[Senate Hearing 108-692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-692
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2543
TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM AND CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
JUNE 24, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-736 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
General Accounting Office...................................... 7
Jones, A. Durand, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 3
Obey, Craig D., Vice President for Governmental Affairs, National
Parks Conservation Association................................. 30
Rice, Daniel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ohio and
Erie Canalway Coalition, Akron, OH............................. 18
Smith, Robert J., Director, Center for Private Conservation,
Washington, DC................................................. 23
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 47
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. The committee will come to order. Good
afternoon.
I want to welcome the Deputy Director of the National Park
Service, the representative from the General Accounting Office,
and witnesses to today's National Parks Subcommittee hearing.
Our purpose today is to receive testimony on S. 2543, a
bill to establish a program and criteria for the national
heritage areas in the United States and for other purposes.
Since March of last year, this subcommittee has had two
oversight hearings and the General Accounting office has
conducted a thorough review of the national heritage areas. The
most apparent and consistent finding has been that criteria are
needed to establish control over a program with unlimited
potential for growth.
Twenty-four national heritage areas currently exist, and
this subcommittee has received legislation requesting more than
20 new heritage areas. The potential for growth seems
unlimited, based on the fact that heritage areas can be as
narrow as the River of Steel or as broad as the entire State of
Tennessee. The State of Pennsylvania alone has five national
heritage areas, and they are requesting a sixth. Each request
for a new area is accompanied by a request for a million
dollars per year for 15 years.
I do believe there are unique places in the country where
it's appropriate to provide Federal assistance before a State
or a local organization is able to assume responsibility for
protecting a designated resource. However, I am concerned about
the total number of heritage areas that we are establishing,
the lack of a clear definition and criteria, which I think
troubles me more than anything--What does ``national heritage''
mean?--and the apparent inability to sunset the Federal role of
established national heritage areas.
So it's time to define a consistent policy regarding the
Federal role. S. 2543 does just that. The bill establishes
specific criteria for designating new national heritage areas.
Chief among them is national significance, of course, which is
not always totally clear. It also requires strict accounting
for Federal funds, and sets a limit of 15 million per year for
the national heritage area programs.
So let me thank the witnesses for coming today. We look
forward to the testimony, and pleased to have you here.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, I'd like to welcome a group here from Hawaii,
that's visiting. In particular, this group comes from the
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and they are called the Kapuna
Consultation Group, which advises the park. So I'm delighted to
have them here. I want to say aloha and welcome to them. And
also with them is Cindy Olando, who is the superintendent at
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. So, to all of you, welcome to
Washington, DC, and to this hearing.
As you know, in recent years we have seen increasing demand
for national heritage area designations. In addition to the two
dozen areas that have already been designated by Congress,
there are currently 16 different heritage area bills pending in
the Senate. Given the interest, it's especially timely, Mr.
Chairman, for this hearing on--and let me stress the word, ``on
your bill,'' S. 2543, the National Heritage Partnership Act. I
commend you on your efforts to ensure consistent standards for
the consideration of these new areas.
In general, I believe that most of the requirements in your
bill are consistent with criteria that the committee has been
following with respect to approving heritage area bills in
recent years. Our larger challenge is the ability to control
the growth of new heritage areas so that supporters of an area
that has already been designated have a reasonable expectation
that the area will be able to receive sufficient funding to
allow for a successful national heritage area. We also need to
ensure that the heritage area program doesn't become so
expensive that it becomes a significant drain on other Park
Service resources.
Many of the areas proposed for designation in this Congress
were also considered by this committee during the previous
Congress, and most appeared to meet the general standards for
an appropriate heritage area. The difficult question we face is
how we allow for an ordered addition of new heritage areas
without overwhelming the system.
Today's hearing is a good first step to explore these
issues, and I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing the
testimony from our invited witnesses.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. And to your visitors
from Hawaii, aloha.
[Group response, ``Aloha.'']
Senator Thomas. That's what we say in Wyoming all the time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Well, welcome to the panel. As I mentioned
before, we have Mr. Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior; Mr. Barry Hill,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General
Accounting Office.
So thank you, gentlemen. Your full statements will be made
part of the record, and we look forward to your comments.
Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF A. DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jones. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll be happy
just to highlight my testimony.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it's 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,
and we have just a few minor suggestions for clarification.
The Department strongly supports the legislation to
establish a national heritage area program. I especially want
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and your
commitment over the last several years to bringing focus to
this debate and consideration for this legislation through the
various seminars and the oversight hearings you've held in
leading up to this proposed legislation. We think it's been a
very productive process and has provided a lot of important
information that has led to this proposal.
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 area approach to resource conservation
through partnerships with communities. National heritage areas
are locally driven, initiated, and managed by the people who
live there, and do not impose Federal zoning or land-use
controls, nor do they require land acquisition.
S. 2543 supports a conservation strategy that recognizes
that the people who live in a heritage area are uniquely
qualified to preserve it. And the role of the Federal
Government is to help in the beginning phases of a heritage
area, providing advice, consultation, with some funding
support, with the ultimate goal that the area should graduate
from the program and move on with total local control.
Being designated as a national heritage area can benefit
visitors, community residents, existing national park units
located within the area, and other Federal lands by expanding
the opportunity to interpret and protect resources over a
larger landscape.
There are three provisions in the bill that we wish to
discuss in more detail and offer a few suggestions for
improvements. The standards for evaluating heritage areas
proposed for national designation are an essential element in
establishing a program. While many places in the Nation have
special meaning to the people that live there, for many places
designation as a State or a local heritage area may be most
appropriate. The National Park Service should be a partner only
when the resources within the proposed area are of national
importance.
The Department has some concerns about the term ``national
significance'' and the definition as provided in the bill. We
recommend replacing the word ``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
units in the National Park System. And, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, the very premise of heritage areas is that these are
areas that should not be units of the National Park System, and
so we think some slightly different language may be
appropriate.
The Department believes that a study should be required of
every proposed national heritage area, and that 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 and has the support
and involvement of the local community. The Department
recommends a modification to the terminology used for studies.
In order to be consistent with terminology used in past study
and designated bills for national heritage area, we recommend
that the studies be called ``feasibility studies'' instead of
``suitability/feasibility studies.'' Again, this is a very
technical issue that also seeks to avoid confusion with studies
that are done for potential units of the National Park System,
as opposed to just for heritage area designation.
