also
like you need Federal money to go on forever.
Mr. Carlino. Not forever, no sir. But it does help in----
Senator Thomas. Of course it helps. But if I had anything
to do with the criteria it's going to be a time to get it
started and then the Federal money stops. You don't agree with
that, I don't think.
Mr. Carlino. I would ask you to at least allow me to
discuss that with you as you continue to pursue the program.
Senator Thomas. Yeah, well that's the concept, at least.
Almost all these have been 10-year funding things. Isn't that
true?
Mr. Carlino. Well, let me speak for my organization.
Senator Thomas. Well, it's true.
Mr. Carlino. We have--our authorization says no more than
$10 million over a period of 16 years, and we can get no more
than $1 million a year. At our current rate our authorization
would cease because we will hit the 10-year authorization
because we've been getting $1 million a year for the past 8
years.
Senator Thomas. You'll get to the end of funding. You and I
don't seem to be able to understand that.
Mr. Carlino. No.
Senator Thomas. Are you talking about funding or
authorization? There's two different things.
Mr. Carlino. Funding.
Senator Thomas. Yes, okay.
Mr. Carlino. Yes.
Senator Thomas. I just want to make that clear.
Dr. Short, you talked about the need for more Federal
money. What is the basis for that, to do more study? To help
get started?
Dr. Benton-Short. No, I just, I think in that context was
that if you are going to have the Heritage Areas Program
expand, that I do think that there probably needs to be
additional Park Service personnel involved to make it as
effective and successful as it should be. So you wouldn't want
the Park Service to take away sources of money from other park
units already under their jurisdiction and channel it to the
Heritage Areas Program.
Senator Thomas. That's of course, been the concern that
some people have, whether it's right or wrong.
You mentioned recreation areas. Is there any reason to have
a recreation area called a heritage?
Dr. Benton-Short. Well, that's a very good question. You're
kind of getting at the heart of the Park Service nomenclature,
which I find incredibly confusing after 10 years; I could never
tell the difference between a national historic site, a
national historic park or a National Heritage Area. It kind of
depends on who you talk to. Recreation areas, if you talk to
some people, they'll define it as primarily open space areas
where there are different facilities for recreation. So I guess
that would depend on what Heritage Areas you'd be talking
about. But I think that issues about what we call these
different areas is very, very important because it often
indicates status or lack of status.
Senator Thomas. I guess that's the issue here with
establishing criteria and so on.
Mr. Sanderson, you represent state heritage. Is that
correct?
Mr. Sanderson. Well, State heritage and State preservation
offices, yes sir.
Senator Thomas. You talked about regional areas and so on.
Why not State? Why is the Federal Government involved if you
can have State historic areas to do the same thing,
particularly when there's not as particularly significant
national concept to it?
Mr. Sanderson. Oh, I think you can have State Heritage
Areas and certainly I would advocate for that. I don't think
one is a substitute for the other. I think many States have
developed heritage programs that take a lot of different forms
and I think State programs are fine. I think when an area has a
uniquely significant, as I said in my comment, assemblage of
resources and what strikes me about many of these Heritage
Areas is that they're not single dimensional. It's not just
some historic sites or just recreational opportunities or just
natural resources, it's the coming together of those different
types of resources within a single area that creates a unique
kind of a place, a special landscape or land area that----
Senator Thomas. If you defined, very briefly, how would you
define the criteria for a Federal Heritage Area?
Mr. Sanderson. I think that, well, I guess I would start
with those basic types of resources, the historic resources,
the natural resources and then many areas will have
recreational opportunities that occur between the two. Our
State parks agency recently did a public opinion poll for their
own planning and they discovered that visiting historic sites
was rated as one of the top outdoor recreational activities for
citizens in Rhode Island. Well, that came as something as a
surprise to me and something as a surprise to them. But what it
shows is that the kinds of boundaries that we bureaucrats
sometimes slice up the world into are not perceived by citizens
who like to get outside, like to hike along a historic canal;
they enjoy visiting a historic site and learning about the area
at the same time that they can have a picnic with their family
and be in an area of environmental protection, Northeast Bird
Flyway Area.
Senator Thomas. Yeah, okay.
Mr. Sanderson. And it's the coming together of these that I
see----
Senator Thomas. I guess there has to be a definition,
unless you want the Federal Government involved in everything.
What I hear all the time is, oh, the damn Federal Government's
into us all the time. And then the next day, oh, well we want
the Federal Government to be involved in this. We have to make
some distinctions as to what they are and I guess that's
probably what--when you set aside a historic building or some
area like that, then you say there's no property restrictions.
How do you define that? Property or land restrictions, if
you're going to protect land and buildings?
Mr. Sanderson. Well, when you say set aside a property, as
I'm sure you know, there are different kinds of designations of
properties, some historic properties, some sites are within
State parks, some are owned by private, non-profit
organizations that open them to the public as museums. These
don't involve taking peoples' property away from them.
Senator Thomas. No, but I'm saying though, is if your
purpose of your heritage is to maintain certain properties,
then how do you say you don't have anything to do with
controlling the property?
Mr. Sanderson. Well, for the most part there isn't control
there is cooperation between owners. If a property owner with
their own private property chooses not to preserve the
property, for the most part there aren't effective controls to
stop that.
Senator Thomas. Then the heritage saving you're talking
about doesn't work. Is that right?
Mr. Sanderson. Exactly. Which is why education and
community consensus are so important within the area.
Communities come together quite remarkably in my experience and
make decisions that they like where they live, that they value
the character of their place.
Senator Thomas. I think we all agree with that. The
question here before us is how do you best manage those things
and who should have the responsibility, who should pay the
money, how do you do this, what's the criteria for a Federal
one?
Mr. Sanderson. Right.
Senator Thomas. You know, to talk about the value of
property, everybody agrees with that, or areas. The question
is, how do you best manage these and what's the criteria and
how do you set it up with the different division of
responsibility between state--you represent State Heritage
Areas--and Federal. That's really the issue.
Mr. Sanderson. Part of the success, I think, of Heritage
Areas is that you get--in order to be designated, in order to
create a Heritage Area, the local community has to want it; the
State officials work with them and they want it, and then they
come to the Congress and demonstrate that they are in fact
worthy of that designation. So that you have a process of
people who want to participate in this program.
Senator Thomas. That's fine. We haven't had a definition of
the criteria.
Mr. Sanderson. Well, I would agree that there should be
defined----
Senator Thomas. I mean, just because the local folks want
it, I can understand that. And they want the Federal Government
to pay for it; I can understand that. But there has to be some
designation to justify the Federal involvement and you agree
with that.
Mr. Sanderson. Oh, I would strongly agree that there need
to be criteria that need to be met. We need to make sure that
the criteria are flexible enough to notice that different
Heritage Areas have different qualities to them.
Senator Thomas. Sure, no question.
Mr. Frenchman, are you aware of similar heritage things in
other countries?
Mr. Frenchman. Yes sir, I am. And I've been involved with
some of those, in particular in Spain and other locations in
Korea and so forth. And they have many of the characteristics
that our Heritage Areas and they have some of the challenges
also as well. I think one of the thing's that is recognized in
these areas which we seem to have trouble trying to value here
is that it's the national recognition, it's the recognition by
a higher authority that you are important, which is the key
economic tool. Money is great, money is very important,
everybody will take it, but it's the importance of that
designation. It's no different in business. If you have a brand
and it has value that you spent 200 years developing, you have
to be very careful about where you put that brand and who
carries it. And people pay for that brand, by the way, they
don't get it for free. So it has a value. And I would agree
with I think almost all of us who are here that that has to be
protected, that national significance has to be protected. Now,
I think in Europe, for example, they are rather jealous about
this. Each country is trying to really keep its personal
identity in a place that's trying to make a union, so you just
find people very strongly wanting to reinforce the identity. So
those criteria tend to be pretty strong. And I think we could
probably learn some things from them but to be honest, they're
looking to us for the model.
Senator Thomas. Well, it's interesting. You go to Turkey,
for instance, and those Heritage Areas are 2,000 years old.
Mr. Frenchman. Right.
Senator Thomas. And it's quite a different situation than
some of these things.
Ms. LaGrasse, there are 45 million people who live within
the boundaries of existing Heritage Areas. Do you think it's
possible for property rights to be in and out of these things
and be protected? That their properties are not impacted or
affected by----
Ms. LaGrasse. Well, the way I see it happening, when the
National Park Service and its consultants come to an area,
there's a soft sell and there's a constant cross sell, there's
an informal exchange where the local jurisdictions receive
pressure and incentives to establish land use planning that
they wouldn't otherwise put into place. And of course land use
planning may or may not infringe on private property rights.
One index of how it infringes on private property rights is the
amount of litigation. I only have heard anecdotal evidence of
particular municipalities which before and after establishing
land use planning have a tremendous accentuation in litigation.
At a hearing, actually, on the Erie Canalway National Heritage
Corridor, a councilman from the town of Lake George pointed out
that since his township had established zoning their annual
litigation bill for their lawyers have gone from a few thousand
dollars to several hundred thousand dollars. He just threw that
into the pipe to say that this might be the type of thing you
are instigating towns to do. But unless there's a systematic
study of the affect of land use planning in these Heritage Area
over a period of time no one can speak to that impact. All that
I get is anecdotal evidence, particularly about trails.
Senator Thomas. Zoning and so on is a local decision.
Ms. LaGrasse. It's local but when there are incentives and
when there's very sophisticated presentations, local people who
in rural areas, frankly, are not as sophisticated as the
National Park Service and its consultants are greatly
influenced to go in those directions.
Senator Thomas. Well, we don't admit that, those rural
people.
Well, I appreciate all of your thoughts. I think certainly
most of us have a view that there's great merit in preserving
the historic things in our country and finding the best way to
do that. Hoping to be able to come up with some criteria so
that here, frankly, as you know, if we don't have criteria
here, it's just whoever can get the votes for something that
doesn't necessarily fit in and maybe that will always be the
case. But we want to try and get a little more uniform. I think
also we need to find a proper division between the
responsibility of the Federal Government and local governments
and State governments because they are different and they can
work together, of course. So, we really appreciate it and I
think we're moving in the right direction of continuing to be
able to deal with Heritage Areas but to have some pretty common
criteria that will allow us to do that.
So we thank you all very much for your participation. And
as I said, some of the other members might possibly have some
questions and we'll leave the record open for several days. So
thank you very much, we appreciate it and the committee's
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: Enclosed are answers to the follow-up
questions the committee submitted to the National Park Service after
the hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held on March 30, 2004,
concerning National Heritage Areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questions that have
been submitted for the record.
Sincerly,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Over 20 bills have been referred to this Subcommittee
for studies and designations of new heritage areas. Are you aware of
any additional heritage areas that may request federal status in the
neat few years? If so, how many?
Answer. Other areas have contacted the agency about conducting
their own feasibility study for possible national heritage area
designation. However, until a bill is introduced it is hard to know
which ones will complete the effort. At this time the National Park
Service has been directed by Congress to undertake studies of the
feasibility of establishing a national heritage area in four areas.
These include a study of Buffalo Bayou in Houston, Texas; the Low
Country Gullah Culture in South Carolina and Georgia; Muscle Shoals in
Alabama; and Niagara Falls in New York. The Low Country Gullah Study is
under final review in the National Park Service, the Niagara Falls
Study has been underway for just over a year and the other two studies
are just getting started.
Question 2. How much has been appropriated in the DOI budget,
obligated, and spent for National Heritage Areas in the past 10 years?
How does the National Park Service monitor and account for funds being
spent on National Heritage Areas?
