National Park Service: Comments on Provisions of S. 2543, a Bill 
to Establish a Federal Program and Criteria for National Heritage
Areas (24-JUN-04, GAO-04-914T). 				 
                                                                 
The Congress has established, or "designated," 24 national	 
heritage areas to recognize the value of their local traditions, 
history, and resources to the nation's heritage. These areas,	 
including public and private lands, receive funds and assistance 
through cooperative agreements with the National Park Service,	 
which has no formal program for them. They also receive funds	 
from other agencies and nonfederal sources, and are managed by	 
local entities. Growing interest in new areas has raised concerns
about rising federal costs and the risk of limits on private land
use. GAO was asked to comment on how provisions of S. 2543 might 
affect issues identified in GAO's March 2004 testimony addressing
the process for (1) designating heritage areas, (2) determining  
the amount of federal funding to these areas, (3) overseeing	 
areas' activities and use of federal funds, and (4) determining  
the effects, if any, they have on private property rights.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-914T					        
    ACCNO:   A10658						        
  TITLE:     National Park Service: Comments on Provisions of S. 2543,
a Bill to Establish a Federal Program and Criteria for National  
Heritage Areas							 
     DATE:   06/24/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Budget controllability				 
	     Evaluation criteria				 
	     Evaluation methods 				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     National historic sites				 
	     Property rights					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Locally administered programs			 
	     Monitoring 					 
	     Eligibility criteria				 
	     Federal aid to localities				 
	     Appropriation limitations				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     National heritage areas				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-914T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Thursday, June 24, 2004

  Comments on Provisions of S. 2543, a Bill to Establish a Federal Program and
                      Criteria for National Heritage Areas

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-04-914T

Highlights of GAO-04-914T, testimony before the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

The Congress has established, or "designated," 24 national heritage areas
to recognize the value of their local traditions, history, and resources
to the nation's heritage. These areas, including public and private lands,
receive funds and assistance through cooperative agreements with the
National Park Service, which has no formal program for them. They also
receive funds from other agencies and nonfederal sources, and are managed
by local entities. Growing interest in new areas has raised concerns about
rising federal costs and the risk of limits on private land use.

GAO was asked to comment on how provisions of S. 2543 might affect issues
identified in GAO's March 2004 testimony addressing the process for (1)
designating heritage areas, (2) determining the amount of federal funding
to these areas, (3) overseeing areas' activities and use of federal funds,
and (4) determining the effects, if any, they have on private property
rights.

The Congress may wish to consider amending S. 2543 to direct the Secretary
of the Interior to (1) review areas' financial audit reports and (2)
develop resultsoriented goals and measures for the Park Service's overall
heritage area program.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-914T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202)
512-3841 or [email protected].

June 24, 2004

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Comments on Provisions of S. 2543, a Bill to Establish a Federal Program and
Criteria for National Heritage Areas

Provisions of S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for identifying
and designating national heritage areas, addressing many of the concerns
identified in GAO's March 2004 testimony. At that time, GAO reported that
no such systematic process exists, noting that the Congress has, in some
instances, designated heritage areas before the Park Service has fully
evaluated them. S. 2543 contains provisions that would require that a
suitability study be completed and the Park Service determine the area
meets certain criteria before the Congress designates a heritage area.
While the bill defines heritage areas more specifically in terms of their
national significance, the criteria outlined in S. 2543 will benefit from
guidance that the Park Service has recently developed to guide the
application of the criteria. This guidance will improve the designation
process.

Provisions of S. 2543 would limit the amount of federal funds that can be
provided to heritage areas through the Park Service's budget. In March
2004, GAO testified that from fiscal years 1997 through 2002 about half of
heritage areas' funding came from the federal government. Specifically,
for 22 of the 24 heritage areas where data were available, $156 million of
the areas' $310 million in total funding came from the federal government.
Of this, over $50 million came from Park Service funds dedicated for this
purpose, $44 million from other Park Service programs, and about $61
million from 11 other federal sources. S. 2543 would restrict annual
dedicated Park Service funding for heritage areas to $15 million.
Individual areas may not receive more than $1 million in a given fiscal
year and $10 million over 15 years.