When the first national heritage corridors were designated,
20 years ago, the national heritage corridor 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 5 years,
with specific year extensions. 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 new areas are managed by a
nonprofit entity or a State government that includes a funding
formula of not more than $10 million over a 15-year period. Our
legislative proposal recommends codifying this approach for the
first time, and, for the first time, requires that a business
plan be developed as part of the management planning for a
proposed new area. The business plan, we think, is an important
element of a study, because it would allow the local entity,
from the very beginning, to begin the thought process of
graduating from the program and eventually not having to rely
on Federal dollars.
The Department is concerned with a new provision in section
9 of S. 2543 that caps the heritage areas at a program of $15
million a 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 specific area is authorized to
receive, and to limit the authorized period for appropriations.
In conclusion, recent studies and our own experience have
shown that the national heritage area approach links people and
place, nature and culture, and the present with the past. The
heritage areas capitalize on the unique local role communities
play in preserving their heritage and telling their stories. S.
2543 represents these principles, it assigns the appropriate
roles and responsibilities to the key partners that must work
together to make the program successful. We look forward to
working with the committee to enact this very important piece
of legislation.
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of A. Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today to 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 conservation 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 resources 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 nonprofit 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 area 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.
This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be pleased to answer
any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
I'm 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. As you've mentioned,
the Congress has established or designated 24 national heritage
areas to recognize the value of their local traditions,
history, and resources to the Nation's heritage. These areas,
including public and private lands, receive funds and
assistance through cooperative agreements with the National
Park Service, which has no formal program for them. They also
receive funds from other agencies and non-Federal sources, and
are managed by local entities.
Growing interest in new areas has raised concerns about
rising Federal costs and the risks of limits on private land
use. In this context, my testimony today addresses the effects
that provisions of S. 2543 might have on issues we identified
in our testimony last March before this subcommittee--
specifically, the processes for designating heritage areas,
determining the amount of Federal funding for these areas,
overseeing areas' activities and use of Federal funds, and
determining the effects, if any, they have on private property
rights.
Let me start by discussing the process for designating
heritage areas.
S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for
identifying and designating national heritage areas, addressing
many of the concerns we identified in our March testimony. At
that time, we 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.
The bill contains provisions that would require that a
suitability study be completed and the Park Service determine
that 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 implementing guidance that the Park Service has recently
developed to guide the application of these criteria.
S. 2543 also limits the amount of Federal funds that can be
provided to heritage areas through the Park Service's budget.
In March, we 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 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 the Park Service funds dedicated for this
purpose. The bill would restrict annual dedicated Park Service
funding for heritage areas to $15 million, with individual
areas not receiving more than $1 million in a given fiscal year
and $10 million over 15 years.
Furthermore, S. 2543 includes a number of provisions to
enhance the Park Service's ability to hold heritage areas
accountable for their use of Federal funds. In this regard, the
bill establishes a program that would provide the Park Service
with the direction and funding needed to manage the agencies
and the heritage areas' activities, establishes a schedule and
criteria for reviewing and approving heritage areas' management
plans, identifies criteria for use in reviewing area plans,
requires that the plans include information on, among other
things, performance goals and the roles and functions of
partners, and requires the areas to submit an annual report
specifying, among other things, performance goals and
accomplishments, expenses and income, and amounts and sources
of funds. We believe these provisions provide a sound
foundation for establishing accountability in this program. I
will shortly mention, however, two amendments to the bill that
we believe would further enhance the oversight and
accountability mechanisms in this program.
Finally, S. 2543 also includes provisions that address some
of the concerns we previously identified with regard to
heritage areas' potential restrictions on property-owners'
rights and land use. For example, the bill 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.
In conclusion, we believe there are a number of provisions
in S. 2543 that would represent positive steps toward
addressing the concerns we raise in our March testimony; in
particular, with regard to the need for a more systematic
approach for establishing heritage areas, and greater
accountability. However, to ensure greater accountability for
use of Federal funds, the Congress may wish to consider
amending S. 2543 by adding provisions directing the Secretary
to review heritage areas' annual financial reports to ensure
the agency has a full accounting of heritage area funds from
all Federal sources, and to develop results-oriented
performance goals and measures for the agency's own heritage
area activities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions that you or members of the subcommittee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, General Accounting Office
WHAT GAO FOUND
Provisions of S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for
identifying and designating national heritage areas, addressing many of
the concerns identified in GAO's March 2004 testimony. At that time,
GAO reported that no such systematic process exists, noting that the
Congress has, in some instances, designated heritage areas before the
Park Service has fully evaluated them. S. 2543 contains provisions that
would require that a suitability study be completed and the Park
Service determine the area meets certain criteria before the Congress
designates a heritage area While the bill defines heritage areas more
specifically in terms of their national significance, the criteria
outlined in S. 2543 will benefit from guidance that the Park Service
has recently developed to guide the application of the criteria. This
guidance will improve the designation process.
Provisions of S. 2543 would limit the amount of federal funds that
can be provided to heritage areas through the Park Service's budget. In
March 2004, GAO testified that from fiscal years 1997 through 2002
about half of heritage areas' funding came from the federal government.
Specifically, for 22 of the 24 heritage areas where data were
available, $156 million of the areas' $310 million in total funding
came from the federal government. Of this, over $50 million came from
Park Service funds dedicated for this purpose, $44 million from other
Park Service programs, and about $61 million from 11 other federal
sources. S. 2543 would restrict annual dedicated Park Service funding
for heritage areas to $15 million. Individual areas may not receive
more than $1 million in a given fiscal year and $10 million over 15
years.
Furthermore, S. 2543 includes provisions that could enhance the
Park Service's ability to hold heritage areas accountable for their use
of federal funds. In this regard, S. 2543 (1) establishes a program
that would provide the Park Service with the direction and funding
needed to manage the agency's and the heritage areas' activities; (2)
establishes a schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving
heritage areas' management plans; (3) identifies criteria for use in
reviewing areas' plans; (4) requires that the plans include information
on, among other things, performance goals and the roles and functions
of partners; and (5) requires areas to submit annual reports
specifying, among other things, performance goals and accomplishments,
expenses and income, and amounts and sources of funds. GAO has
identified potential amendments to S. 2543 that would further enhance
areas' accountability.