Answer. The attached list shows the level of funding authorized,
obligated and spent for national heritage areas in fiscal year 2004
[Attachment A].* Funding for National Heritage Area grants has grown
from $2.2 million in FY 1995 to $14.2 million in FY 2004, for a total
of $80.4 million appropriated over ten years. In addition, National
Heritage Areas have frequently received line-item construction funding,
such as $2.5 million appropriated to the Southwestern Pennsylvania
National Heritage Area in FY 2004. To compile the obligation and
expended amounts, plus the line-item construction amounts, which have
gone to all the areas over the past 10 years before we had a heritage
partnership account will take more time to assemble. We will provide
this to the committee once all the information is compiled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachment A has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service monitors and accounts for the
appropriated federal dollars by entering into a cooperative agreement
with each of the management entities. This agreement is amended every
year to show where National Park Service funding will be spent in the
upcoming year. These expenditures are tied to implementing the adopted
and approved management plan. At the end of the year, the areas send a
final report showing how the funding was spent and provide an annual
audit for review.
Question 3. Should any of the existing National Heritage Areas be
designated as units of the National Park System? If so, which ones and
what type of unit would be suitable?
Answer. The 1998 National Parks Omnibus Management Act established
a standardized process for identifying and authorizing studies of
potential new National Parks units. Before the agency can undertake a
study on the feasibility and suitability of designating a new National
Park unit, the study must be authorized by a specific act of Congress.
At this time, the only study that has been authorized to examine the
feasibility and suitability of designating a park unit in a national
heritage area is a study of the Carrie Furnaces in the Rivers of Steel
National Heritage Area in western Pennsylvania. The Carrie Furnaces are
one of the few remaining complexes of the once extensive Homestead
Steel works.
In general, most national heritage areas are large living
landscapes encompassing multiple counties and millions of people. For
tills reason, they are not suitable for management as National Park
units. However, many national heritage areas have National Park units
within their boundaries or on their borders. A number of close
partnerships for enhanced resource conservation and interpretation have
been developed between these parks and the surrounding areas.
Question 4. How many heritage areas has the National Park Service
reviewed for possible study or designation? Of those, how many has the
park service advised against designation?
Answer. Prior to 1998, the National Park Service had a legislative
mandate to conduct studies of potential new parks under our own
initiative, in response to specific legislative direction, or as
directed in appropriations committee reports. Studies on potential new
park units initiated after the adoption of the 1998 Omnibus Parks and
Management Act require specific authorization by Congress.
In undertaking a study for a new park or a national heritage area,
it is the responsibility of the National Park Service to make our best
and most appropriate professional recommendation. For this reason, a
study of a resource may lead to a different recommendation than the
stated purpose of the initiating authorization. Although most of the
studies are undertaken for either creation of a new unit or a heritage
area, some studies led to the establishment of a new program for
technical and financial assistance or other legislative action that
does not fit well-defined categories of National Park Service units.
Of the last 100 Special Resource Studies undertaken, 24 looked at a
region's qualifications as a potential national heritage area. Of those
24 studies, nine were determined to be either ineligible under the
criteria for designation as a national heritage area or more
appropriately classified under another designation such as a trail or a
cultural center or incorporated into another already designated area.
Question 5. Twenty-four National Heritage Areas currently exist
with only one full-time park service employee running the program. How
many National Heritage Areas can the park service manage with the one
individual currently responsible?
Answer. More than one individual works in support of National
Heritage Areas. The National Park Service assigns staff in regional
offices and National Park units to administer national heritage areas
designated in their regions. For example, staff in the Southeast
Regional Office is working with the recently designated Blue Ridge
National Heritage Area. These assignments are collateral duties as part
of their regular work, but they play an essential role in running the
program. Under the Administration's legislative proposal on heritage
areas, up to five percent of the funds made available to heritage areas
could be used for technical assistance, administrative, and oversight
duties by the National Park Service.
Question 6. In your testimony, you reference the ``National
Heritage Partnership Act'' as legislation proposed by the
administration. When do you expect to formally introduce the language?
Does the language give private property owners the right to opt in or
opt out? If, not, how does it address private property?
Answer. The administration's legislative proposal, the ``National
heritage Partnership Act'' was presented with our testimony before the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, at the oversight hearing on the National Heritage Areas
program on March 30, 2004 and was formally transmitted to the President
of the Senate on the same day. Based on our proposal, Senator Thomas
introduced a bill on June 17, 2004 (S. 2543).
The proposal does not give property owners the right to opt in and
out of the boundaries of a heritage area. However, it requires
extensive public involvement in both preparing a feasibility study and
in the development of a management plan for an area. In addition,
Section 9 of the legislative proposal offers extensive private property
and regulatory protections. It states explicitly that nothing in the
act abridges the rights of property owners and further states that
owners are not required to participate in heritage area plans or
programs or to allow public access. In addition, heritage area
designation does not alter duly adopted land use plans, authorize
changes in water rights, diminish the authority of states to manage
fish and wildlife, or create other liabilities.
Question 7. How does the National Park Service account for funds
provided to National Heritage Areas?
Answer. For most national heritage areas, the National Park Service
enters into a cooperative agreement that establishes the working
relationship between the area and the agency. Each year the cooperative
agreement is amended or modified to specify the area's annual work plan
and budget to implement the heritage area's management plan. This
document obligates the authorized funding. The areas then request
advances or reimbursement using a standard form that ties the request
to the annual modification (Standard Form 270). At the end of the
financial year, the areas are required to send in an annual report. In
addition, the cooperative agreement requires an annual financial audit
to be provided to the agency. The agreements, modifications, and
reimbursements are overseen by a warranted contract officer and the
agency's technical representative.
Question 8. Does the park service conduct any audits of National
Heritage Areas to ensure funds are being used for the intended
purposes?
Answer. As part of the cooperative agreement process discussed
above, the National Park Service requires national heritage areas to
provide an annual financial audit. Based on the findings in the recent
General Accounting Office report, the agency plans to develop
guidelines for reviewing and monitoring expenditure of funds, audits
and compliance with annual work plans.
Questions From Senator Campbell
Question 1. How many National Heritage Area proposals are under
consideration at this moment'?
Answer. As of April 1, there are eight study bills on six different
areas and 26 designation bills on 15 different areas pending in
Congress. So far only one new national heritage area has been
designated during the 108th Congress (Blue Ridge National Heritage
Area). A summary of pending heritage bills is attached. [Attachment B]*
Based on earlier congressional authorizations, the National Park
Service is studying three proposed national heritage areas: Buffalo
Bayou in Houston, Texas, Muscle Shoals in Alabama and Niagara Falls in
New York. In addition, a heritage area strategy is proposed as one of
the alternatives in our recent study of the Low Country Gullah Culture
in South Carolina and Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachment B has been retained in the subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. What kind of notification will property owners receive
if their land becomes incorporated as part of a heritage area?
Answer. Prior to designation, public meetings are held throughout
the proposed national heritage area to inform residents about the
proposal, to measure if strong, widespread support exists in the local
community, and to discuss the boundaries of the area. These public
meetings are advertised in local newspapers and publications. As part
of the feasibility study that is required before an area is designated,
residents and property owners discuss what resources they wish to
protect, enhance and interpret and how best a boundary could be drawn
to meet this goal; this feasibility study is sometimes undertaken by
the National Park Service, but often undertaken by local community
supporters.
The legislation enacted for each area treats private property
issues in a different way. However, none of the current twenty-four
areas have required individual owner notification. They do require
public involvement in developing the management plan for the area. Our
legislative proposal makes explicit the need for public involvement in
preparing both a feasibility study for proposed areas and in developing
the area's management plans. Section 9 also provides property owners
with a number of specific guarantees that being included within a
national heritage area will not require them to participate, permit
public access, alter any adopted land use regulation or plan,
appropriate water rights, diminish the right of the State to manage
fish and wildlife, or create any liability for any person injured on
private land.
Questions 3 and 4. It seems to me that many national Heritage Areas
express a local or regional rather than a national interest. Just as
states have State Parks programs, many states, such as Colorado, have
similarly successful heritage programs that are run on the state/local
level. As well, it seems that the most successful heritage sites in the
national program are those that are managed in conjunction with local
community interests. In light of these facts, are these programs that
might better be left to the states?
Answer. Some proposals for National Heritage Areas that lack
nationally important resources may be more appropriately ``left to the
states.'' Seven states and many local groups have well-established and
funded heritage area programs, and every state provides sonic form of
support to historic preservation efforts. But for nationally important
resources, it is appropriate for the federal government to recognize
these areas.
Question 5. What exactly are the criteria by which a potential
national heritage site is judged to have national interest above and
beyond a more local and regional interest?
Answer. The National Park Service has the challenge of assessing
levels of significance in making many of our resource-based designation
decisions. Two examples include the evaluation of proposals to
establish new units of the National Park System and designating
properties as National Historic Landmarks. In making decisions on the
national significance of new parklands or new landmarks, the agency
applies criteria that have been established by statute and further
explicated by regulations and guidance documents. The national heritage
areas program has developed proposed criteria that draw upon the
experience of both of these programs.
Our legislative proposal recognized that criteria are needed to
determine whether a proposed national heritage area is indeed of
national interest. Section 5 states that a feasibility study shall
apply the following criteria to determine the feasibility of
designating a proposed National Heritage Area:
(1) An area--
(i) has an assemblage of natural, historic, or cultural resources
that together tell a nationally important story;
(ii) represents distinctive landscapes and aspects of our American
heritage worthy of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and
continuing use;
(iii) is best managed as such an assemblage through partnerships
among public and private entities at the local or regional level;
(iv) reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life that are
a valuable part of the national story;
(v) provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural,
cultural, historic, and/or scenic features;
(vi) provides outstanding recreational and educational
opportunities; and
(vii) has the resources and traditional uses important to the
identified stories and themes and these resources and uses retain a
degree of integrity capable of interpretation.
(2) Residents, business interests, non-profit organizations, and
governments including relevant Federal land management agencies within
the proposed area are involved in the planning and have demonstrated
significant support through letters and other means for National
Heritage Area designation and management.
(3) The local coordinating entity responsible for preparing and
implementing the management plan is identified.
(4) The proposed local coordinating entity and units of government
supporting the designation are willing and have documented a
significant commitment to work in partnership to protect, enhance and
interpret resources within the heritage area.
(5) The proposed local coordinating entity has developed a
conceptual financial plan that outlines the roles of all participants
including the Federal government.
(6) The proposal is consistent with continued economic activity
within the area.
(7) A conceptual boundary map has been developed and is supported
by the public, and by participating Federal agencies.
To make these determinations, the National Park Service can draw on
the resources of the criteria developed assessing new parkland and on
the national historic landmark theme studies. In addition, if
legislative criteria are adopted, additional guidance materials will be
developed.
Question 6. In your opinion, how much has this program impacted the
funding levels for other Park programs?
Answer. Funding for this program is relatively small compared to
total NPS funding. The NPS was funded in FY 2004 at approximately $2.4
billion of which the Heritage Partnership appropriation was $14.4
million. At the margins, however, it might have an impact. In FY 2004,
Congress appropriated $7 million more than requested for National
Heritage Areas, compared to $16 million in park base increases over FY
2003.
______
The Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc.,
Stony Creek, NY, April 16, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: National Heritage Areas
Dear Senator Thomas: It was an honor to testify before the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee on March 30, 2004. Thank you for the
additional opportunity expressed in your letter of April 5, 2004
requesting my response to four sets of questions on National Heritage
Areas. This letter is my reply, question by question.
I hope that these replies to your four questions about the National
Heritage Area program are helpful and that the various angles from
which I examined the program offer information, viewpoints and specific
proposals that are worthwhile and practical to help preserve our
heritage in its great diversity while promoting private property rights
to their fullest extent as guaranteed in the United States
Constitution.
Thank you for the honor of this opportunity of replying to your
important questions.
Respectfully,
Carol W. LaGrasse,
President.
Question 1. The GAO did not find any adverse impact to private
property. Do you have any specific examples of private property being
adversely affected by a heritage area? What could GAO have done
differently to better address private property impacts?
Answer. As I explained in my testimony, the system of partnerships,
compacts, carrots and sticks, and the like to establish these greenway
programs involves precipitating local, multi-jurisdictional and
regional land use control enactments, land acquisition programs, and
trails that adversely impact private property rights without putting
the onus on the heritage area commissions or National Park Service to
carry out the on-the-ground impositions on private property owners. My
testimony cited clear-cut policy statements by the Park Service,
management plans and formative thinking in the greenway advocacy world
that show how the greenway system is designed to carry out its goal of
landscape preservation.