Furthermore, S. 2543 includes provisions that could enhance the Park
Service's ability to hold heritage areas accountable for their use of
federal funds. In this regard, S. 2543 (1) establishes a program that
would provide the Park Service with the direction and funding needed to
manage the agency's and the heritage areas' activities; (2) establishes a
schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving heritage areas'
management plans; (3) identifies criteria for use in reviewing areas'
plans; (4) requires that the plans include information on, among other
things, performance goals and the roles and functions of partners; and (5)
requires areas to submit annual reports specifying, among other things,
performance goals and accomplishments, expenses and income, and amounts
and sources of funds. GAO has identified potential amendments to S. 2543
that would further enhance areas' accountability.

S. 2543 includes provisions that address some of the concerns GAO
identified in March with regard to heritage areas' potential restrictions
on property owners' rights and land use. For example, S. 2543 allows
property owners to refrain from participating in any planned project or
activity within the heritage area. Furthermore, the bill does not require
any owner to permit public access to property and does not alter any
existing land use regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory
authority.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss provisions of S. 2543, the
National Heritage Partnership Act, which proposes, among other things, to
establish a federal program and criteria for designating national heritage
areas. 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.
Furthermore, 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 designate 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.

Currently, heritage areas 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 through
cooperative agreements, and the Congress appropriates to the agency
limited funds for these activities.1 Funds provided to heritage areas are
considered to be "seed" money to assist them 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. On March 30, 2004, my testimony
before this Subcommittee identified a number of issues that need to be
addressed to improve the effectiveness of the heritage area

2

initiative.

1Although 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.

2U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: A More Systematic
Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve
Their Accountability Are Needed, GAO-04-593T, (Washington, D.C.: March 30,
2004).

Through several provisions of S. 2543, the Congress is now considering
whether it should establish a permanent program that would provide
direction and funding for the Park Service's heritage area activities.
Central to the debate is the absence of a systematic process and specific
criteria for identifying and designating national heritage areas that
would ensure that only the most qualified sites become heritage areas and
the implications for the federal budget. In this regard, my testimony
today focuses on how S. 2543's provisions may affect the process for (1)
designating heritage areas, (2) determining the amount of federal funding
to these areas, (3) overseeing areas' activities and use of federal funds,
and (4) determining the effects, if any, they have on private property
rights.

My testimony today is based on the work conducted for our March testimony,
which was performed in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

In summary:

o  	S. 2543 contains provisions that would establish a systematic process
for determining the suitability of proposed sites as national heritage
areas and for designating those areas found to be qualified. In our March
2004 testimony, we stated that no such systematic process currently
exists. In this regard, we noted that, while the Congress generally has
made designation decisions with the advice of the Park Service, it has, in
some instances, designated heritage areas before the agency has fully
evaluated them. S. 2543, however, would require that a
suitability-feasibility study be completed and that the Secretary
determine the area meets certain criteria before the Congress designates a
heritage area. While the bill defines heritage areas more specifically in
terms of their national significance, the criteria outlined in S. 2543 for
determining an area's qualifications as a heritage area are similar to
those currently used by the Park Service and would benefit from
supplementary implementing guidance. The Park Service has recently
developed guidance for applying its criteria, which will supplement the
criteria identified in S. 2543 and improve the process for identifying and
designating heritage areas.

o  	Provisions of S. 2543 would limit the amount of federal funds that can
be provided to national heritage areas through the National Park Service's
budget. In our March 2004 testimony, we stated that from fiscal years 1997
through 2002 about half of heritage areas' funding came from the federal
government. According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, the areas
received about $310 million in total funding. Of this total, about $154
million came from state and local governments and private sources and
another $156 million came from the federal government. Over $50 million

was dedicated heritage area funds provided through the Park Service, with
another $44 million coming from other Park Service programs and about $61
million from 11 other federal sources. S. 2543 would restrict the funding
for heritage areas that is allocated through the Park Service's budget to
$15 million for each fiscal year. Of this amount, an individual area could
receive not more than $1 million in a given fiscal year and not more than
$10 million over 15 years. While this provision would restrict the amount
of federal funds passing from the Park Service-the largest provider of
federal funds--to the heritage areas, these areas can obtain funding from
other federal agencies as well.