S. 2543 includes provisions that address some of the concerns GAO
identified in March with regard to heritage areas' potential
restrictions on property owners' rights and land use. For example, S.
2543 allows property owners to refrain from participating in any
planned project or activity within the heritage area. Furthermore, the
bill does not require any owner to permit public access to property and
does not alter any existing land use regulation, approved land use
plan, or other regulatory authority.
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 initiative.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ U.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:
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.
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.
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.
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 or
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 the existing criteria and the criteria proposed in S. 2543 could
be applied to better determine the suitability of a prospective
heritage area.
PROVISIONS IN S. 2543 WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS DEDICATED
TO NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
S. 2543 would impose some limits on the amount of federal funds
that can be provided to national heritage areas through the National
Park Service's budget. In our March 2004 testimony, we stated that from
fiscal years 1997 through 2002 about half of heritage areas' funding
came from the federal government. According to data from 22 of the 24
heritage areas, the areas received about $310 million in total funding.
Of this total, about $154 million came from state and local governments
and private sources and another $156 million came from the federal
government. Over $50 million was dedicated heritage area funds provided
through the Park Service, with another $44 million coming from other
Park Service programs and about $61 million from 11 other federal
sources. 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.
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, 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 TO ENHANCE THE PARK SERVICE'S
ABILITY TO HOLD NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR USE OF
FEDERAL FUNDS
S. 2543 includes a number of provisions that could enhance the Park
Service's ability to hold national heritage areas accountable for their
use of federal funds. 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.
TABLE 1.--NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES, FISCAL YEARS
1997-2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Amount Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Park Service funds.............. $95,393,506 30.8
-----------------------------
Dedicated heritage area funds\1\.......... 50,922,562 16.5
Other Park Service support funds\2\....... 44,470,944 14.3
-----------------------------
Total other federal funds............. 60,545,816 19.5
-----------------------------
Department of Transportation.............. 55,852,269 18.0
Department of Education................... 2,000,000 0.6
Department of Agriculture................. 547,009 0.2
Department of Housing and Urban 420,183 0.1
Development..............................
Environmental Protection Agency........... 400,000 0.1
Army Corps of Engineers................... 266,000 0.1
Department of Commerce.................... 96,555 0.0
National Railroad Passenger Corporation... 23,800 0.0
National Endowment for the Arts........... 5,000 0.0
Federal earmarks and awards\3\............ 935,000 0.3
-----------------------------
Total nonfederal funds................ 154,078,203 49.7
-----------------------------
State governments......................... 61,404,323 19.8
Local governments......................... 46,612,624 15.0
Nonprofit organizations................... 7,255,416 2.3
Private foundations....................... 14,515,996 4.7
Corporate sponsors........................ 2,126,870 0.7
Other nonfederal funding sources.......... 22,163,473 7.2
-----------------------------
Total................................. $310,017,525 100.0
=============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from 22 of the 24 heritage areas.
\1\ These funds were provided through the Park Service's Heritage
Partnership Program and Statutory and Contractual Aid budget line
items. The Heritage Partnership Program promotes the conservation of
natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources. Statutory and
Contractual Aid provides financial assistance in the planning,
development, or operation of natural, historical, cultural, or
recreation areas that are not managed by the Park Service.
\2\ These are funds from other Park Service budget line items--including
the Land and Water Conservation Fund; Operation of the National Park
Service, and the Construction Fund--that are not typically reported as
part of heritage area funding, but include funding for specific
projects undertake by heritage areas.
\3\ These funds earmarked for Federal Government Pass-Through Awards
($610,000) and Hugh Moore Historical Park & Museums, Inc. ($325,000).
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
results-oriented 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
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
MATTERS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION
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.
Senator Thomas. Okay, thank you. Thank you both. I
appreciate that very much. Certainly, this draft has been
predicated, to a large extent, on the study that was done by
GAO, as well as in consultation with the Park Service.
So, Mr. Jones, you have some concern about the
``significance,'' as opposed to ``important'' or using--
``importance'' doesn't seem very important, where
``significance'' seems to me, sort of, defines the fact that it
should be set aside because it is significant. Why do you think
that's a problem?
Mr. Jones. The exact words to be used, I think, are less
important than our generic concern. the terms of ``suitability
studies'' and ``determinations of national significance'' is a
formal process that is currently in law, which leads to
establishing units of the National Park System. Our concern is
that we do not imply any confusion that these studies are
studies for additions to the National Park System, when they
are studies for heritage areas. And we thought it might be
easier if slightly different phraseology were used.
Senator Thomas. I see. I guess one of the basic reasons for
this whole effort is that things become important in the
community, whether it's economic development or whether it's to
do something with the Main Street, and this and that. So,
again, you define words a little differently, but I think what
we're trying to do is say that it has to have national
significance.
Mr. Jones. I totally agree with you on that, because
certainly areas that are of local interest or of interest to
Statewide proceedings are clearly best managed by the States
and the local governments, without a role for us. So there
certainly needs to be a national level of--be it ``interest''
or ``importance'' or ``significance''--we're certainly willing
to work with the committee as to what is the best terminology
to use.
Senator Thomas. I think one of the real issues before us,
is, there are areas that have local significance that we hope
are set aside, but they should be set aside by the local or the
State, and we shouldn't have a program where local areas are
set aside by Federal money.
So I understand what you're saying.
Mr. Jones. And we agree with you, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Now, currently, heritage areas, does that
designation disappear after awhile, or is it always--after the
funding's over, is it continued to be a national heritage area?
Mr. Jones. We believe it does, and we think the legislation
should allow that to happen. But what changes is the role of
the Federal Government in the area, because certainly a lot of
entities and organizations interested in heritage areas are
interested in the plaque and the name, be it for marketing, for
tourism or for whatever interest they might have. And we don't
see any problems with that. The main thing that we feel
definitely should have a cap is the eventual termination of the
Federal funding that supports an area, and that an area should
graduate from the program and become self sufficient on their
own and continue on their own.
Senator Thomas. If it still is designated as a national
heritage, then the Park Service would no longer have any input
or oversight or involvement, is that correct?