As I explained on the telephone during the adversarial interview by
Preston Heard and other members of the staff of the General Accounting
Office during August 2003, the careful distancing of the official
federal agencies from local land use jurisdiction makes it impossible
for an organization of this modest capacity to investigate the impact
of a National Heritage Area on private property rights. The
investigator would have to follow a chain of events, from the creation
of the management plan; the establishment of the heritage area
commission; to the partnerships, compacts, many meetings of a public
and less public nature; documents promulgated during implementation of
the management plan and the like; resultant local, multi-
jurisdictional, and regional enactments; enforcements by such non-
federal agencies; and litigation. The investigator would have to do
interviews and studies of affected property owners and studies of tax
impacts. Such studies would have to be conducted over a reasonable
period of time from establishment of a heritage area, perhaps in the
neighborhood of a decade. Separate study of trails being created in
connection with heritage areas would be essential and probably more
quickly fruitful, because it appears that there is yet no way to
establish trails through private property through legislation that
leaves property owners entirely bamboozled about the taking of their
rights, and once the trails are being created or are in existence, at
least a few of the property owners take their time from compelling
their day-to-day affairs to forcefully complain of infringements.
With respect to trails, which are unfailingly associated with
heritage areas, it is relatively easy, when a complaint arrives here at
PRFA to see a connection with a larger motivating entity, such as the
National Park Service, whose behind-the-scenes responsibility for an
innocent appearing segment of a relatively long trail in a particular
locality can be brought to light. However, as with almost all examples
of private property rights infringements that come to the attention of
PRFA, examples of these trail infringements on private property rights
come to the attention of PRFA by pure happenstance, e.g., someone e-
mails or telephones for help, mails a clipping, or the like.
Examples of threatened and executed condemnations, or threatened
forced sales, for trails associated with heritage areas that have
recently come to the attention of PRFA are:
a. The City of Schenectady, NY, threatened condemnation of the
property belonging to Janice Revella for the 500-plus mile cross-state
National Park Service Erie Canalway Trail within the Erie Canal
National Heritage Area. (David Riley, ``Tour de Schenectady--Local
resident fights City Hall's attempt to put a bike path in her
backyard''--Metroland, Albany, NY, Nov. 7, 2002)
b. The Town of Wawarsing, NY, initiated condemnation proceedings
for the historic Port Ben railroad station owned by Herter Diener for
the National Park Service-instigated cross-state Delaware and Hudson
Canalway Trail within the Delaware and Hudson Heritage Corridor.
(Dianne Wiebe, ``Negotiations off track in drawn-out dispute over train
station,'' Daily Freeman.com, Kingston, NY, 12/17/2002, referenced 8/7/
03). This heritage corridor involves the Delaware and Hudson Heritage
Corridor Alliance, but is not yet a National Park Service National
Heritage Area.
c. Farmer Ed Richardson, whose land is located near the Saratoga
National Historical Park in Stillwater, NY, complained about being
approached to allow the trail through his property by representatives
for the Champlain Canalway Trail, which is the northern spur to Lake
Champlain from the Erie Canalway Trail in the Erie Canal National
Heritage Area (according to a reports and an article in the Saratogion,
Saratoga Springs, NY). Ironically, no newspaper article or other public
information about this trail appeared until this reporter for the
Saratogian read my article about the secrecy involved in the trail in
the New York Property Rights Clearinghouse (``Saratoga County Canalway
Trail Shrouded in Secrecy,'' Property Rights Foundation of America,
Fall 2002).
d. Considering the National Parks typically have property rights
impacts, a new 38-acre Homestead Words National Park being advocated by
the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area for the formerly 400-acre
Homestead Works site may have property rights impacts if private land
is contemplated for acquisition. (Ref.: http:www.riversofsteel.com/
ros.aspx?id=23&h=80&sn=95 Apr. 15, 2004)
The GAO could have should addressed property rights impacts more
deliberately. When interviewing this property rights advocate, the GAO
interviewers should have taken an interest made, instead of arguing
about whether to hang up in disgust at this interviewee's remarks. With
the viewpoint presented that the property rights impacts happen through
the programs established through the Heritage Area, rather than
directly, the GAO should have attempted to address that viewpoint. The
report simply cites the concerns of property rights advocates and GAO
interviews of officials involved with Heritage Areas and leading
property rights advocates. This amounts to study by interview.
``. . . However, property rights advocates fear the effects of
provisions in some management plans. These provisions encourage
local governments to implement land use policies that are
consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow the
heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use
planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their
property. Nevertheless, heritage area officials, park Service
headquarters and regional staff, and representatives of
national property rights groups that we contacted were unable
to provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly
affecting--positively or negatively--private property values or
use.'' (Excerpts from ``What GAO Found,'' GAO Testimony Before
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
March 30, 2004, on the page before page 1)
To study the impacts on private property rights, studies could
consider:
a comparison of the level of zoning before and after
implementation of a Heritage Area, including a study of factors
influencing changes in zoning with a mind to ascertaining how
Heritage Area designation was involved;
the change in land ownership patterns (e.g., government and
non-profit as compared to private) after establishment of a
Heritage Area;
the change in property values, as compared to similarly
situated properties outside during the same time period;
census statistics showing changes in population age groups
and ethnic constituency, income levels as after establishment
of the Heritage Area (See Toni Thayer, ``National Heritage
Area. Water or Historical Preservation?'' September 2003);
real estate tax impacts, possibly caused by the reduction of
availability of developable land and the high prices paid for
land by government and non profits;
increase in litigation following from zoning enacted after
establishment of Heritage Area;
study of treatment of property owners whose land is used for
trails, involving interviews of every owner to consider the
land acquisition or easement acquisition process, modeled after
Bo Thott's study of National Park Service acquisitions of land
from property owners (``Willing Seller Willing Buyer,'' Bo W.
Thott, Washington County Alliance, Cutler, Maine, 1993, posted
on PRFA web site at http://www.prfamerica.org/WillingSeller/
WillingBuyer.html)
surveys of land owners along trailways as to information
made available as opposed to segmented development and
concealed agenda;
study of experience of trail easement property owners and
neighboring property owners with liability and intrusions, as
well as reverse harassment of property owners; and
inventory of new or enlarged local and state parks, National
Parks, Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, National Historic Register designation of Sites or
Districts, and similar government land acquisition and
regulatory structures in Heritage Areas. Studies of affected
property owners.
Question 2. Over 45 million people live within the boundaries of
existing heritage areas. Do you think it would be feasible and even
possible to implement a system for allowing each property owner to opt
in or opt out?
Answer. This response is directed to the query about whether it
would be feasible to implement a notification system for the opt in or
opt out concept.
Yes, it would be feasible. Each individual Heritage Area would be,
of course, tackled individually. The number of private property owners
would be somewhat less than the population, considering household size
and the fact that individual property owners hold multiple properties,
and own rental properties.
In each real estate taxing jurisdiction, notices are routinely sent
to every property owner for the taxes due on each property. All of this
information is computerized today. Therefore, the name and address of
every property owner are readily available in a form that is readily
usable for mailing purposes to conduct an opt out or opt in survey.
In addition, it is common for jurisdictions to have access to GIS
(Geographic Information Systems), whereby coordinate-based
computerization of tax assessment maps can be utilized to select
properties fitting almost any description, such as one-mile from a
given watercourse. Today, this can be done automatically and all the
names and addresses of these geographically selected property owners)
even if the boundaries of the Heritage Area are not a municipal
jurisdictional boundary) spewed out of the computer for a mailing for
any purpose.
The opt in or opt out provisions would have importance even though
they would not eliminate the property from within the bounds of the
Heritage Area and its concomitant increase in land use restrictions and
other pressures on property owners. The opt in or opt out provisions
would afford property owners a notification process that the Heritage
Area is in the works and be an even-handed notification that would
encourage public participation from all sectors, not just the select
few who are advocates for greenways and trails and those individuals
who act as advocates for private property rights by attempting to
assiduously monitor these programs.
Question 3. What sort of discussion have you had with
representatives from the National Park Service or managers of any
specific Heritage Areas regarding your concerns?
Answer. I have engaged in discussions with representatives of the
National Park Service and managers of specific Heritage Areas on
numerous occasions over the past decade and longer. With rare
exceptions, the officials expressed their offense at my presence and
questions by their contemptuous manner and refusal to straightforwardly
answer my inquiries or to answer the inquiries at all. Park Service
officials have attempted and to marginalize me, insult me, they have
treated me in a consistently demeaning mariner, attempting to convey
publicly that I and others concerned about property rights were
ignoramuses, fanatics, and disrupters. Most interesting of all, except
for one official whose work I complimented a number of years ago in the
very respect that the higher officials were in the process of
reversing, they have never taken any of my comments seriously or
allowed any of my comments to have any impact on the direction of their
programs, except for their becoming more secretive and evasive about
the programs.
For purposes of this reply, I'll refer to only one or two specifics
at four relatively recent discussions.
Champlain Valley National Heritage Corridor: Meeting at the
canal park in Whitehall on September 19, 2001, presided over by
Bill Howland, Executive Director of the Lake Champlain Basin
Program. This program involves New York, Vermont and Quebec,
and is especially hard to get a handle on. It also goes by the
name of the Champlain-Richelieu Valley Heritage Corridor. In
the viewpoint of its many critics, this Heritage Corridor keeps
metamorphosing. At present, after vociferous objections to the
heritage corridor, the Lakes to Locks Scenic Byway appears to
be an early implementation phase. At the meeting, I advocated
that the continuous trail be eliminated. Thus comment was
ignored. I asked Mr. Howland to divulge the federal funding to
date. After some diversion tactics, he divulged the funding for
that year, I noted his reply of $1.5 million from the EPA,
$150,000 from USDA, $350,000 from National Park Service for
heritage. (The latter caveat probably related to the fact the
Park Service also funds the Lake Champlain Basin Program, along
with other agencies.) The funding to date, which I requested,
was not available.
Champlain Valley National Heritage Corridor: Meeting at City Hall,
Plattsburgh, NY, November 19, 2001. The corridor name was referred to
as the Champ lain-Richelieu Valley Heritage Area. Bill Howland,
Champlain Basin Program, presided. Many opposition concerns were voiced
from the floor. Opposition was dismissed as concerns because of the
Adirondack Park. We were referred to as ``the property rights people,''
by the person assisting him and, after objection, an apology was
proffered to us for this. Mr. Howland said that the area would have no
boundary. Jack Vitvitsky wanted to know the boundary that would be
affected, but the lack of a boundary meant that no answer was given. I
complained that the local lifestyle does not fit with tourism, because
it may not necessarily fit the appealing formulas being prescribed, and
that the program goals would present a fundamental problem for the
ordinary local people. Mr. Howland asked for this comment to be stated
in writing. Susan Allen asked, ``Why are you writing the bill?'' [and
not us] No response to this. Mr. Howland claimed that there were no
regulations contemplated, only grants, but the many people at the
meeting who had not come to request grants did not believe him, because
nothing of substance was offered to back up this statement, and the
promotional aspect of the slides indicated a contrary scenic
preservation goal. Concern was expressed about a federal Lakes to Locks
Scenic Byway, which was formerly the state Champlain Valley Scenic
Byway, but this topic was evaded. Mr. Howland claimed that he had
refocused the program to economics on account of property rights. He
said that he was considering an opt in/opt out method. However, he did
not have any credibility, especially when he said that they had already
entered into a contract with Quebec Labrador Foundation, an
organization that no one concerned with property rights knew anything
about. He said that funding was brought to the program by the National
Park Service.
Champlain Canalway Trail: Cozy meeting in public school cafeteria,
Schuylerviile, October 9, 2002. Attending were officials from the
National Park Service, New York State Canal Corporation, consultant
from the New York Parks and Conservation Association and perhaps two
private individuals, totaling six individuals, plus my husband and I.