o  	S. 2543 includes a number of provisions that could enhance the Park
Service's ability to hold national heritage areas accountable for their
use of federal funds. In March, we stated that the agency had not always
reviewed areas' financial audit reports, developed consistent standards
for reviewing areas' management plans, and 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. In this regard, provisions of S.
2543 (1) establish a program that would provide the Park Service with the
direction and funding agency officials believe they need to more
effectively manage their own and the heritage areas' activities; (2)
establish a schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving or
disapproving heritage areas' management plans; (3) identify criteria for
determining whether to approve an area's plan; (4) require that the plans
include information on, among other things, performance goals, the roles
and functions of partners, and specific commitments by the partners to
accomplish the activities outlined in the plan; and (5) require each area
to submit an annual report specifying, among other things, performance
goals and accomplishments, expenses and income, amounts and sources of
matching funds and leveraged federal funds, and grants made to any other
entity. The Congress may wish to consider specific amendments to S. 2543
that would further enhance the Park Service's ability to hold areas
accountable.

o  	S. 2543 includes provisions that address some of the concerns we
identified in March with regard to potential restrictions that the
national heritage areas may place on property owners' rights and land use.
Among other assurances, S. 2543 provides property owners the right to
refrain from participating in any planned project or activity conducted
within the national heritage area. Furthermore, it does not require any
property owner to permit public access or modify public access under any
other federal, state, or local law. It also does not alter any adopted
land use

regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any
federal, state, or local authority.

We believe that several of the provisions of S. 2543 would represent
positive steps towards addressing the concerns we raised in March, in
particular with regard to the need for a more systematic approach for
establishing heritage areas and greater accountability.

Background 	To date, the Congress has designated 24 national heritage
areas, primarily in the eastern half of the country. Generally, national
heritage areas focus on 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. 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
currently 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-generally limited to not more than $1 million a year for
10 or 15 years-through the Park Service's budget. The agency allocates the
funds to the area through the cooperative agreement.

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

As proposed, S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for determining
the suitability of proposed sites as national heritage areas and for
designating those areas found to be qualified. In our March 2004
testimony, we stated that no systematic process exists for identifying
qualified candidate sites and designating them as national heritage areas.
We noted that, while the Congress generally has made designation decisions
with the advice of the Park Service, it has, in some instances, designated
heritage areas before the agency has fully evaluated them. Specifically,
the Congress designated 10 of the 24 existing heritage areas without a
thorough Park Service review of their qualifications and, in 6 of the 10
cases, the agency had recommended deferring action. S. 2543, however,
would create a more systematic process that would make the Congress'
designation of a heritage area contingent on the prior completion of a
suitability-feasibility study and the Secretary's determination that the
area meets certain criteria. In addition, under S. 2543, the Secretary
could recommend against designation of a proposed heritage area based on
the potential budgetary impact of the designation or other factors.

Provisions in S. 2543 identify a number of criteria for the Secretary to
use in determining a site's suitability and feasibility as a national
heritage area, including its national significance to the nation's
heritage and whether it provides outstanding recreational or educational
opportunities. S. 2543 defines a heritage area as an area designated by
the Congress that is nationally significant to the heritage of the United
States and meets the other criteria specified in the bill. Further, S.
2543 defines national significance as possessing unique natural,
historical, and other resources of exceptional value or quality and a high
degree of integrity of location, setting, or association in illustrating
or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Despite these very
specific definitions, however, the criteria outlined in S. 2543 for
determining an area's suitability are very similar to those currently used
by the Park Service. Our March 2004 testimony pointed out that these
criteria are not specific enough to determine areas' suitability. 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.
As we stated in March, officials in the Park Service's Northeast region,
for example, believe the criteria are inadequate for screening purposes.
The Park Service's heritage area 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 recently
developed guidance for applying these criteria, which will help to clarify
how both

Provisions in S. 2543 Would Limit the Amount of Federal Funds Dedicated to
National Heritage Areas

the existing criteria and the criteria proposed in S. 2543 could be
applied to better determine the suitability of a prospective heritage
area.

