[Senate Report 109-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 38
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-26
======================================================================
NATIONAL HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP ACT
_______
March 9, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 243]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 243) to establish a program and criteria
for National Heritage Areas in the United States, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
The purpose of S. 243 is to establish a program and
criteria for National Heritage Areas in the United States.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The National Park Service has defined a Natural Heritage
Area as a ``place designated by the United States Congress
where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources
combine to form a cohesive nationally distinctive landscape
arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography.''
Heritage Areas are established to commemorate, conserve and
promote important areas that include natural, scenic, historic,
cultural or recreational resources. Unlike areas that are under
the sole jurisdiction of the National Park Service, such as
national parks or monuments, heritage areas typically remain in
non-Federal ownership and are managed by local communities and
partners. To date, Congress has designated 27 National Heritage
Areas.
National Heritage Areas receive financial and technical
assistance through cooperative agreements with the National
Park Service. They also receive funds from other agencies and
non-Federal sources. Most heritage areas are authorized to
receive appropriations of up to $1 million each year, with a
maximum total appropriation of $10 to $15 million. Generally,
the authorizing legislation for each heritage area includes a
requirement that Federal funds must be matched equally by non-
Federal funds. For fiscal years 1997 through 2002 National
Heritage Areas received $310 million in funding. Of this total,
approximately $154 million came from State and local
governments and private sources and $156 million came from the
Federal Government.
Although the National Park Service has developed criteria
for assessing whether an area may qualify as a National
Heritage Area, there are currently no statutory criteria, no
systematic process for identifying or evaluating potential
heritage areas and no formal program for managing them. Of the
27 existing heritage areas, ten have been designated by
Congress without a thorough National Park Service review. Of
those ten, six, a quarter of the existing heritage areas, were
designated by Congress despite the agency's recommendation that
designation be deferred. Not surprisingly, the opportunity for
Federal funding has resulted in an increase in proposals for
new heritage areas, with more than 30 heritage areas proposed
during the 108th Congress. The sizable number of new proposals
before Congress has raised some concern regarding the most
effective means to manage the program in the future.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
published a report that examined heritage areas and suggested
ways to improve their accountability (GAO04-593T, March 30,
2004). The report recommends that standardized criteria be
adopted for evaluating potential National Heritage Areas. The
GAO report also suggests, given the magnitude of funds
appropriated, that certain key management controls be
instituted to ensure accountability and program consistency. S.
243 will establish program requirements and criteria for
evaluating potential National Heritage Areas, as well as place
limitations on Federal funding for the program.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 243 was introduced by Senator Thomas on February 1,
2005. During the 108th Congress, the Committee considered
identical legislation, S. 2543. Senators Thomas and Burns
introduced S. 2543 on June 17, 2004. The Senate Subcommittee on
National Parks held a hearing on S. 2543 on June 21, 2004. The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2543, as
amended, favorably reported on July 14, 2004 (S. Rept. 108-
329). S. 2543 was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on
September 15, 2004. The bill was not considered by the House of
Representatives.
At its business meeting on February 9, 2005, the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 243 favorably
reported.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an
open business session on February 9, 2005, by a unanimous voice
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S.
243.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1(a) entitles this Act the ``National Heritage
Partnership Act''.
Subsection (b) contains the table of contents.
Section 2 contains definitions of key terms used in the
Act.
Section 3 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to establish a National Heritage Area (NHA) program and to
provide technical and financial assistance to local
coordinating entities.
Subsection (b) describes the duties of the Secretary under
the program.
Section 4(a) describes the criteria to be used by the
Secretary to determine the feasibility and suitability of a
proposed NHA. This section also describes the administrative
process for the transmittal, approval and disapproval of the
feasibility study. Designation of NHA's shall be contingent
upon the completion of the feasibility study and approval of
that study by the Secretary.
Section 5 describes the requirements for a heritage area's
management plan. This section also includes procedural
requirements for the submission, approval, disapproval and
amendment of the plan.
Section 6 describes the duties and responsibilities of the
local coordinating entity for a heritage area. This section
also describes the purposes under which the coordinating entity
is authorized to expend Federal funds and prohibits the entity
from using Federal funds to acquire real property.