Mr. Jones. It would be greatly reduced involvement. To the
extent that we are providing annual reports to the Congress,
for example, or updates on the programs, we're assuming that as
long as an area carries that title, there would be interest for
us to continue to know what's going on there, but our role
would be greatly diminished.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Hill, you suggested annual audits or at least some sort
of oversight on spending. As we get more and more of these, is
that likely to be something the Department would be able to do?
Mr. Hill. Well, the current cap you have of $15 million on
the program, with no more than 5 percent being spent on
administrative expenses, that does put a limit on the extent of
effort the Park Service could provide. So, yes, as you add more
heritage areas to this program, it's going to start taxing and
stressing already thin resources that the Park Service has to
oversee.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Hill. So that's why I do think you need to consider
some type of controls over limiting the number or the size of
this program.
Senator Thomas. I agree with you. I think there ought to be
some oversight on any sort of funding by the Federal Government
and so on. I think it could possibly be made simpler than it
sometimes is, just to sort of get an idea of what's happened.
Mr. Hill. Well, the bill does provide some really nice
mechanisms for reporting. The heritage areas do have to submit
these annual reports as long as they're receiving Federal
funds. That should make the Park Service's job a lot easier,
because not only will they be getting a better handle on the
funds that they're expending--as well as what other Federal
agencies are also providing through the program--but it'll all
be provided in one document that they can easily review.
Senator Thomas. That's a good idea.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Jones, one of
the general concerns with the heritage area program is rapid
growth in the number of areas proposed for designation. As you
noted in your testimony, there are already two dozen designated
areas, with an additional 15 proposed for designation during
this Congress. Based on the increasing interest in this
program, I suspect that there will be many more areas that will
be proposed for designation in the near future.
If so many areas are potentially suitable for designation,
my question is, How do we make sure that the heritage area
program isn't overwhelmed by too many designations? In addition
to determining the suitability of the proposed area, does it
make sense to establish some sort of priority ranking?
Mr. Jones. Well, I think the basic answer to your question
is one of the reasons why this bill is before the committee,
because this bill, we think, addressed a lot of the issues that
you've just raised, because it does provide, we think, some
consistency in approach in evaluation, and hopefully from that
would come some information that would be useful to this
committee, as well as our--as we develop our own
recommendations as to what areas have the most merit for
designation and consideration.
The study process has been evolving over the last decade
based on our experience in heritage areas, and what this bill
is trying to do, I think, is bring that wealth of experience
together into a unified approach looking to the future.
Senator Akaka. Senator Thomas' bill would establish in law
several requirements that must be met before an area could be
designated as a national heritage area. It appears to me that
many of the criteria, such as the requirement for a study and
evidence of a significant local commitment to the proposed
heritage area are consistent with requirements that have
already been applied informally by this committee and by your
agency in assessing previous heritage area proposals. If this
bill is enacted, do you expect that any of the proposed areas
that are now considered appropriate candidates for designation
will no longer be eligible for designation, or will it slow the
number of future proposals?
Mr. Jones. Well, I'm not personally familiar with all of
the areas that have been proposed that are pending before the
committee, and it's also certainly not appropriate for me to
prejudge what our position would be, without clear testimony,
obviously. But I am aware that there are some of the areas that
have been introduced, for example, that do not have a study
that has existed. They call for just direct designation. And
certainly, in the past, we have opposed those types of
designations without a formal study, without the identification
of a good local partner and its proven capability to assume
their role in a heritage area. And I would be surprised if our
position would change on that.
So I think the answer is yes, that there are likely some
areas that have been proposed that would not meet this
criteria.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Jones, this bill proposes an annual
appropriations of--a limit of $15 million for the entire
program, regardless of the number of heritage areas. You oppose
this provision in your testimony, preferring to rely on the
appropriations limitations applicable to each individual
heritage area. If there isn't an overall funding ceiling for
the heritage area program, how do you ensure that it doesn't
become so large that it diverts significant funding resources
away from other National Park Service priorities?
Mr. Jones. A couple of answers to that. Our concern on the
ceiling is that, at any given time, it's presumed that there
will be a different number of heritage areas eligible for
funding, and we think that having a $15 million cap on the
program may, at some times, provide ample funding for all the
active areas; at other times, may restrict the funding.
On the question as to what extent it would impact other
park operations, unfortunately my crystal ball does not allow
me to speculate--that if funding for any one program is not
there, that it would automatically be available for park
operations. One could hope as much, but it's hard to predict
what either OMB or the appropriations committees might decide
to do. So I really don't have a specific answer for that
question.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your response.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions for this
panel.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now, the limitation is an interesting question that we need
to deal with. I read in the paper almost daily that the parks
are inadequately funded, and they aren't doing enough upkeep on
the backlog, and all that sort of thing, and so it makes you
wonder.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Appreciate. And we want to
continue to work with you as we go forward.
Now, our second panel, Mr. Dan Rice, Ohio and Erie Canal
Coalition, Akron, Ohio; Mr. Craig Obey, vice president for
government affairs, National Parks Conservation Association;
and Mr. R.J. Smith, director, Center for Private Conservation,
here in Washington.
Welcome, gentlemen. We look forward to your points of view
and appreciate your being here to share them with us.
Mr. Rice, would you like to begin? As I have mentioned to
the previous panel, your total comments will be put into the
record, and if you want to summarize them in 5 minutes, why,
that would be great.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL RICE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, OHIO AND ERIE CANALWAY COALITION, AKRON, OH
Mr. Rice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee, for inviting me here
today to provide testimony regarding the National Heritage Area
Partnership Act.
I am here in my capacity as the president and CEO of the
Ohio and Erie Canalway Coalition, working on the Ohio and Erie
Canalway Project in Northeast Ohio, as well as the chairman of
the Advocacy Committee for the Alliance of National Heritage
Areas.
First and foremost, I'd like to thank the committee, and
you specifically, Mr. Chairman, for your legislation. This
legislation represents a major improvement from the National
Park Service legislation that was submitted about a month ago.
And we believe that this legislation accurately reflects the
issues and concerns of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas,
and we appreciate you taking that into account in the
development of this legislation.
We also believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are a couple of
areas of common ground we have agreement on; first and
foremost, the issue of national significance. We believe that
all national heritage areas should have national significance.