My husband and I were not invited to this small meeting, as the public
was not noticed. After sitting through the planning session to form a
``local'' ``Friends'' group and obtain a first grant, I attempted to
obtain funding information, but was totally denied, and charged with
being disruptive for persisting in my questions.
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor: Public meeting,
Queensbury Town Hall, December 9, 2003. The official greeting attendees
said that questions would be answered from the floor throughout the
meeting, but no one called on me when I repeatedly raised my hand. I
had to call my questions out. I asked for funding amounts, and was
given partial information after repeating my question several tunes.
During the section on recreation, I asked how the Erie Canalway Trail
eminent domain ``partnerships'' with local municipalities worked, and
pointed out Janice Revella in the audience, whose property was
threatened by condemnation. I received no answer, and finally was told
that eminent domain was not on the agenda. During the section on
economic development partnerships, I asked how the partnerships worked
that a single developer was sold all the development rights to the
entire 500-plus wile canal for a mere $30,000 (Michelle Breidenbach,
``Man pays $30K for canal rights, Syracuse Post-Standard, article
published in Post-Star, Glens Falls, NY, September 15, 2003), and was
told that this was the Canal Corporation, which was entirely separate.
However, a few minutes later, the presiding officer introduced a
representative of the Canal Corporation in the audience, as though he
were an honored guest.
Question 4. Heritage Areas are here to stay, but we have an
opportunity to make improvements as new Heritage Areas are proposed.
What recommendations would you make for protecting private property
rights in current and future Heritage Areas?
Answer. The following recommendations would allow the preservation
of the nation's heritage to receive federal support while eliminating
the greenway potential of Heritage Areas and the infringements on
property rights that are designed into the Heritage Area program.
Respect and Promote Living Historic Heritage
Where a specific heritage is to be preserved, such as an industrial
heritage, the heritage program should feature the importance of
industry to the heritage of the area up to the present time. For
instance, the Congress should require a certain proportion of funding
to involve a promotion of awareness of the importance of modern
factories and industrial production, and the heritage program proffered
in the management plan could also promote tours of modern operating
factories and industrial facilities. Factory tours have rebounded in
popularity, and this could be promoted with the heritage program. For
example, in New York's Hudson Valley, tours of the large shorefront
facilities of the cement industry should be facilitated with federal
funding.
Where the heritage is lumber production, typical landscape
preservation consultants who produce falsified history should be
avoided, and qualified historians who retain an interest in the present
used. An example in upstate New York where a Scenic Byway kiosk system
was put in place, this focus on preserving the living heritage would
change the policy so that the role of government land acquisition in
reducing timber production would be factually presented, rather than
blaming industrial factors. Tours of present-day logging operations
could be promoted. In Corinth, NY, a historic paper mill operated by
International Paper Company on the Hudson River recently closed.
Federal investment for living historic preservation might make a
difference in the maintenance of such living heritage typical to a
geographic region.
Establish a Fair Granting Process
Where Heritage Areas and trails are being promoted, the granting
process is pre-ordained by the relationships that already exist between
the National Park Service and its ``partners'' consultants. The
application process should be publicly and widely advertised and all
comers should be able to apply for the lucrative grants that become
available. Consultants such as the New York Parks and Conservation
Association should not be routinely selected, but should have to
compete in, the open arena. Subcontracts through consultants should be
accessible to freedom of information law where government funds are
involved. A variety of ``heritage'' projects should be open to
competition, including those that benefit private property owners
rather than nonprofits and government entities.
Establish Procedures for Public Scrutiny of Budget at the Local Level
Open up to public scrutiny the budget of the entire heritage
process, including all funding from ``partner'' agencies at federal,
state, regional and local level. Publicly maintain financial statements
and audits of the origin and routing of all funding from appropriation
to on-the-ground expenditures for actual work. Where funding is
contemplated that affects a particular area, advertise publicly for
public comment on that expenditure.
Eliminate Geographic Delineation of Heritage Areas
Heritage programs should not be geographically delineated because
this works toward the greenway goal and landscape preservation that has
been central to National Heritage Areas from inception. With the
realization that Heritage Areas are not about historic preservation or
any but the most narrow sphere of economic development, comes the
necessity of a single measure that would stymie their purpose of
landscape preservation. Instead of geographically delineated Heritage
program, direct the program to block grants allocated state-by-state by
an agency that is not geared to landscape preservation, such as Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of Commerce, or a new bureau in
the National Park Service that is not oriented to landscape
preservation, but is instead expert in all spheres of national
heritage, especially the living industrial heritage and the continuing
multifaceted independent rural lifestyle with its scruffy way of living
that is not designed to fit into an elite subdivision.
Instead of attempting to restore the quaint past by regulation,
where the product is only empty shells of dead villages that lonely
city dwellers visit transiently, let's celebrate the past along with
the constant evolution of new traditions in the context of our evolving
heritage.
Instead of implementing harsh landscape preservation where ordinary
rural people will be displaced, get the federal government our of
sophisticated advocacy for land use control, and let the chips fall
where they may with local people controlling their future with the
degree of planning regulation that they freely choose without heavy
pressure from the ``experts.''
Prohibit all the Partnerships and the Park Service's Self-Promotion
Prohibit the Park Service from promotional work for its policies at
the local level, and from studies of historical or regional areas.
Prohibit the Park Service from working with nonprofit agencies. This
can be accomplished by opening up the procurement process to bidding.
This change can be assisted by ceasing to write any specific non-profit
into Congressional legislation.
Take the Park Service out of Trail Development
With its terrible record of treatment of private property owners,
and its one-sided agenda of promoting landscape preservation to the
detriment of the maintenance of existing National Parks, it is
essential to get the Park Service's spidery reach out of private
property all across the country. An important and easy way to
accomplish this is to prohibit the Park Service and its personnel from
participating in the studies and development of trails, or developing
support organizations. All trails should be publicly laid out in their
full length, width and other aspects, such as style of ownership and
access, desired viewsheds, from the proposal stage, and all potentially
affected property owners individually notified. If trails are
developed, the development should be administered by the Department of
Transportation and the eminent domain protection protections under the
federal highway law applied.
Inventory Government-Owned Land
No additional Heritage Areas should be established and no further
development of trails should take place until a full inventory of lands
owned by the federal and state government, and of federal areas such as
National Heritage Areas and trails, is completed.
Conduct Environmental Impact Analysis of Heritage Areas, Including Land
Ownership Impact Studies
In some federal areas under consideration in Congress, major
changes of land ownership patterns are underway. Consider the Highlands
Area proposed for Northern New Jersey, Southeastern New York, eastern
Pennsylvania, and western Connecticut. In New York, the State
government, the Open Space Institute, other land trusts, and other
agencies are cutting into the base of private land ownership without
any land ownership impact studies being conducted. Tax impacts are
becoming profound, while future economic potential is being narrowed.
If an area is to be designated, contrary to the recommendation above,
when it is proposed, the specific area should be studied for land
ownership trends and these should be projected, with the concomitant
taxation and economic and social impacts, in an environmental impact
study in accordance with NEPA.
______
Responses of Dennis Frenchman to Questions From the Subcommittee on
National Parks
Question 1. Do heritage areas similar to those in the United State
exist in any other countries? If so, how common are they?
Answer. Heritage areas similar to those in the United States do
exist in many other countries, including countries in Europe and South
America, Canada and Mexico, and increasingly in China. Local and
national governments have supported the creation of heritage areas, as
have international organizations such as the Council of Europe, the
European Union, UNESCO, and the World Bank.
The greatest number of heritage areas is found in European
countries, where, called by a variety of names, they have become
increasingly common since the 1970's. In general, heritage areas have
been motivated by the desire to conserve evidence of national heritage
and European regional identity in an era of globalization and growing
homogeneity. As in the U.S., these projects involve territories of
different sizes and historical themes, managed by partnership entities,
with no control over land use.
The European Union (EU) has encouraged the formation of heritage
areas by providing support for regional projects that encourage
cooperation among cities and areas with distinctive cultural or natural
features that bind them together, even across national boundaries. The
EU provides no central source for funding heritage areas, however,
support for related projects is a priority in a number of important
development programs, for example: The Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development Program earmarked almost $200 million (1998-
2002) for ``city of tomorrow and cultural heritage'' efforts to
inventory, conserve, and promote sustainable development of regional
heritage resources.\1\ The Intereg Program, which has funded many
heritage area projects, is providing about $270 million per year (2000-
2004) for regional economic and cultural development promoting regional
identity, cultural awareness, and sustainability.\2\ The EU and the
Council of Europe also support the European Heritage Network, an
extensive database and information exchange on heritage projects,
programs, funding, and best practice across the continent. Heritage
areas have used these resources, in combination with national and local
support, to plan for and develop heritage assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development; Key Action:
Cities of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage.'' (Fifth Framework Program
1998-2002). European Commission, 2002.
http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/src/budget4.htm
\2\ ``Interreg IIIC: Program''. European Union, 2004 http://
www.interreg3c.net/sixcms/list.php?page=home_en.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nature and extensiveness of heritage areas in Europe varies
from country to country, as does the level of national support.
However, important examples of Heritage area development can be found
in almost every country. One interesting aspect of the movement is the
growing number of heritage areas being created in Eastern Europe, where
traditional settings and ways of life have survived amidst economic
dislocation. In these places conservation of heritage and distinctive
cultural landscapes is seen as essential in the transition to a market
economy because it provides a vehicle for regeneration and sustainable
development. Many of the individual heritage areas and several national
programs that have been created in Europe are innovative and could
inform the evolution of national heritage areas in the U.S. Some
particularly relevant examples are discussed below.
BRITAIN: INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE AREAS
England includes some of the earliest and most important historic
sites related to the industrial revolution and has pioneered the
creation of heritage areas to conserve and develop these resources.
Heritage and conservation projects are locally driven and managed but
benefit from generous national support made available through the
Heritage Lottery Fund, which provided about $58 million for cultural
landscape, townscape, and local heritage area projects in 2004 (out of
a total income of over $500 million primarily earmarked for building
preservation), and from English Heritage grants.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``2004 Business Plan.'' Heritage Lottery Fund and the National
Heritage Memorial Fund, 2004. http://www.hlf.org.uk/dimages/
Business_Plan_2004/BusinessPlan2004.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pioneering example of a British heritage area is Ironbridge Gorge
organized beginning in the late 1960's. It encompasses six square miles
of territory along the River Severn in Shropshire where an 18th century
landscape of early iron mines, foundries, and mills is conserved amidst
functioning towns and contemporary development. The project is involves
a consortium of local municipalities; the Severn Gorge Countryside
Trust, and the private Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. The museum
operates 10 landmark interpretive sites with an annual income of $11
million. Since its founding, over $50 million in private donations
coupled with support from English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund
and other sources have been used to preserve and interpret key sites
and encourage conservation of the valley landscape.\4\ A more recent
example is the Derwent Valley World Heritage Area, established in 2001,
which includes historic mills, towns, canals, and landscape along 18
miles of the Derwent River, where integrated textile manufacturing was
first developed by Sr. William Arkwright beginning in 1769. The project
is managed by the Derwent Valley Mills Partnership representing local
governments, non-profit cultural and development agencies, English
Heritage, and UNESCO. A Management Action Plan spells out specific
funding and implementation responsibilities of the partners, who have
agreed to ``conserve the unique and important cultural landscape of the
Derwent Valley . . . to interpret and promote its assets; and to
enhance its character, appearance and economic well-being in a
sustainable manner.\5\ Approximately $2.1 million (2001) per year has
been budgeted for studies and capital projects, derived from the
Heritage Lottery Fund, English Heritage grants, and local government
contributions.\6\ The partnership promotes conservation and economic
development; it has no land use control but provides financial
incentives to private owners to encourage re-use and incorporate
interpretation within their sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Management Plan: Ironbridge Gorge. Ironbridge Gorge World
Heritage Site Strategy Group, 2000. http://www.telford.gov.uk/FreeTime/
LocalHistory/IronbridgeWHSManagementPlan.htm
\5\ ``Management Plan: Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.''