Section 7 states that nothing in this Act affects the
authority of a Federal agency to provide technical or financial
assistance to a NHA. Other Federal agencies are encouraged to
consult with the Secretary on issues concerning the NHA to the
extent practicable. Nothing in this Act limits, modifies,
alters or amends any authorized use of Federal land.
Section 8 contains several savings provisions.
Paragraph (1) states that nothing in this Act shall affect
the rights of any private property owner.
Paragraph (2) states that nothing in this Act requires a
private property owner to permit public access.
Paragraph (3) states that nothing in this Act affects any
existing land use regulation or alters any land use or provides
regulatory authority to the coordinating entity.
Paragraph (4) states that nothing in this Act authorizes or
implies the reservation or appropriation of water, or water
rights.
Paragraph (5) provides that nothing in this Act diminishes
the authority of a State to manage fish and wildlife.
Paragraph (6) states that nothing in this Act shall affect
the liability of any private property owner.
Section 9(a) authorizes the appropriation of $750,000, for
each fiscal year, to conduct and review feasibility studies for
potential heritage areas. Not more than $250,000 is authorized
for any individual study for any given fiscal year.
Subsection (b) authorizes and limits annual appropriations
for heritage areas to $15,000,000 with not more than $1,000,000
annually for any individual heritage area. A total
appropriation of $10,000,000 may be made for an individual
heritage area over all fiscal years. The Secretary's authority
to provide technical and financial assistance to each heritage
area is limited to 15 years, but the area is authorized to
retain the designation of National Heritage Area after Federal
funding has terminated. The Secretary may extend up to five
percent of the annual authorized appropriation of $15,000,000
for the purposes of technical assistance and oversight and
administration of the program.
Subsection (c) requires the recipient of any grant made
under this Act to provide, through non-Federal sources, an
amount equal to the Federal grant. The non-Federal contribution
may include in-kind contributions of goods and services.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of
this measure has been requested but was not received at the
time the report was filed. When the report is available, the
Chairman will request it to be printed in the Congressional
Record for the advice of the Senate.
S. 243--National Heritage Partnership Act
S. 243 would provide a framework for establishing new
national heritage areas (NHAs). The procedures established by
S. 243 could affect how many and how quickly new NHAs could be
established in the future, but none of the activities
authorized by the bill could be carried out without further
authorizing legislation. As a result, CBO estimates that
enacting S. 243--by itself--would have no effect on the federal
budget.
This legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
S. 243 would establish criteria and mechanisms for
assessing, planning, designating, and developing new national
heritage areas. For each proposed new NHA, Congressional action
would be required to authorize both the first step, a
feasibility study, and the final step, a formal NHA
designation.
Under the bill, once a feasibility study of a potential NHA
has been authorized by the Congress, the NPS would either
conduct the study itself or allow one to be undertaken by an
interested local entity. Completed and assessed studies would
then be submitted to the Congress. If legislation to designate
the NHA is enacted and funds are made available, the chosen
local coordinating entity for the area would have three years
to submit a general management plan to the Secretary of the
Interior for approval.
The bill would authorize the appropriation of up to
$250,000 annually for individual feasibility studies (up to a
total of $750,000 a year). Finally, the bill would authorize
the appropriation of up to $1 million per NHA per year (up to a
total of $15 million annually) for financial and technical
assistance to local coordinating entities. Such funds (up to
15-year total of $10 million per NHA) would be used to develop
and implement management plans and administer the area.
Because the authority to appropriate funds provided in S.
243 would depend on subsequent acts of Congress to authorize
feasibility studies and designate new NHAs, CBO estimates that
enacting this legislation alone would have no effect on the
federal budget.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
The estimate was reviewed by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 243.
The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of
imposing government-established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 243.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior
and the Government Accountability Office at the Subcommittee
hearing on S. 2543 in the 108th Congress follows:
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 testify on behalf of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2543, the National Heritage
Partnership Act. The Department strongly supports this bill,
but has a few concerns about some of the provisions.