Second, we also agree that national heritage areas should have
a framework for regional collaboration and cooperation, which
this legislation outlines. Third, and probably most
importantly, this legislation also provides clear direction
regarding the development of suitability and feasibility
studies, as well as the management plans.
With our proposed recommendations, we believe this
legislation has the potential to create a successful national
heritage area program that exports the National Park Service
ethic of resource conservation to millions of Americans while
leveraging significant amounts of private, local, State, and
Federal resources, and truly creating a legacy for future
generations.
Specifically, I am respectfully requesting the following
seven proposals:
First, national heritage area designation must come after
planning. Through a comprehensive planning process, working in
partnership with our local, State, and Federal partners, the
most appropriate framework and regional strategies for the
conservation of these resources will be identified. Completing
the entire planning process in advance provides Congress and
the Secretary of the Interior with all the information possible
regarding--in order to make a decision regarding potential
Federal involvement.
Second, national heritage area designation must come from
Congress. This legislation basically outlines the fact that a
national heritage area may meet all the requirements for
national significance and designation; however, the Secretary
of the Interior may veto the designation. We suggest that
rather than creating a new process for the designation of
national heritage areas that--simply use the same process for
designation of units of the National Park System.
Third, we believe that the review and approval of
management plans needs to be much quicker. All the partners are
involved in the planning process--local, private, State, and
Federal. We believe that taking 180 days to review a plan,
which is approximately 6 months, slows down the process and has
the potential to limit the momentum of the development of a
heritage area. We believe and respectfully request a review
process of 90 days.
Four, staffing for heritage areas. This legislation
specifically outlines certain staff members for the development
of a heritage area. We agree with some of the recommendations;
however, we think it would be helpful if the wording was added
``and other staff as deemed necessary,'' because as each
national heritage area may have unique requirements for
staffing, the legislation should provide language that permits
the hiring of staff consistent in order to implement the
management plan. It doesn't mean there's unlimited staffing,
Mr. Chairman; however, we just want to make sure the management
entity has the tools necessary to fulfill their management
plan.
Fifth, authorization of appropriations. We agree that there
are issues regarding funding, and that that always is an issue;
however, our concern is, if we establish a $15 million cap for
the program, this, unfortunately, could develop a unfunded
mandate for our local partners. They could basically get the
national designation, and not be able to fulfill their
obligations under the management plan. We recommend,
respectfully, that Congress consider, each year, the collective
funding needs of the national heritage areas.
Sixth, national heritage areas must be able to be
reauthorized. And, to be direct, Mr. Chairman, partnerships
take a long time to develop. Congress should provide for
itself, at the end of each national heritage area, when it
comes up for reauthorization, to basically review the national
heritage area in order to determine whether it's appropriate
for the Federal partner to be involved in the future
development and resource conservation in the heritage area.
Seventh, and finally, the national heritage area should be
made affiliated units of the National Park Service.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we really applaud you for all of
your efforts in the development of this legislation. We really
believe that it does accurately reflect our issues and
concerns. If we can be of further assistance, we look forward
to working with you on the development of this successful
legislation.
With your continued leadership, we have the opportunity to
establish a national and international model for resource
conservation that truly leverages significant amounts of local,
private, and state resources, but, probably more importantly,
creates a legacy for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify, and I am more than happy to answer any questions that
either you or any of the other members of the committee may
have.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rice follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel M. Rice, President & Chief Executive
Officer, Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition, Ohio & Erie National Heritage
Canalway, Akron, OH, and Chairman of the Advocacy Committee, Alliance
of National Heritage Areas
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Daniel M. Rice. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition, a private non-profit regional
organization working on the development of the Ohio & Erie National
Heritage Canalway from Cleveland to New Philadelphia in northeast Ohio.
I am also here today testifying in my capacity as Chairman of the
Advocacy Committee with the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, an
organization whose membership includes, among others, the 24
congressionally designated NHAs. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the Committee today to discuss the ``National Heritage
Partnership Act'', the future of the National Heritage Area movement.
On behalf of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and its
members, I want to thank the Committee and all of the National Park
Service staff, who have worked over the past months to develop this
proposed legislation. We believe that the ``National Heritage
Partnership Act'' represents a major improvement from the draft offered
by the National Park Service. The proposed legislation accurately
reflects the concerns and issues of the Alliance of National Heritage
Areas and we believe this legislation is on the right path.
We share with the Committee the belief that a successful National
Heritage Area program must include a test of national significance. If
there is not a nationally significant theme or collection of resources,
the heritage area should not be designated as a National Heritage Area.
This proposed legislation also creates a framework for regional
collaboration and cooperation among private, local, state and federal
partners that is the cornerstone of the Heritage Development movement.
Finally, this proposed legislation provides clear direction regarding
the development of the Suitability/Feasibility studies and the
Management Plan process. Through this study process, Heritage
Initiatives will be able to define the most appropriate framework and
regional strategies for the conservation, interpretation and
development of their unique natural, historical and recreational
resources.
With our proposed recommendations, this legislation has the
potential to create a successful National Heritage Area program that
exports the National Park Service ethic of resource conservation to
millions of Americans, leverage significant amounts of private, local,
state and federal resources while creating a legacy for future
generations.
Specifically, I am respectfully requesting that this Committee and
the Congress consider the following recommendations for a National
Heritage Area program:
1. National Heritage Area designation must come after planning
Recently, the process of designating NHAs has occurred in reverse,
with the designation by Congress first, and then the necessary
inventories, themes and other planning developed after. Placing
designation in advance of the plan often will redirect most, if not all
of the NPS appropriations to planning, instead of the investment in the
resource conservation and development. Congress could designate
heritage areas as ``planning areas'' first and provide a small amount
of funding to help seed the planning process, then, when the
feasibility and management plans were complete, Congress, with the
completed plans and recommendations, would have a more thorough
assessment of the proposed NHA.
Through a comprehensive planning process, Heritage Initiatives will
develop the most appropriate framework and regional strategies for the
conservation, interpretation and development of the unique natural,
historical and recreational resources. It may be determined that the
most appropriate framework is through local designation, state
designation, a Scenic Byway, or possibly no designation may be
necessary. Completing the entire planning process prior to designation
provides Congress and the National Park Service with all the
information necessary to make a decision regarding potential federal
involvement.