Derwent Valley Partnership, 2003. p. 2. http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/
enviro/ENV1556.pdf
\6\ Derwent Valley Mills Partnership, April 2003. p. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCE: REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PARKS
Since 1968, 42 nationally designated ``regional parks'' have been
established in France to help conserve cultural landscapes combining
scenic and heritage resources that illustrate aspects of French culture
and that are now threatened either with rampant urbanization or loss of
economic productiveness.\7\ These projects include urban and rural
areas that range in size up from a few hundred up to a thousand square
miles. While Regional Environment Parks receive federal designation and
support, they are completely distinct from French National Parks that,
as in the U.S., involve premier resources of high integrity on lands
owned entirely by the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Promoting and Preserving.'' Parcs naturels regionaux de
France, 2004.
http://www.parcs-naturels-regionaux.tm.fr/un_parc/index_en.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
French Regional Environment Parks have many similarities to U.S.
National Heritage Areas, and the French program illustrates some
lessons that might be transferable to the U.S. The goals of the program
are to: Conserve areas and themes of national importance; contribute to
rational land use planning in these areas; promote the use of heritage
and natural resources for economic social and cultural development;
educate and inform public; and create a supportive network of projects
and institutions. To achieve this at each park, the national government
joins in partnership with local governments and the private sector in
an ``innovative contractual process''. Proposed areas must undergo a
planning process leading to a ``park charter'' that establishes goals,
actions, implementation measures and responsibilities. Boundaries are
negotiated by all the partners and must, along with the ``park
charter'', be ratified by municipalities involved. Charters extend for
a ten-year time frame, after which they must be reviewed and renewed.
Once designated, the regional parks can use the official seal of the
program, widely recognized in France, to promote environmental quality
and heritage. Most parks are managed by local partnership organizations
with a small permanent staff and many volunteers. The national
government contributes up to $1.1 million per year to assist each
project, matched by funds from local governments and private
partners.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``The Land: Operating Budget.'' Parcs naturels regionaux de
France, 2004.
http://www.parcs-naturels-regionaux.tm.fr/un_parc/priseenmain_en.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example project is Vosges du Nord, covering an area of 476 sq.
miles in Alsace-Loraine, the northwest corner of France, in which
76,000 people live.\9\ The unusual sandstone landscape includes remains
of early glassmaking and iron industries, distinctive regional
architecture, and defensive fortifications dating from medieval times
through the Maginot Line fortifications of the 1930's. Regional tour
routes and recreational trails link urban and rural interpretive sites
that convey the story of the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Northern Vosges Regional Natural Park.'' Parcs naturels
regionaux de France, 2004.
http://www.parcs-naturels-regionaux.tm.fr/lesparcs/vonoa_en.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCANDINAVIA: ECO-MUSEUMS AND PARKS
With a history dating back to the 1890's, eco-parks blossomed in
Scandinavia in the 1970's as a movement to pull education and
interpretation out of tradition museums and into the active landscape
of cities, towns and settings that capture cultural heritage, sites,
and stories of regional and national significance. They have been
described as museums without walls or museums ``in situ'' (rather than
museums in buildings), where local residents and groups are the
curators who define, protect, enhance and explain the unique
characteristics of their own area and way of life. Paralleling the
American notion of Heritage Areas, they involve territories of
differing sizes, sometimes disaggregated, bounded by the extent of a
particular historical economic activity or regional culture.
Eco-museums are typically managed by local non-profit groups with
government assistance. They focus on conservation and educational
programs and the re-use of heritage resources to attract tourism and
compatible economic development. In many places they are seen as a
means to maintain local and national identity and distinctiveness in
the face of increasing European homogeneity. Such ``museums'' may
acquire landmark buildings and sites to conserve them for educational
purposes, exhibits, or visitor services, or to help preserve them
through private re-use, however, eco-museums are not concerned with
land use controls, zoning, or large-scale development, relying on
incentives and educational programs to raise public consciousness about
the special qualities of the territory and the values of conservation.
Today there are over a dozen major projects of this type in
Scandinavian countries and many more elsewhere in Europe, particularly
the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Portugal.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Maggi, Maurizio and Falletti, Vittorio. Ecomuseums in Europe:
What they are and what they can be. Istituto Ricerche Economico-Sociali
del Piemonte, June 2000.
http://www.ecomusei.net/User/museologia/Libri/
rapporto%20in%20inglese.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A prime example of an eco-park is Ecomuseum Bergsladen in Sweden,
encompassing the country's historic iron mining area, which declined in
the last century. The project was initiated in the late 1980's with the
mission to ``reinforce the sense of identity of the inhabitants, to
exalt the characteristic aspect of the region, and to foster tourism
development.'' It includes over 50 interpreted sites spread across
seven municipalities, including mines, villages, furnaces, an oil
refinery, and mills interlinked by a network of historic roads, rails,
and canals all intertwined with the contemporary environment. The
project is managed by a non-profit foundation established by the
municipalities, with a small annual budget of about $200,000 funded by
them and the national government of Sweden. Significantly, the
foundation owns no property or collections; it provides planning,
coordination, development assistance, conservation, and educational
services through a network of over 1200 volunteers who work with local
sites owned by private citizens, societies, and associations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Istituto Ricerche Economico-Sociali del Piemonte, June 2000.
p. 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GERMANY: EMSHER PARK
There are many eco-museum type projects and regional heritage areas
in west and east Germany, however, the premier example is Emscher Park,
encompassing an area of the Ruhr Valley that was Germany's industrial
heartland from the 19th century. Steel mills, coke smelters, coal
mines, and chemical plants were abandoned in the 1970's, leaving a
degraded physical environment and economic decline. The Emsher Park
project was initiated in 1989 by the state of North Rhine-Westphalia to
reclaim the natural ecology of the area while conserving and
redeveloping its industrial heritage for new economic uses, recreation
and culture. A non-profit corporation, IBA Emsher Park, was established
to plan and coordinate a 10-year long initiative involving local
municipalities, institutions, and private developers in over 100
projects spread over an area of 800 square kilometers along the River
Emsher.\12\ Included have been an integrated set of historic building
re-use efforts combined with compatible new construction of research
centers, restoration of watercourses and brownfield sites; creation of
museums, cultural facilities, and public parks; and heritage education
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Almaas, Ingerid Helsing. ``Regenerating the Ruhr: IBA Emscher
Park project for the Regeneration of Germany's Ruhr Region,'' The
Architectural Review. February, 1999.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m3575/1224_205/54172205/p1/
article.jhtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBA Emsher Park develops no projects of its own and has no direct
influence over local municipalities, developers or private property.
Instead, it has encouraged joint ventures between local governments and
private companies, and advocated for financing from private, state and
federal government programs, and the European Union. By 1999, over $3
billion in public and private funds had been channeled through IBA
Emsher Park projects that have transformed the landscape and economic
base of the region.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Christ, Wolfgang. ``RuhRegion vs. 7.0: From Kohlenpott via
Emsherpark to Ruhrstadt.'' Regeneration Conference Southampton, April
3, 2003. http://www.uni-weimar.de/architektur/staedtebaul/forschung/
aufsaetze/ruhrregion_vs7_en.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPAIN: LLOBREGAT RIVER CORRIDOR
Spain, too, has many regional heritage projects. One of the more
innovative is along the Llobregat River Corridor, stretching 120 miles
from the Pyrenees south to Barcelona and the Mediterranean. The
Llobregat is known as the ``hardest working river in Europe.'' From the
19th century it provided a source of power for industry, including
textile mills that created the wealth of Barcelona, and a source of
water and fertile soil that nourished its population. By the 1980's,
the textile mills were abandoned and agricultural lands were threatened
with pollution and urban encroachment. Nevertheless, the river
landscape preserved an extraordinary record of industrial and social
development including historic bridges, irrigation channels, dams,
factories, textile communities, mines and railroads. These are now
being conserved, interpreted and developed through an integrated series
of local and regional initiatives. For example, the Museum of Science
and Technology of Catalunya has developed several theme museums on
textiles, railroads, coal mining, and other industries. Taking a page
from American heritage areas, a new regional plan has organized the
river corridor into a series of seven thematic areas and ``gateway''
interpretive sites. Regional public investments in infrastructure and
interpretation are prioritized towards projects that help to implement
the plan.
Two of the theme areas have been organized into heritage areas,
with support and funding from the regional and national (Catalan)
governments. Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat encompasses agricultural
lands in the river delta, covering some 15 square miles bordered by the
dense Barcelona metropolitan area, with a total population over 2.5
million inhabitants. An authority representing over 1500 small
agricultural concerns in the delta, 14 local municipalities, and the
regional and Catalan governments, manages the park and provides
funding. It is charged to conserve agricultural land, historic
irrigation channels, haciendas and farming settlements; restore
ecological balance; advocate for sensitive development; and establish
educational institutions in the delta to research urban agriculture and
economic development. Parc de les Colonies del Llobregat extends for 18
miles along the river north of Barcelona, encompassing fifteen historic
textile mill towns, or ``Colonies'', located with eight contemporary
municipalities with a total population of about 12,000 people. It is
managed by an autonomous Board of Trustees representing local
municipalities and chaired by the regional government. The park is
organized around a regional tour route linking key scenic and historic
sites and museums operated by civic organizations. The park advocates
for conservation and economic regeneration of the area though tourism
and private re-use of historic infrastructure, working with private
owners, banks, and government agencies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Sabate, Joachim, et al., Designing the Llobregat Corridor.
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERITAGE AREAS IN ASIA AND CHINA
Given the tremendous economic development now going on in Asia, it
is worth noting that there has been a parallel development of heritage
areas in Japan, Vietnam, and China. In China, these projects have been
motivated in part by a national drive to inscribe sites on UNESCO's
World Heritage List. Many of the 29 Chinese sites involve large areas
and city-regions with emerging management partnerships.\15\ For
example, six historic Yangtze River canal towns dating from the Ming
Dynasty have joined in a single designation and are now cooperating to
develop regional conservation and tourism development strategies. The
port city of Ningbo has adopted a strategy of preservation, education,
and economic development to conserve and re-use its historic urban
fabric and countryside with a history dating back to medieval China.
The project was initiated in the early 1990's following the decline of
traditional shipping and distribution industries; it is managed by a
partnership between the city, international agencies and universities
using International Development Association and Chinese government
funding. Some projects have been inspired by U.S. National Heritage
Areas. For example, in Yunnan Province the I&M and Ohio and Erie Canals
have provided the model for organizing a heritage area along the Tea
Route and Southern Silk Road. Towns along the historic trade route are
the most ethnically diverse in China and have adopted a partnership
program to promote culture, conservation, sustainable development, and
international tourism. Projects of these types are receiving increasing
attention and support from the national government, with assistance
from the World Bank and UNESCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``World Heritage Sites in China.'' Chinese National Tourist
Office, 2002.
http://www.tourismchina-ca.com/wheritage.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Existing heritage areas are broadly defined and range
in scope from relatively small to an entire state. Can you think of any
way to define heritage areas based on urban planning criteria?
Answer. The broad range of existing national heritage areas derives
partially from their differing historical themes and landscapes, and
partially from the lack of a coherent program to define what a national
heritage area is or should encompass. In the absence of a program,
national heritage areas have become whatever Congress chooses to
designate. The resulting lack of consistency makes it difficult to
determine how best to support and guide the planning and development of
heritage areas in the short run, and in the long run, it could devalue
the designation.
From an urban planning perspective, the situation could be improved
by a clearer set of written criteria for defining and bounding heritage
areas, but this is only part of the need. Also needed is a process to
apply the criteria that will ensure that the areas that are designated
can be managed and sustained.