The Department strongly supports legislation to establish a
national heritage areas program. We would like to thank
Chairman Thomas for his leadership over the last year in
evaluating programmatic issues, identifying areas for
legislative action, and introducing this bill based on the
Administration's legislative proposal. This legislation was
developed through a year-long process of Congressional
oversight hearings, outside evaluations of the program (such as
the March 2004 report by the General Accounting Office) and
meetings among many of the groups interested in this issue.
S. 2543 provides a much-needed framework for evaluating
proposed national heritage area designations, offers guidelines
for successful planning, clarifies the roles and
responsibilities of all parties, and standardizes timeframes
and funding for designated areas.
The Department supports the national heritage areas
approach to resource conservation through partnerships with
communities. 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.
S. 2543 supports a conservative strategy that recognizes
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 story.
There are three provisions in S. 2543 that we wish to
discuss in more detail and to offer suggestions for
improvements.
criteria for evaluation
The standards for evaluating areas proposed for national
designation are an essential element in establishing a national
heritage areas program. While many places in this nation have
special meaning to the people that live there, for many places
designation as a State or local heritage area may be most
appropriate. The National Park Service should be the lead
partner only when the resource within a proposed heritage area
are of national importance.
The Department has some concerns about the use of the term
``national significance'' and the definition provided in S.
2543. We recommend replacing the term ``national significance''
with the term ``national importance'' to avoid confusion. The
National Park Service specifically uses the term ``national
significance'' in suitability and feasibility studies for new
National Park System units. For this reason, the term
``national importance'' has been informally used by the
National Park Service to describe the assessment of national
heritage area resources.
In addition, having a concise, appropriate, and practical
definition for ``national significance'' or ``national
importance'' is critical. We would suggest a revised definition
as applied in practice to existing and proposed national
heritage areas:
``The term `National Importance' is ascribed to a proposed
heritage area that illustrates major historic, cultural,
natural or social themes important to the history of the United
States and contains resources that are outstanding examples of
natural and cultural features that contribute to the theme, and
which possess a high degree of integrity, and are compatible
with continued community development, public enjoyment, and
use.''
suitability/feasibility study
The Department believes that a study should be required for
every proposed national heritage area and the study should be
evaluated against legislatively established criteria before
designation. S. 2543 requires that such a study be prepared
that demonstrates evidence of place-based resources that tell a
nationally significant story, which has the support and
involvement of the local community. This requirement has been
field-tested and has been shown to increase the future success
of the heritage area.
The Department recommends a modification to the terminology
used for studies. In order to be consistent with terminology
used in past study and designation bills for national heritage
areas, we recommend that the studies be called ``feasibility
studies'' instead of ``suitability/feasibility studies.'' This
would also lessen any confusion with studies for new units of
the National Park System that are called suitability and
feasibility studies. We recommend that this change in
terminology be used throughout the bill when referring to these
studies.
funding and timeframes
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 operation
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 management with greater
involvement by local entities as a more cost-effective use of
Federal resources. Most of 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 recommends
codifying this approach and for the first time requires that a
business plan be developed as part of the management planning
for proposed new areas. This would ensure that from the
beginning, national heritage areas are working towards and have
an established plan for self-sufficiency. So far, no existing
areas has ``graduated'' from the program, even after 20 years
and in some cases, and nearly $100 million invested overall.
For this reason, we 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.
The Department is concerned with the new provision in
section 9 of S. 2543 that caps the heritage areas program at
$15 million per year. The Administration did not propose a cap
on the program because we believe it is more appropriate to cap
the amount of appropriations each area is authorized to
receive, and to limit the authorized period for appropriations.
Currently, there are 15 new national heritage areas pending for
designation in Congress. In addition, there are 24 designated
national heritage areas, many of which are authorized to
receive appropriations of $1 million per year. However, we
would expect to allocate funding among these areas within the
levels of funds appropriated, which might require providing
less than the individual authorized ceilings in some instances.
conclusion
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
preserving their heritage and telling their stories. S. 2543
respects these principles. It assigns the appropriate roles and
responsibilities to the key partners that must work together to
make the program successful. 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 look forward to working with the committee to
enact this important legislation.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 243 as ordered
reported.