2. National Heritage Area designation must come from Congress
Despite Congress's approval of a National Heritage Area
designation, the Secretary of Interior would retain veto power over the
congressional action by disapproving and National Heritage Area's
proposed management plan, and subsequent amendments for correction/
modification--essentially keeping a National Heritage Area approved by
Congress from going into operation. All final authority upon which
areas would ultimately function as a National Heritage Area would rest
in the hands of the Secretary, stripping Congress of its legislative
responsibilities to designate.
The Secretary of Interior should make a recommendation to Congress
regarding the designation of a Heritage Area. The Secretary of Interior
should not have veto power regarding the designation of Heritage Areas.
That authority rests with the Congress of the United States.
Finally, why not use the same process for the designation of units
of the National Park System? The Secretary of the Interior reviews the
studies and reports and makes a recommendation to Congress regarding
designation as a unit of the National Park System. Why not use the same
process for units of the National Park System and treat Heritage Areas
in the same manner?
3. Review and Approval of Management Plans needs to be quicker
Since all partners, private, local, state and federal
organizations, are involved in the development of the Management Plan,
all parties should be well informed about the contents of the
Management Plan. Consequently, there is no reason why it should take
180 days, or six months, to review and provide comment on a Management
Plan. One of the key factors in the development of successful Heritage
Areas is their availability to respond to issues in a timely manner.
Since the Heritage Initiative cannot continue until the review and
approval of the Management Plan, the regional initiative comes to a
grinding halt due to the requirements of one of the partners. It is
unreasonable to assume that one of the partners will dominate and
exercise control over the regional project. In some cases, this
approach will essentially discourage and eliminate local support for
the Heritage Area. The Alliance of National Heritage Areas recommends a
review and approval or disapproval process, and Amendment process of 90
days to maintain the momentum of the Heritage Area.
4. Staffing for Heritage Areas
National Heritage Areas are as different and unique as the regions
of the country that they work within. This legislation that we are
discussing today, makes a significant attempt at recognizing the levels
and types of professional staff that might be necessary to successfully
manage a National Heritage Area. The legislation, however, would be
more helpful if the words, ``or other staff as deemed necessary'' were
inserted in Section 6 (b) (3) under hire and compensate staff. While
most National Heritage Areas may find it necessary to hire individuals
with expertise in natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic,
recreational resource conservation, economic and community development
and heritage planning, others might find need for promotion or
marketing professionals, or development staff to help raise match
money. Simply stated, each National Heritage Area may have unique
requirements for staffing, and the legislation should provide language
that permits the hiring of staff consistent with the implementation of
the Management Plan.
5. Authorization of Appropriations
I fully understand and acknowledge that Congress has very difficult
budget considerations on an annual basis regarding the funding of many
worthwhile programs. Considering the return on investment that National
Heritage Areas have demonstrated, and as substantiated by the General
Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service, it would seem to
me that Congress would want to continue to fund programs that are able
to take the federal funding and leverage significant amounts of
private, local, and state investment. By proposing this legislation,
Congress recognizes the accomplishments and importance of National
Heritage Areas. However, at the same time, Congress is limiting the
appropriations and the ability of the National Heritage Areas to
fulfill their mission by arbitrarily capping the program. If the
resource protection that is being achieved today under the National
Heritage Area program were left solely to the National Park Service,
there is no doubt that the cost of the program would be substantially
larger.
Raising funds for any project becomes more difficult if one of the
key partner(s) withdraws or withholds funding. National Park Service
funding provides a level of credibility to the National Heritage Area
and assists in bringing other funding to the table. If our private,
local and state partners took the same approach as the proposed $15
million cap for the program, the National Heritage Area would struggle.
Establishing a $15 million cap for the Heritage Area Program could
become an unfunded mandate for the National Heritage Areas. Heritage
Areas could achieve National designation with no assurances of
participation and/or assistance from the National Park Service to
fulfill the requirements of the Management Plan. Consequently, the
National Heritage designation could become a burden on private, local,
and state partners as well as their sole responsibility.
Finally, the funding cap of $15 million dollars does not take into
account inflationary issues, nor does it take into account future
National Heritage Areas being designated by Congress. Under the
proposed scenario, the average amount per National Heritage Area would
be considerably less than the current appropriation for almost all of
the existing National Heritage Areas. This funding cap would
irreparably harm the National Heritage Areas and their programs.
For these reasons, we respectfully recommend that the Authorization
of Appropriations not be capped. We recommend that Congress consider
each year the collective funding needs of National Heritage Areas. This
will ensure a successful National Heritage Area program that exports
the National Park Service ethic of resource conservation while managing
the federal investment in a responsible manner.
6. NHAs must be able to be reauthorized
Some proposals for creating an NHA program have suggested limiting
the NHA to only 10 years of authorization and funding, after which the
NPS appropriations will be cut off. The astounding ratio of match money
to the NPS appropriations is, in part, a result of the federal
government's willingness to invest in the heritage projects first. This
seed money helps the NHA attract other investors, both public and
private. If the other investors know the NPS funding will cease at the
end of the authorization, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to
convince the other public and private funders that the project is worth
the investment. Additionally, if the NPS authorization ends, the
designation of ``national'' will continue, creating confusion in the
public's mind of the relationship of the heritage area to the National
Park Service. Finally, NHAs projects could continue long after the 10-
year authorization. Congress should provide for itself the opportunity
to review each NHAs work at the end of each authorization period for an
NHA and then, with a new plan from the NHA for the next 10 years, make
a determination if the NHA should be reauthorized to continue its work
in the community.
7. NHAs should be made, at least, affiliated units of the NPS
Currently NHAs exist as orphans within the National Park Service.
Despite all of the technical assistance and support from the regional
and Washington offices, . NHAs are left with inconsistent policies to
follow, varying between regional offices. Under the current system, for
example, NHAs cannot use the NPS Arrowhead without permission of the
NPS, and release of the annual appropriations to each NHA is
inconsistent. More importantly, budgeting for NHAs within the NPS is
often an afterthought, as evidenced by the Fiscal Year 2005 budget that
requests only $2.5 million overall for the 24 NHAs.