With respect to criteria, there is now ample experience with
heritage areas in the U.S. and other countries to make a clear list
about what they should contain. The NSP already has a de facto set of
criteria embedded in their specification for a feasibility/suitability
study for National Heritage Areas (see Statements of Dennis Galvin on
October 26, 1999 and de Teel Patterson on October 16, 2003 before the
House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands). However, the
NPS criteria are rather general and basically silent on the issue of
boundary. In the context of creating a National Heritage Area program,
I would suggest two clarifications to the criteria:
1. The presence of a narrative, or nationally important story,
rather than general historical themes, should be a basis for
designation. Thus, the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage area, tells
the story of the early development of British textile industry in
Shropshire; the Lackawanna National Heritage Area captures the story of
anthracite coal mining and miners in the hills of Pennsylvania, key to
the development of major U.S. cities; Emsher Park is built on the
narrative of German iron and steel-making in the Ruhr Valley. National
importance might be measured by the continuing relevance of the story
to American life.
2. The heritage area boundary should focus on those sites,
resources, routes and distinctive landscapes or settings that
illustrate key elements of the story. This evidence may stretch over a
rather large area--the Lackawanna Valley is 40 miles long, for
example--or disaggregated areas, and a boundary would likely
circumscribe contemporary development intertwined with the cultural
landscape. In fact, present day features could be an important part of
the story if they are a legacy of historical Industries, routes of
movement, or ways of life. Not appropriate under this criterion would
be to incorporate territories that are unrelated to the story, but
which have been included to conform to political boundaries, spread the
benefits of the project, or other reasons.
An Advisory Panel (see testimony, March 30, 2004) could help to
review the national importance of particular narratives and the
appropriateness of the boundaries of proposed heritage areas.
Incorporating representatives of existing heritage areas and scholars
would help ensure the credibility of the panel.
With respect to defining heritage areas that are sustainable and
manageable, the French process of creating Regional environment parks
offers a straightforward approach to designation and boundary
definition that seems applicable in the U.S.:
1. Proposed areas would undergo an inclusive planning/feasibility
process, to define the storyline, goals, implementation actions and
partners. Partners would typically include local municipalities, the
NPS, a local management entity, and potentially other stakeholders. The
partners must agree on the story and extent of the area.
2. Partners including municipalities must signify their acceptance
of the boundaries, plan, and individual financial or programmatic
commitments to implement aspects of the project by ratifying a
``heritage area compact''.
3. A ratified compact and favorable review by the Advisory
Committee would be a prerequisite for designation. Once designated, a
heritage area could use the NPS logo, access technical assistance, and
receive limited funds for planning and programs (no acquisition) as
part of the federal commitment to the compact, presumably matched by
local funds and support.
4. The compact would extend for 10 years, after which it must be
reviewed and renewed.
This approach would allow local flexibility and is similar in many
ways to what the NPS has advocated. However, it would more clearly
define and to some degree standardize the federal role in the process
while providing a set of checks and balances to help ensure that
designated national projects are appropriate and sustainable.
______
Responses of Barry Hill to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. In the course of your review, did you find any specific
examples of private property being adversely affected by a heritage
area?
Answer. GAO found no examples of a heritage area directly
affecting--positively or negatively--private property values or use. We
asked officials at the 24 heritage areas, Park Service headquarters and
regional staff working with these areas, and representatives of six
national property rights groups to provide us examples and they could
not. However, we believe that, as the number of heritage areas
increases, the effects, if any, of the areas on private property need
to be monitored carefully.
Question 2. Do you see any limit in the number of potential
heritage areas if criteria for designation are based on existing areas?
Answer. Because there is no systematic process for identifying and
designating heritage areas and the criteria the Park Service uses is
broad and open to interpretation, it may be difficult to limit the
number of future heritage areas, if the Congress wishes to do so. The
Congress has designated a number of heritage areas (1) without complete
studies of their qualifications, (2) without the Park Service's advice,
or (3) against its advice. Using the current criteria, the Park Service
has found that most sites it has evaluated would qualify as heritage
areas.
Question 3. What do you consider the most significant finding of
the GAO review?
Answer. GAO's most significant finding is that the Park Service
lacks an effective process for ensuring that national heritage areas
are accountable for their use of federal funds. In this regard, we
found that the Park Service:
does not always review the areas' annual financial audit
reports, although the agency is ultimately the federal agency
responsible for heritage area projects that are financed with
federal funds;
has not yet developed clearly defined, consistent, and
systematic standards and processes for regional staff to use in
reviewing the adequacy of areas' management plans, although
these reviews are one of the Park Service's primary heritage
area responsibilities; and
has not yet developed results--oriented performance goals
and measures consistent with the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act--that would, help to ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of its heritage area activities.
Responses of Barry Hill to Questions From Senator Campbell
Question 1. How many National Heritage Area proposals are under
consideration at this moment?
Answer. According to the Park Service, as of April 1, 2004, 8 bills
had been introduced in the 108th Congress to study the eligibility of 6
locations as national heritage areas and 29 bills had been introduced
proposing the designation of 16 locations as national heritage areas.
Question 2. What kind of notification will property owners receive
if their land becomes incorporated as part of a heritage area?
Answer. GAO did not specifically review how private property owners
were notified when the existing heritage areas were designated. Because
these areas are managed locally by a management entity, these entities
would likely determine how property owners will be notified if their
land becomes part of a heritage area in the future.
Question 3. It seems to me that many national heritage areas
express a local or regional rather than a national interest. Just as
states have State Parks programs, many states, such as Colorado, have
similarly successful heritage programs that are run on state and/or
local levels. As well, it seems that the most successful heritage sites
in the national program are those that are managed in conjunction with
local community interests.
Answer. (Statement--question follows: #4)
Question 4. In light of these facts, are these programs something
that might be better left to the states?
Answer. GAO did not specifically review or evaluate alternative
options for providing assistance to or managing heritage areas.
Question 5. What exactly are the criteria by which a potential
national heritage site is judged to have national interest above and
beyond a more local or regional interest?
Answer. GAO did not specifically review the basis on which the
National Park Service makes its determinations as to the national
importance of potential heritage areas. Our work indicates that, like
the designation criteria overall, this determination is subjective and
open to interpretation. The Park Service could better address this
issue.
Question 6. In your opinion, how much has this program impacted the
funding levels for other Parks programs?
Answer. GAO found that the Park Service regions that provide
support to the national heritage areas receive no funding for these
activities. Therefore, to assist the areas, the regions must divert
resources from other areas. While it would appear that this could
potentially affect other Park Service programs, GAO did not
specifically address this issue in our work.
______
Responses of August R. Carlino to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Over 100 State heritage areas exist across the nation
without federal funding or other federal involvement. Why is federal
funding and other involvement necessary for the 24 existing National
Heritage Areas?
Answer. Federal funding and involvement is provided to the 24 NHAs
because Congress has determined the historic, cultural, and natural
resources of the NHA have national significance and, therefore, warrant
federal funding and involvement. This is the fundamental and primary
question that should be asked by the Congress for any region
contemplating designation as a heritage area--is ``national''
designation necessary and warranted?
With the National Heritage Area designation, Congress has separated
these 24 NHAs from all other heritage areas in the nation and
authorized assistance to the NHA in the form of annual National Park
Service appropriations, and technical assistance. With the ``National
Heritage Area'' designation, Congress has distinguished these 24
heritage areas from other state or local heritage areas, just as
Congress has done in distinguishing National Parks, National Historic
Site, Monuments or other NIPS units from state parks or historic sites.
However, if Congress adopts the proposed National Park Service approach
of designating an NHA before the management plan is completed, it runs
the risk of authorizing funding and assistance to a heritage area that
may not meet the test of national significance. In addition, Congress
will be making a determination and granting approval to an NHA before
all of the planning work is completed. The completion of a management
plan for an NHA is critical and necessary before the designation;
without it, Congress has little information to consider on which to
base its determination of whether or not the heritage area has national
significance or even will be viable.
Question 2. What is the role of the National Park Service in your
Heritage Area?
Answer. Over the years, the National Park Service has played a
critical role as a supporting partner to Rivers of Steel. Early on
during the feasibility and management planning phases, the NPS worked
closely with the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation and the
communities of Southwestern Pennsylvania, providing technical
assistance for the plans. After designation, NPS continued to hold a
``counsel'' role as an ex officio member of the Board of Directors of
SIHC. In addition, NPS provides assistance on key preservation and
recreational resource projects in the Rivers of Steel National Heritage
Area. Finally, NPS oversees the cooperative agreements between SIHC and
the agency. These documents are used to direct the appropriations to
the projects in the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area.
Question 3. How does your management plan address land use or
private property?
Answer. The Rivers of Steel Management Action Plan does not address
the issues of land use, zoning, or private property rights. During the
feasibility study and management plan phases, more than 700 community
meetings were held over a period of 7 years throughout Southwestern
Pennsylvania. Never in that time was there any question raised by any
citizen, property owner, local official or other organizational
representative as to the effect that the designation of the National or
State (Pennsylvania) Heritage Area would have on private property. The
Rivers of Steel Management Plan acknowledges that land or property must
be acquired through purchase or donation for certain heritage
development actions to take place. Further, the Rivers of Steel
Management Plan does not make any recommendations or suggestions for
zoning changes for local governments to undertake.
Question 4. Have you ever attempted to influence land use or zoning
within the heritage area, and if so, what was the public's reaction?
Answer. As I stated above, SIHC and Rivers of Steel has never
involved itself in any local government discussion on general zoning or
land use policies. We have, however, met with local governments to make
requests for land uses for property that we own that needed certain
conditional permitted uses for preservation or development to take
place.
Question 5. We have heard that National Heritage Areas are a great
way to leverage Federal funds. In fact, I've heard that every Federal
dollar is matched by 8.7 dollars from other sources. Why is the Federal
dollar needed when the program is successful at garnering outside
support?
Answer. As I have stated in my testimony, the federal funding that
comes from the Interior Appropriations is critical for the continued
success of the National Heritage Areas. First, the Appropriations
provides the seed investment for the NHAs to use to as advance funding
to help leverage other forms of investment, whether from other federal
sources, or from state and local governments or foundations or private
sources. The first dollars pledged are often the most difficult money
to raise for any project. After the seed investment is provided, other
funding partners can be sought, often successfully, especially if the
initial seed is from the principal partner, in this case the National
Park Service.
Second, NPS funds often have the greatest flexibility, simply
because they were designed by Congress to meet the overall goals and
projects defined in the National Heritage Area's management plan. The
NHA can use these funds, therefore, for a wide variety of uses, as
grant funding to communities, as bridge or gap funding for specific
ongoing projects, to cover operating expenses, or for other purposes as
permitted. Further, because the funds are used to implement the goals
and objectives of the management plan, Congress should be careful not
to appropriate funding to the proposed NHA prior to designation, as I
explain in Question #1 above.
Third, raising funds for any project becomes more difficult if the
principle funding partner(s) would begin to withdraw or withhold
funding. NPS funding provides a level of credibility to the NHA
attempting to raise the additional money, and it provides a level of
surety to the other funding partners that the Federal government is
committed to the NHA. If the funding were not available, other partners
could begin to withdraw their support from the NHA. Simply stated, it
would be safe to conclude that the remarkable funding ratio of $8.70-
to-$1.00 as demonstrated to date by the NHAs would be far less without
the NPS appropriations.
I understand that Congress has very difficult budget considerations
to make this year, and for many years to come, for many worthwhile
projects and programs. I am surprised, quite honestly, that there seems
to be questions raised as to the need for the NPS funds for NHAs based
upon the funding track records, and match rations of the 24 National
Heritage Areas. NHAs work very hard at guaranteeing the return on
investment to the Congress, and to all of their funding partners in the
heritage development projects they undertake. Therefore, given these
tight budget times--or within any budget time--I believe Congress
should be asking another, different question: ``If NHAs can so
successfully match the investment made by Congress through the NPS
Appropriations, why can't other recipients of federal funds do the
same?'' It seems logical to me that the NHA funding ratios are the type
that the Congress should be encouraging for all of its grants and
appropriations, and not discouraging by saying that success in fund
raising demonstrates that the project should not continue to be funded.
