National Park Service
A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed
Gao ID: GAO-04-593T March 30, 2004
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.
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 10 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 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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-04-593T, National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-593T
entitled 'National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for
Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their
Accountability Are Needed' which was released on March 30, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EST:
Tuesday, March 30, 2004:
National Park Service:
A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and
Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed:
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-04-593T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-593T, testimony before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate
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 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 10 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 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.
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.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-593T.
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 hillbt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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 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 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).
Figure 1: Locations of 24 Existing National Heritage Areas, as of March
2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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. 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 are a 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 many 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: Total Park Service funds;
Amount: $95,393,506;
Percentage: 30.8.
Source: Dedicated heritage area funds[A];
Amount: 50,922,562;
Percentage: 16.5.
Source: Other Park Service support funds[B];
Amount: 44,470,944;
Percentage: 14.3.
Source: Total other federal funds;
Amount: $60,545,816;
Percentage: 19.5.
Source: Department of Transportation;
Amount: 55,852,269;
Percentage: 18.0.
Source: Department of Education;
Amount: 2,000,000;
Percentage: 0.6.
Source: Department of Agriculture;
Amount: 547,009;
Percentage: 0.2.
Source: Housing and Urban Development;
Amount: 420,183;
Percentage: 0.1.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency;
Amount: 400,000;
Percentage: 0.1.
Source: Army Corps of Engineers;
Amount: 266,000;
Percentage: 0.1.
Source: Department of Commerce;
Amount: 96,555;
Percentage: 0.0.
Source: National Railroad Passenger Corporation;
Amount: 23,800;
Percentage: 0.0.
Source: National Endowment for the Arts;
Amount: 5,000;
Percentage: 0.0.
Source: Federal earmarks and awardsc;
Amount: 935,000;
Percentage: 0.3.
Source: Total nonfederal funds;
Amount: $154,078,203;
Percentage: 49.7.
Source: State governments;
Amount: 61,404,323;
Percentage: 19.8.
Source: Local governments;
Amount: 46,612,624;
Percentage: 15.0.
Source: Nonprofit organizations;
Amount: 7,255,416;
Percentage: 2.3.
Source: Private foundations;
Amount: 14,515,996;
Percentage: 4.7.
Source: Corporate sponsors;
Amount: 2,126,870;
Percentage: 0.7.
Source: Other nonfederal funding sources;
Amount: 22,163,473;
Percentage: 7.2.
Total;
Amount: $310,017,525;
Percentage: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from 22 of the 24 heritage areas.
[A] 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.
[B] 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 not
typically reported as part of heritage area funding, but include
funding for specific projects undertaken by heritage areas.
[C] Funds earmarked for Federal Government Pass-Through Awards
($610,000) and Hugh Moore Historical Park & Museums, Inc. ($325,000).
[End of table]
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.
Figure 2: National Heritage Areas' Funding, By Major Source, Fiscal
Years 1997 - 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For more information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill at
(202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
included Elizabeth Curda, Preston S. Heard, Vincent P. Price, and
Barbara Timmerman.
[End of section]
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--the executive directors of the 23 heritage areas
that were established at the time of our work, and representatives of
several 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.
FOOTNOTES
[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.
[2] As of mid-March 2004, two heritage areas had not provided us with
funding data.
[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.
[4] The Shenandoah River Valley Battlefields National Historic District
is the only heritage area that has received authority and
appropriations to acquire land.