S. 2543 would impose some limits on the amount of federal funds that can
be provided to national heritage areas through the National Park Service's
budget. In our March 2004 testimony, we stated that from fiscal years 1997
through 2002 about half of heritage areas' funding came from the federal
government. According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, the areas
received about $310 million in total funding. Of this total, about $154
million came from state and local governments and private sources and
another $156 million came from the federal government. Over $50 million
was dedicated heritage area funds provided through the Park Service, with
another $44 million coming from other Park Service programs and about $61
million from 11 other federal sources. We also pointed out that 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. 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   
           aDedicated heritage area funds             50,922,562 
         Other Park Service support fundsb            44,470,944 
             Total other federal funds             $60,545,816   
            Department of Transportation              55,852,269 
              Department of Education                  2,000,000 
             Department of Agriculture                   547,009 
    Department of Housing and Urban Development          420,183 
          Environmental Protection Agency                400,000 
              Army Corps of Engineers                    266,000 
               Department of Commerce                     96,555 
      National Railroad Passenger Corporation             23,800 
          National Endowment for the Arts                  5,000 
            cFederal earmarks and awards                 935,000 
               Total nonfederal funds              $154,078,203  
                 State governments                    61,404,323 
                 Local governments                    46,612,624 

           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.

aThese 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.

bThese funds are 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 not typically reported as part of
heritage area funding but include funding for specific projects undertaken
by heritage areas.

cThese funds earmarked for Federal Government Pass-Through Awards
($610,000) and Hugh Moore Historical Park & Museums, Inc. ($325,000).

S. 2543 restricts the funding for heritage areas that is allocated through
the Park Service's budget to $15 million for each fiscal year. Of this
amount, not more than $1 million may be provided to an individual area in
a given fiscal year and not more than $10 million over 15 years. For any
fiscal year,

S. 2543 Includes a Number of Provisions to Enhance the Park Service's
Ability to Hold National Heritage Areas Accountable for Their Use of
Federal Funds

the costs for oversight and administrative purposes cannot exceed more
than 5 percent of the total funds. While this provision restricts the
amount of federal funds passing from the Park Service-the largest provider
of federal funds-to the heritage areas, these areas can obtain funding
from other federal agencies as well.

In March, we also pointed out that, generally, each area's designating
legislation imposes sunset provisions to limit the amount of federal funds
provided to each heritage area. However, since 1984, five areas that
reached their sunset dates had their funding extended. S. 2543 establishes
a fixed time frame after which no additional funding, except for technical
assistance and administrative oversight, will be provided. Specifically,
it states that the Secretary of the Interior can no longer provide
financial assistance after 15 years from the date that the local
coordinating, or management, entity first received assistance.

S. 2543 includes a number of provisions that could enhance the Park
Service's ability to hold national heritage areas accountable for their
use of federal funds. In March, we stated that the Park Service oversees
heritage areas' activities by monitoring their implementation of the terms
set forth in cooperative agreements. These terms, however, did not include
several key management controls. That is, the agency had 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. We
recommended that, in the absence of a formal heritage area program within
the Park Service, the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park Service to
develop well-defined, consistent standards and processes for regional
staff to use in reviewing and approving heritage areas' management plans;
require regional heritage area managers to regularly and consistently
review heritage areas' annual financial reports to ensure that the agency
has a full accounting of their use of funds from all federal sources;
develop results-oriented performance goals and measures for the agency's
heritage area activities, and require, in the cooperative agreements, that
heritage areas adopt such a results-oriented management approach as well.