The bar should be raised, not lowered, for the National Park Service
and other Federal agencies to meet the successes of fund raising that
the National Heritage Areas have demonstrated to date.
______
Responses of Dr. Lisa Benton-Short to Questions From the Subcommittee
on National Parks
Question 1. I understand from your testimony that you have studied
parks in or near urban areas. Does the heritage area concept resemble
any other type of designation within the national park system?
Answer. This is a very challenging question. The short answer is
that I am not quite sure. As you know, there are many different
categories of parks within the park system. In urban areas, these park
unit categories can include historic parks, historic areas, historic
sites, recreation are, and even on occasion military sites and military
parks. I have found these different park categories somewhat confusing:
it is not at all clear what the difference is between a national
historic park and a national historic site. The nomenclature of the NPS
makes it difficult to know how Heritage Areas might resemble other
designations. I suspect that this would need to be considered on a case
by case basis. For example, Rivers of Steel might feature some of the
qualities of a historic area; while the Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor
might more appropriately resemble recreational areas punctuated by
occasional historic sites. The Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, which
covers nearly the entire state of Tennessee, resembles none of these
NPS designations. Clearly, even the Heritage Areas Program contains a
diversity of sites, some of which resemble existing NPS designations,
some of which do not.
Question 2. You mentioned that without a working definition and
criteria, the process for designating and protecting important places
could become compromised. What would you consider the two most
important criteria and why?
Answer. First, I think it would be important to establish some
initial criteria through a committee process--perhaps the creation of a
Heritage Area Criteria Committee comprised of designates from the DOI/
NPS, representatives of the existing heritage areas, a designate from
your Subcommittee and perhaps a scholar or two (I would be happy to
serve; I would also suggest the well-known geographer and historian Dr.
David Lowenthal who has written extensively on heritage at the local,
national and global scale). By including designates from existing
heritage areas you may actually create a more rigorous set of criteria
as there will be some incentive to maintain the ``special'' quality of
the program, rather than seeing it diminished through over-designation.
I would recommend that the committee consider how they might
incorporate the following three criteria:
1) National significance: this is harder to define, but easier to
measure. Currently, the Park Service definition of national
significance is ambiguous, although there is a general consensus that
these are places that have made a significant contribution to national
identity (not just local or regional). In reality, ``national
significance'' is defined by an act of Congress (which of course means
that this definition is subject to political forces and the tides of
political change). However, it might be of use in this instance to
thoughtfully consider ways to give intellectual weight to the concept
of national significance. There exists some model for this in UNESCO's
World Heritage Program, where they have a detailed list of both natural
and cultural criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage Areas
Program.
One way to consider national significance is through measurement.
If something is truly national in interest, one would expect that
visitors would come from around the country. I would offer this
suggestion: the first year any Heritage Area is funded, it be required
to conduct weekly surveys gathering geographic data. This geographic
data would include, for example, the zip-code or county or state of
origin and it would preserve individual privacy while still providing
geo-coded information). This information could then be mapped and
analyzed and the Committee could determine if there exists truly
national interest.
2) A second criteria to consider is temporal/spatial. The Committee
could key moments iii the evolution of American identity and the
history of the country. Some of these would be broad temporal themes
(e.g. colonial era, pre-Columbia era, Industrial era) or could also
include more focused temporal themes (e.g. the ``Roaring Twenties'',
the ``Great Depression'', ``Frontier Expansion'', ``Civil War'').
Creating a list of historical themes would allow a committee to
determine if the program is balanced in what it is representing as
heritage; it could also been used to actively seek sites that reflect
underrepresented moments in American history.
In addition to these historical/temporal themes, I would strongly
recommend including spatial/geographic themes so that the program
eventually represents truly national heritage by including areas in
both the East and West. It currently is highly imbalanced
geographically, with many Western states not participating. Themes that
would be spatial/geographic could include the range of cultural
identities (e.g. ``Cajun'' or ``Pueblo Indian'' or ``Birthplace of the
Automobile''). These geographic themes are really broad names for
cultural landscapes, but the process of compiling them would be a
useful and important exercise in creating a better defined National
Heritage Areas Program.
If a Committee were to establish these temporal and geographic
themes as initial (to be revisited every 5 years or so), programs could
apply based on how they fit either the temporal/spatial as well as
nationally significant criteria. This would be in reverse of the
process now, whereby they apply to the program based on what they
consider to be significant heritage.
3) A final criteria to consider is nomenclature. This is actually
beyond the Heritage Area Programs and falls more broadly under the Park
Service. There are a lot of park categories; I strongly believe the NPS
could better define these categories, especially those that may overlap
with Heritage Areas. For example: what is the difference between a
historic park, a historic area, and a heritage area? The NPS needs to
better clarify these meanings in order to make the Heritage Areas
either unique entities, or part of the formal park system. For example,
if a proposed heritage area meets most of the criteria for a national
historic park, why not consider this designation first? If it merits
something less than national park status, then this too is something
that needs to be more thoughtfully incorporated into criteria and
description of the Heritage Areas. Either way, the NPS is a crucial
actor in the establishment of criteria, and to do so may benefit
important definitions and criteria currently used by the wider NPS.
Question 3. How many heritage areas do you think the nation can
support without compromising the program ore making the designation
meaningless?
Answer. If the Heritage Area program developed well-defined
criteria, I would hesitate to cap the number of heritage areas. This is
because we have never set a limit to how many places could be
considered for national park status; it could be contradictory to do so
with the Heritage Area Program
In addition, we are constantly re-discovering aspects of our
history and culture that have been hidden or neglected, so I imagine
there are the possibilities for many more than we realize.
However, I think it prudent to consider a limit on the duration
under which the program could be funded. There is nothing unusual about
setting a time limit for federal funding, even of a national park unit.
Congress required the Presidio of San Francisco, which is part of the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) of the National Park
System, to achieve ``financial self-sustainability'' in 10 years (later
extended to 15 years). The precedence exists if the political will can
be mustered.
The potential for financial self-sustainability is particularly
possible for Heritage Area Programs, since they require a commitment
from private partners to begin. If an area develops a good program,
attracts a national and diverse visitorship, it should not require
indefinite funding.
Rather than limiting the program by numbers, I would limit the
program by duration. Once a heritage area has received 10 years of
federal funding, it could ``graduate'' to a special title that still
confers NPS guidance and continued use of the NPS seal/shield, which I
gather appears to be an important enticement for private investment.
Question 4. Under the current concept of heritage areas, the NPS
provides guidance to local management entities. but Heritage areas are
not park units. Do you think it would he a good idea or a bad idea to
make heritage area units of the National Park System?
Answer. This is a difficult but important question.
At this point, given the ill-defined nature of heritage areas, I
would recommend against a formal status as an official unit of the NPS.
The NPS logo and shield stand for something very special and unique and
should not be awarded indiscriminately.
However, should the Heritage Area Program establish better criteria
(especially with regard to national significance, as this is a criteria
that all national parks must meet) and financial accountability (as the
GAO report calls for), it would be important to consider these for a
formal designation within the park system.
There would be, however, potential problems in generating yet
another typology of national park units. Nomenclature is no small
issue. As you read in my written testimony, new park categories have
traditionally faced resistance and sometimes outright hostility by Park
Service administrators who question whether these ``newcomers'' truly
merit national park status. This is why I would not consider making
Heritage Areas a formal part of the national park system until they
have better defined and conceived of a) their own program and b) how
they would fit within the national park system. A clear demonstration
of their merit and significance would be essential for their acceptance
as a formal designated part of the NPS.
Question 5. Can you think of any way to define a heritage area
based on demographics?
Answer. Part of the work I do as a geographer is to analyze
demographics, especially in the context of urban change, so I am
familiar with the many ways demographics can be used to understand
process or phenomenon. However, I have considered this carefully, and
would not recommend using demographic variables as part of a definition
of heritage because they would be problematic. For example, say you
establish criteria for a heritage area designation stipulating that it
must contain a minimum population threshold of 500,000 (reasoning that
to sustain visitorship, an area must be proximate to a significant
population and not too distant or remote). You could encounter problems
with defending that number as ``arbitrary''--why not a million, or at
the other extreme, why not 50,000 or 10,000? In addition, this might
hamper the program's success in the Western states where population
density is much lower than on the coasts.
Or, consider a second example, if you establish criteria that
requires demographic diversity--age, ethnicity, race--this would also
create some uncomfortable problems because not all places are as
demographically diverse as others. Yet this does not necessarily mean
that they are not important cultural heritage areas. In addition, some
heritage areas are celebrating a distant past, which may or may not
coincide with the current demographic make up of the area.
I believe that using demographics to help define heritage areas may
create more problems and debates than it would help.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to
provide this statement for the hearing record. We commend the
subcommittee for holding an oversight hearing on this issue.
The National Heritage Area program administered within the National
Park Service provides funding and technical assistance to local
community-based efforts or conservation organizations to preserve areas
that they deem to be of cultural or historic importance. The National
Heritage Area program is neither authorized by legislation nor by
regulation. National heritage areas, however, must be designated by
Congress.
Generally, national heritage areas support local efforts to
preserve local sites that are important to the culture or history of
the area and which have significance in a broader national context.
Creation of such areas is supposed to be through broad-based community
involvement and acceptance of the development of heritage areas. These
areas are essentially a form of historical or cultural zoning, and are
comprised primarily of privately owned property.
The National Park Service provides funding and technical assistance
to local entities to conduct feasibility studies necessary to seek
congressional approval, and also provides funding for development and
maintenance of the designated heritage area for a period of 10 or more
years.
National heritage areas can encompass large areas of land. For
example, between the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area and the
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, the entire State of Tennessee is
designated as a national heritage area. The Silos and Smokestacks
National Heritage Area occupies approximately one quarter of the State
of Iowa.
We have a number of concerns with the way that the current National
Heritage Area program is being administered.
1. The program adversely impacts the property rights of private
landowners.
The biggest concern that we have with this program is that it
unduly affects the private property rights of landowners within
designated heritage areas. The purpose of heritage areas is to preserve
particular cultural or historical values within a designated area. To
be effective, that necessarily means private landowners within the
designated area will be prohibited from using private property in ways
inconsistent with the designation.
For landowners who voluntarily elect to be bound by the terms and
conditions of the designation, that does not present a problem. For
others, the problem looms large.
National designation as a heritage area may not result in direct
federal land-use restrictions on private property. The program,
however, enables and empowers state and local authorities to impose
land-use restrictions consistent with the designation. The National
Park Service fosters and contributes money and technical assistance to
effectuate these local property restrictions. Without a national
heritage program, these land-use restrictions would not exist.
For example, the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area designation
statute provides that federal funds received under the act cannot be
used to acquire an interest in real property. The next sentence of
section 5(b) of that Act says: ``Nothing in this Act shall preclude any
managing entity from using Federal funds from other sources for their
permitted use.'' In other words, federal funds might be used to acquire
private property either by condemnation or from a willing seller (the
statute does not distinguish) if received from other sources.
Receipt of federal funds also frees up other money received from
non-federal sources to be acquired by eminent domain. With no statutory
or regulatory safeguards for this program, there is no limit to how
these programs can intrude on private property rights, and there is no
accountability to the Park Service to ensure that private property
rights are maintained.
2. There is no basis for the program in law or regulation.
Equally troubling is the fact that this program is not authorized
by law or by regulation. Congress has been given no opportunity to
determine whether this program is something that Congress deems
appropriate for the National Park Service. As mentioned above, this
produces a lack of accountability at the federal government level that
is disturbing.
Any National Heritage Area Program must be authorized by Congress
through legislation. Only then will the appropriate oversight and
accountability be established.
With no national authorization and direction, the program has
failed to develop national criteria for designation and also failed to
develop a national strategy for the program. As presently constituted,
the Park Service assists local entities in developing national heritage
areas that are important to those local areas. But because an area
might be important to a local area does not mean that it has ``national
significance'' to warrant designation as a national heritage area.