CONCLUSION
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe that National Heritage Areas
represent an innovative approach to resource conservation that works in
partnership with our private, local, state and federal partners to
conserve, interpret and develop our unique natural, historical and
recreational resource. As I stated earlier, with our proposed
recommendations this legislation offers the opportunity to create a
successful National Heritage Area program that exports the National
Park Service ethic of resource conservation to millions of Americans,
while leveraging significant amounts of private, local, state and
federal resources. If I can be of further assistance, I would like to
extend an offer to work with you and the sub-committee staff on the
development of this important piece of legislation.
On behalf of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, I want to
express our thanks to you for your leadership and support regarding
National Heritage Areas. With your leadership, we will create a model
for resource conservation for 21St Century, just as President Roosevelt
did with his creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. We greatly
appreciate both your strong interest and support for National Heritage
Areas and our efforts to celebrate our unique heritage while creating a
legacy for future generations.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before your Committee, and I am happy to answer any questions
that you, or other members of the Committee, might have.
Senator Thomas. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. SMITH, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR PRIVATE
CONSERVATION
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me here to testify on this bill.
I'm R.J. Smith, with the Center for Private Conservation,
an organization that documents the good efforts of private
groups and private landowners to protect the environment, and
with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a private-property
rights, limited-government think tank in Washington, as well as
with former Senator Malcolm Wallop's Frontiers of Freedom
Organization, another property-rights organization.
Mr. Chairman, I sit here today with a heavy heart and a
genuine feeling of sadness. It's a quarter of a century since
Ronald Reagan was elected and sent a telegram--they still had
them in those days--to the couple thousand people gathered from
all over the Nation in Salt Lake City for the National
Sagebrush Rebellion Conference. That was an effort by workers,
landowners, State and national legislatures, even a Governor or
two, to begin to take back the American land from the iron grip
of the Federal Government and its land-control agencies. They
wanted the Federal lands returned to the States, the counties,
local communities, and the people. Everyone recognized what a
lousy landlord and an incompetent land manager the Federal
Government was. Reagan's message to the movement was--as the
man himself, brief, direct, and to the point--he said, ``Count
me in. I'm a sagebrush rebel, too.''
He came to Washington from a State where the government
already owned over half the land, and he had seen its
mismanagement. He said, ``Enough. The government owns too much
land, and can't take care of what it owns.'' He said, ``The
government has to prove it can take care of what it already
has.'' He heroically stopped the Federal land grab, he zero-
budgeted the Land and Water Conservation Fund and more land
acquisition, and made an effort to begin to use the National
Park Service's budget to take care of the parks, not to expand
the parks.
Even a quarter of a century ago, there was a mind-boggling,
multi-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance and
repair, not only of the parks' infrastructure--decaying
historic lodges, buildings, undriveable roads, unsafe bridges--
but even the parks' national resources and assets--unsafe
drinking water, polluted streams, dying trees, unbalanced
wildlife populations, et cetera--ending with the crown jewel of
the Park Service, Yellowstone, burning down in the summer of
1988, when Reagan then ordered the Park Service to terminate
their misguided policy of natural regulation.
And a decade ago, when Republicans gained control of both
the House and the Senate and promised reform of environmental
legislation used to achieve cost-free national land-use control
rather than to protect the environment, and finally recognizing
the significance of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, ``Nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation,'' there was great hope amongst the property-
rights movement across the Nation.
There was a promise to enact Federal legislation protecting
private-property rights and mandating Federal agencies to pay
compensation to landowners for outright takings, partial
takings, and for the myth of regulatory takings, where the
Government simply says, ``You can't use your land, but we don't
have to pay you since we didn't take it from you.''
There were hearings here, actually in December 1995, in
this very room, to testify on a half dozen national heritage
corridor bills, all of which were less onerous, less far-
reaching, and less dangerous, less expansive, and less
expensive than we feel S. 2543 is, which will create an organic
act for the national heritage area program to become an
integral part, an entirely new bureau within the National Park
Service.
Interestingly, it appears that the Government, to some
degree, took the concerns for property-rights advocates more
seriously a decade ago, when there were at least three
representatives from property-rights groups testifying here in
this room. There was standing-room only with property-rights
people. Perhaps rather than flipping Interior's poor buffalo
from left to right to left, Interior should replace them with a
Federal steamroller, flattening the rights of a free people.
Mr. Chairman, the definition of a heritage area to come
under the purview of the National Park Service, as any national
significance to the heritage to the U.S. possessing, quote,
``unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic or
recreational resources of exceptional value or quality,'' we
believe is so vast, so all-encompassing, so expansive, so wide
as to permit the designation of almost any plot of land in the
Nation as a national heritage area. Civil War aficionados must
be rubbing their hands in glee, because no piece of hallowed
ground, from the cornfields of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to the
heights of Georgia's Stone Mountain, from the walls of Fort
Sumter, South Carolina, to the bluffs of Vicksburg on the
Mississippi River, will be safe from possible designation as a
new area controlled by the Park Service.
Senator, we do not believe that the mere 23 lines of
protections in this bill are adequate to protect private
property rights, regardless of what is prohibited in them. We
have seen this happen time after time after time. The
prohibitions on land-use acquisition or of outright land
acquisition with Federal money on the 24 existing heritage
areas--in one area, that has already passed by. And in the
Shenandoah National Heritage Area, they have acquired land with
Federal moneys. Also, the National Coal Heritage Area is
already calling for zoning to protect the areas. The Rivers of
Steel Heritage Area is calling for its being turned into an
actual national park.
There are a couple of very important examples of what has
happened in the past, where there have been the strictest
regulations and restrictions put in by Congress. In 1972, the
creation of the Buffalo National River in the Ozarks, it was
prohibited expressly of any land acquisition or forcing
landowners off the land. At that time, there were 1,108
landowners out there. Today, there are only eight left. In
1971, when the Cuyahoga National Recreation Area was created,
there were, again, restrictions--no land-taking, no
acquisition. They had to protect things with conservation
easements. And, nevertheless, this Park Service program led to
hundreds of homes and businesses being bulldozed and burned.