S. 2543 takes several steps that will enhance accountability. In this
regard, S. 2543 establishes a formal program for national heritage areas
to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. By establishing this
program,

the bill would provide the Park Service with the direction and funding
that agency officials believe they need to impose management controls on
their own and heritage areas' activities. Furthermore, S. 2543 includes a
number of provisions that address the concerns we raised in March. First,
the bill establishes a schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving
or disapproving heritage areas' management plans. The Secretary must
approve or disapprove the management plan within 180 days of receiving it.
If disapproved, the Secretary must advise the local coordinating entity in
writing of the reason for disapproval and may make recommendations for
revision. After receiving a revised management plan, the Secretary must
approve or disapprove the revised plan within 180 days. In addition, the
bill identifies criteria that the Secretary is to use in determining
whether to approve an area's plan. This is a positive step towards
establishing the well-defined, consistent standards and processes for
reviewing and approving areas' management plans that we recommended in
March.

S. 2543 also requires that the management plans include information on,
among others, performance goals, the roles and functions of partners, and
specific commitments by the partners to accomplish the activities outlined
in the management plan. Furthermore, to ensure better accountability, the
local coordinating entity must submit an annual report to the Secretary
for each fiscal year for which the entity receives federal funds. This
report must specify, among other things, the local coordinating entity's
performance goals and accomplishments, expenses and income, amount and
sources of matching funds, amounts and sources of leveraged federal funds,
and grants made to any other entity during the fiscal year.

While provisions contained in S. 2543 address some of the issues we raised
in our March testimony, they do not require that the Park Service
consistently review areas' financial audit reports or develop
resultsoriented goals and measures for the agency's heritage area
activities as we recommended in March. We continue to believe that these
are important management controls that are necessary to ensure effective
oversight and accountability.

S. 2543 Provides Some Measures for Ensuring That Owners' Use of Their
Property Is Not Restricted by the Establishment of Heritage Areas

Conclusions

S. 2543 includes provisions to ensure that property owners' rights and
land use are not restricted by the establishment of national heritage
areas. In our March testimony, we stated that national 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 are concerned about the effects of provisions in some
management plans that encourage local governments to implement land use
policies that are consistent with the heritage areas' plans. Some
advocates are concerned that these provisions may allow the heritage areas
to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could
restrict owners' use of their property.

S. 2543 provides property owners the right to refrain from participating
in any planned project or activity conducted within the national heritage
area. Furthermore, it does not require any property owner to permit public
access, nor does it modify public access under any other federal, state,
or local law. It also does not alter any adopted land use regulation,
approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any federal,
state, or local authority.

The 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. A significant increase in new
areas would put increasing pressure on the Park Service's resources.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that only those sites that are most
qualified are designated as heritage areas. However, as we noted in March,
no systematic process for designating these areas exists, and the Park
Service does not have well-defined criteria for assessing sites'
qualifications or provide effective oversight of the areas' use of federal
funds and adherence to their management plans. 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. 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. As a result, the Park Service 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.

Several of the provisions in S. 2543 represent positive steps towards
addressing the concerns we raised in March. In particular, by establishing
a formal program, the bill would remove the obstacle to effective
management and oversight identified by agency officials. Furthermore, by
establishing a more systematic process for designating heritage areas, S
2543's provisions can help to ensure that only the most qualified sites
become heritage areas. In addition, by placing a $15 million per year cap
on funding to the heritage areas through the Park Service, the bill limits
the federal government's funding commitment to these areas. Finally,
provisions in S. 2543 would enhance the Park Service's ability to oversee
and hold areas accountable for their use of federal funds by establishing
criteria for reviewing and approving areas' management plans and by
requiring heritage areas to annually report on performance goals and
accomplishments.

To ensure greater accountability for the use of federal funds, the
Congress may wish to consider amending S. 2543 by adding provisions
directing the Secretary to (1) review heritage areas' annual financial
reports to ensure that the agency has a full accounting of heritage area
funds from all federal sources, and (2) develop results-oriented
performance goals and measures for the Park Service's overall heritage
area program.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.

Matters for

                                 Congressional
                                 Consideration

Contacts and	For more information on this testimony, please contact Barry
T. Hill at (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony

Acknowledgements included Preston S. Heard, Roy K. Judy, and Vincent P.
Price.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***