Authorizing legislation should clearly define ``national
significance'' so that appropriate direction and limitations can be
provided for the program. There are clearly areas within the country
where truly national events occurred. Revolutionary and Civil War sites
come to mind. Should Congress decide to authorize this program, the
authorized agency should develop criteria and a plan to determine what
other local areas might fit in to this national mosaic in order to
maintain a fabric of American history and lost cultures. But that does
not mean inclusion of every locally important historical or cultural
area. This criteria should be subject to public scrutiny.
In addition, legislation is necessary in order to establish
criteria on size and areas included within a designated area. While
Tennessee has a large number of important sites, designation of the
entire state as a national heritage area seems too much. It is
important to restrict the size and impact of national heritage areas to
only those areas absolutely necessary for the intended purposes.
Legislation is also necessary in order to protect private property
rights. Only private landowners who volunteer to be part of a heritage
area should be included. Landowners who choose not to participate
should not be included within the boundaries of a national heritage
area, and should not otherwise suffer indirect adverse impacts on their
private property. For example, a private landowner may opt out of a
heritage area and be surrounded by property within the area. Management
planning for the heritage area may indirectly prohibit that landowner
from using that property in a way that is inconsistent with the
heritage area. Legislation is necessary to ensure that such a result
does not occur.
Current heritage area legislation introduced in the House, H.R.
280, contains a private property rights provision (section 510 of the
bill) that is one of the best protective provisions we have seen.
Nevertheless, it does not provide the desired level of protection.
Many heritage areas are proposed in order to provide economic
opportunities for the community or local areas as their main purpose.
We do not believe that National Park Service funds should be spent for
economic development purposes. Nor do we believe that the attendant
restrictions on private property rights from designation should occur
to enhance private economic gain. Authorizing legislation should
clearly exclude areas proposed for private economic gain from national
heritage areas.
Any authorizing legislation should also specify the criteria to be
used for designating or approving national heritage area designation.
Current Park Service criteria are vague and general, and proposed sites
are rarely rejected. Congress should require that as part of the
national plan for heritage area designations, that specific criteria be
developed and rigorously applied by the Park Service before proposals
are made to Congress.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently investigated the
National Heritage Area Program and issued a report. The GAO found that
heritage area criteria were too general and not consistently applied.
In fact, it found that 10 of the 24 heritage areas were designated
without any agency review at all. GAO also found that heritage area
financial audit reports were not always reviewed by the agency, and the
agency often failed to monitor and measure results of the heritage
programs. Although the program is supposed to restrict funding to a
certain time period, the agency often provides funding beyond the time
limit for the area to become self-sustaining. The GAO report says:
``Park Service officials said that the agency has not taken these
actions because, without a program, it lacks adequate direction and
funding.''
Congressional authorization is therefore essential.
Authorizing legislation should also consider other limitations and
parameters for the national heritage area program. Such issues should
be debated and decided in Congress, not in closed doors of some office
in the National Park Service.
3. We have concerns whether or when National Park Service funds should
be used to underwrite local Heritage Areas.
According to the GAO Report, the Park Service has spent more than
$156 million on national heritage areas over the past five years.
During that same time frame, the National Park System has been plagued
by a large maintenance backlog of projects at National Parks needed to
make the parks safe and presentable to the public. National Park
funding has increased to address the backlog, but the consensus of
opinion is that this is not enough. National Park officials have also
been criticized in the press recently because of discussions that some
parks may have to restrict hours of operation due to lack of funding.
Against this backdrop, over $156 million has been spent on heritage
areas. Careful scrutiny and serious consideration must be given to
whether such expenditures on essentially local projects are warranted.
Funds appropriated for the care of the National Park System should not
be siphoned off to fund local projects that do not fall within any
defined Park Service program.
An added consideration is that many states have their own heritage
programs, and designated heritage areas within their state. It is
difficult to justify the expenditure of scarce federal money for
essentially state and local projects. Without direction and without
viable, consistent and enforceable designation criteria, the national
heritage areas are really state or local heritage projects.
Many of these projects are established for economic revitalization
that results in private economic gain to local retailers or businesses.
Park Service funding should not be spent to enhance private economic
gain.
Federal funding can only be justified after Congress has decided
that it wants such a program by enacting authorizing legislation, and
by defining what areas of ``national significance'' should be included.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this issue.
We look forward to working with the subcommittee as it addresses this
issue.
______
Statement of Cheryl K. Chumley, American Policy Center
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS: SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CRS REPORT
On several fronts, a Congressional Research Service study on
National Heritage Areas is misleading, misguided or outright mistaken--
the latter by omission, as report authors fail to point out the
absurdities of a key and common phrase used to identify private lands
for public oversight.
Absent from the report to Congress is mention of the term
``nationally significant,'' a most familiar means by which
environmentalists and their non-government and political cohorts
justify the taking of private properties. This is the exact term, for
instance, that was used as grounds for recent House passage of the
Highlands Conservation Act, a $100 million-plus piece of legislation
that hurts private landowners by seeking public control of more than
two million acres of property, ostensibly to protect the region's
``water, forest, wildlife, recreational, agricultural and cultural
resources.''
This is also a term the National Park Service and various state and
local entities have used since 1984 to ultimately declare 24 tracts of
land encompassing 160,000 square miles as NHAs, needful of public
oversight, preservation and management.
The only problem is nobody knows for sure what national
significance means. So one fundamental issue to decide is whether
Congress still plans to use this term. If not, then whatever new phrase
is developed to justify the declaration of a NHA, and subsequent public
oversight of the affected private properties, needs strict definition.
But if ``nationally significant'' remains the favored qualifier for
declaring a NHA, the first order of business must be to outline the
exact conditions under which a parcel of property can be found to
affect the future well-being of the nation at-large to such a degree
that the private landowner could not possibly maintain these conditions
without oversight from public land and environmental entities.
Is Congress planning to continue use of the ``nationally
significant'' term, and if not, what will instead establish a NHA?
This is the core of the debate with NHAs. This issue has gone
unchallenged for far too long, resulting in the creation of 24 NHAs
that--it could easily be argued--may not even be needed and leaving
open the potential for further such illogical declarations. Without an
indisputable means of determining, who's to say?
Absent clear definition of what exactly constitutes national
significance, cases could be made that parcels of property with birds'
nests or carrot patches are indeed areas of importance to the country-
at-large in terms of wildlife and agriculture, and are therefore worthy
of public management and oversight. This only sounds ridiculous; if the
doors to private property encroachments weren't meant to be left open
to interpretation and special interest whim, why would the definition
of national significance be so loose in the first place?
Unfortunately, CRS does not raise this crucial question--but it
does point to another troubling facet of NHAs, one that by itself
should be enough to halt in its tracks this decades-old method of
placing private property under the control of public managers.
``There is no generic statute that establishes criteria for
designating (National Heritage Areas) or provides standards for their
funding and management,'' CRS finds.
So the ludicrousness continues: It's admitted no defined method
exists for creating and managing a NHA.
In other words, National Heritage Areas can be declared by whatever
means possible, because ``no generic statute exists,'' and most notably
by assertion of ``national significance,'' which means whatever it
means. What's next--declaration of a National Heritage Area depends
upon what the definition of `is' is?
With more than 30 measures pending in Congress seeking
establishment of new NHAs, the importance of such definitions is
heightened because private property rights--the most fundamental of all
God-given and constitutional guarantees--are at the mercy of the
interpretations of self-serving environmentalists who will use whatever
means necessary to control gigantic swaths of land for wildlife rather
than human use.
So when CRS finds that ``heritage areas are not federally owned,
and a designation generally is not intended to lead to federal
acquisition of lands,'' those with concern for private property rights
should see the red flag in use of the word ``generally.''
This touted so-called benefit of NHAs is aimed at appeasing private
property owners with either experience or knowledge of the heavy-handed
tactics of federal land-greedy bureaucrats. The idea is that since NHAs
are overseen by supposed friendly and gentle state, local and private
entities, infringement from the federal government will not occur. But
reality shows otherwise, as even CRS admits.
``In a few cases, Congress has authorized federal acquisition of
land in heritage areas, CRS finds. ``For instance, Congress authorized
creation of the Cane River Creole National Historical Park (in
Louisiana) within the Cane River NHA.''
This national park encompasses two separate areas within the NHA,
42 acres and 18 acres, and is a prime example of why those who profess
an utmost concern for private property rights should view with caution
the loophole-ridden promises of heritage area advocates to keep the
federal bureaus out of the property acquisition and management picture.
Another reason for wariness is the proven fallacy of the National
Park Service's purported role with MIAs.
``Heritage areas are among the types of areas that utilize aid from
the National Park Service, but are not directly owned and managed by
the agency,'' CRS says.
The key word here is ``directly.''
While it's true the NPS does not hold the ultimate jurisdiction
over management of NHAs, this federal bureaucracy does provide
``various types of assistance'' to the many non-government
organizations, politicians and environmental groups who do oversee the
areas, to include ``administrative, financial, policy, technical and
public information,'' CRS finds. Is it really that difficult to
comprehend that those who control the purse also control the strings?
CRS also says that NHAs are generally created when Congress
``designates a management entity, usually non-federal, to coordinate
the work of the partners. The management entity typically develops and
implements a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration with other
parties. Once approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the management
plan essentially becomes the blueprint for managing the heritage
area.''
Why, if the nature of the NHA beast is to really keep property
control in the hands of the states and locals, does the Secretary of
Interior have to approve all land management plans? Coupled with the
stated role of the NPS, and awareness of the ease with which these
federal bureaucrats could, say, enter quid pro quo agreements with
local officials, trading funding for stricter zoning and land-use laws,
it's not difficult to see how any so-called benefit of NHAs to private
landowners is actually a thinly disguised travesty.
Think this couldn't happen? It already has, during creation of the
Augusta Canal National Area in Georgia in 1994 when the NPS refused to
approve local management plans until zoning laws were tightened.
But that was 1994 and this is 2004, you say? A decade may have
passed, but deceptive claims of concern for private land owners still
prevail, and as proof one need only analyze a current NHA-related
measure being waved in Congress as a sure-fire solution to this whole,
oft-cumbersome, property protections debate.
Of an estimated 30 pending congressional NHA bills, only one has
passed the House, H.R. 280. Titled the National Aviation Heritage Area
Act, this measure is being touted by NHA advocates for its inclusion of
private property protections that supposedly guarantee no privately
owned lands ``shall be preserved, conserved or promoted by the
management plan for the heritage area until the owner receives written
notification and gives written consent,'' CRS reports.
H.R. 280 also theoretically gives landowners the right to remove
their properties from consideration of NHA declaration ``upon written
request'' and likewise requires ``that any land acquired for a
historical site be done by donation.''
The notion of land donor aside, which evokes comparisons with the
falsely labeled ``willing seller'' who parts with property after facing
horrendous pressure from environmentalists and self-serving government
groups, the problem with these other property rights protections is
they likely aren't worth the paper upon which they're written. That's
because the NPS--the agency, remember, that is tasked as a catalyst for
the planning and funding of NHA lands--has a history of violating these
same listed provisions, as evidenced during an early 1990s scheme to
declare landmarks in Maine.
Then, the NPS broke its own agency policy of informing landowners
in writing of any landmark declaration effort, and thereby deprived
many of the chance to protest. Subsequent outrage was so intense that
an investigation ensued and in 1992, the Interior Dept. concluded the
NPS ``may have violated the property rights of over 2,800 private
landowners'' in both Maine and across the nation because of its sloppy
disregard for notifying owners when properties were targeted for
landmark status, a Jan. 1992 edition of the Bangor Daily News reports.
So how exactly will these private land protections in H.R. 280,
held as a happy compromise between NHA advocates and landowners,
guarantee that NPS will not commit these atrocities against property
owners yet again?
It doesn't--and if this is the best protections NHAs can offer the
private land owner, perhaps it's time to abolish this bill, along with
the other pending 29, and along with the entire spotty argument that
heritage areas really reflect a true concern for property rights and
are win-wins for environmentalists and those who own the lands
environmentalists seek to control.