Mr. Chairman, I think the only way to adequately protect
private property rights if we want to save certain areas and
set them aside is not to create this program, to privatize
heritage areas now, and make all such programs totally private
and totally voluntary. I think it's time for the land trusts,
the chambers of commerce, the tourist bureaus, and so on, to
step up and stop taking private property, and protect these
areas the old-fashioned way, doing it by buying them.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think one issue that we
need--somebody needs to address in this country is, What is the
vision of the future? What is the legacy we're going to leave
for America and for our children? This is a free country built
on the whole concept of private property rights; and without
property rights, there are no other freedoms. The Government,
at all levels--Federal, State, county, municipal--has been
adding land, acquiring land, on a never-ending process.
Probably over 44 percent of all the land surface in the United
States is now owned by government at one level or another.
There is no country on the face of the Earth now, with the
U.S.S.R. and China gone, that has a more socialistic land-based
system than the United States. I think we need a vision of the
country that finds ways to tap the ingenuity and the voluntary
associations of private landowners and private associations to
protect areas privately.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be happy to entertain any
questions. And I have some additional comments I would like to
submit with my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert J. Smith, Adjunct Environmental Scholar,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Director, Center for Private
Conservation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the
opportunity to present testimony to the National Parks Subcommittee of
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
My name is R.J. Smith. I am adjunct environmental scholar at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. CEI is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the
principles of private property, free enterprise and limited government.
I am also director of the Center for Private Conservation, a nonprofit
organization that documents and publicizes information on the history
of private stewardship and conservation carried out by private
landowners and private associations. And I am director of environmental
studies at former U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop's Frontiers of Freedom
Foundation. I am also representing the concerns and interests of
hundreds of property rights organizations, wise-use and multiple-use
organizations, and small landowners who have been opposing such
legislation for over a decade.
S. 2543, the ``National Heritage Partnership Act' represents an
unfortunate shift to an even worse bill that previous such legislation.
It goes beyond the rather informal efforts to bring Federal recognition
to the existing heritage areas and heritage corridors created by
individual policy bills, to the creation of an organic act for the
establishment of a National Heritage Area program within the Department
of the Interior and specifically the National Park Service. In effect,
this bill will create an entirely new Federal land management program.
The National Park Service and Congress will be involved in creation
of the ``local coordinating entity'', an organizing group which is
often composed of elitists with a preservationist, environmentalist,
conservationist agenda--which can be widely different form the day-to-
day concerns of many, if not most, of the people who actually live on
the land.
The National Park Service will provide assistance and funding the
creation of the management plan for the proposed National Heritage
Area. Once officially designated by the Secretary of Interior, the
National Park Service will provide operating funding of up to $1
million per year per National Heritage Area, with an upper maximum
limit of $10 million dollars for any individual heritage area. Also,
each local coordinating entity must obtain an equal amount of matching
funds from non-federal sources.
At every stage there will be Federal direction, Federal assistance
and Federal funding. At a time of growing concern about out of control
Federal spending and Federal deficits, the funding provided in S. 2543
has been increased by 50 percent over earlier bills from $10 million
per year to $15 million per year. Certainly a very disturbing sign.
Mr. Chairman, what is the urgent need for a new national parks land
management and spending program? For decades we have known about the
deplorable fact that the National Park Service was far more interested
in following a path of ever more land acquisition, and that caring for
the lands they had was at best an afterthought. The administration of
President Ronald Reagan and Interior Secretary James Watt attempted,
mainly unsuccessfully, to stop additional land acquisition until the
Government could demonstrate that it could be a good steward of the
lands it already owned.
Less than a year ago, President George Bush and Interior Secretary
Gale Norton announced that at long last this administration would begin
the long-overdue effort to eliminate the backlog of some $6 billion in
deferred maintenance and protection of the parks and their resources
and physical infrastructure. Now, unfortunately, with the ink hardly
dry on those planning documents, we see an entire new National Park
Service program about to be launched.
What is especially disturbing about this bill is the combining of
National Park Service direction, control and funding with the criteria
for creation of a National Heritage Area.
A National Heritage Area is an area ``nationally significant'' to
the heritage of the U.S. and possesses ``unique natural, historical,
cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational resources of exceptional
value or quality.''
This definition (in section 2, paragraph 3 and 4-a) is so broad, so
wide-scale and so all-encompassing that it could include almost any
area in the entire nation. Essentially, proponents of the National Park
Service would be able to create new park controlled and directed lands
almost anywhere in the country. One can only wonder what possible
vision of America the supporters of such a program could have and where
it fits within an earlier vision of America as a free society based
upon private ownership of lands.
Far more disturbing are the management plans, specifically sections
5-a-1 and 5-a-2. The Interior Department and National Park Service
guided and approved management plan must include ``comprehensive
policies, goals, strategies, and recommendations . . . encouraging
long-term resource protection, enhancement, interpretation, funding,
management, and development of the National Heritage Area.''
Further, the management plan must ``include a description of the
actions and commitments that governments, private organizations, and
citizens will take to protect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and
develop the natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, and
recreational resources of the National Heritage Area.''
Those two paragraphs are nothing less than a mandate for Federal
Government land-use control--period. This belies all suggestions, all
wording elsewhere, purporting to provide protections for private
property rights and private landowners.
This is the appropriate place to note that former National Park
Service employee and senior staff member of the House Resources
Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands, Steve Hodapp, who was a longtime avid promoter of National
Heritage Area legislation, suggested such ``problems'' in his response
to efforts by property rights advocates to build in protections for
private property.
A proposal suggested by many people was to provide ``opt-out''
language in the legislation to permit private landowners to make their
intentions known that they did not want to be included with the
heritage area and that they were opting out.
As Steve Hodapp correctly noted, no one can opt out of a National
Heritage Area. It is a physical and geographical impossibility. One is
either inside the boundaries of a National Heritage Area or outside the
boundaries. And if one is within the boundaries, and there is a
management plan that prescribes, indeed mandates, programs and
activities to protect, enhance, and manage natural and scenic values
within the National Heritage Area--in one way or another private
landowners are not going to be allowed to convert their cornfield to a
pig farm or to paint their silo purple with yellow stripes.
Mr. Chairman, if there are so many areas of scenic, historic and
tourist importance, where is the justification for these areas to
become part of the National Park Service? Whatever happened to the
concept of private activities, voluntary association, the activities of
nonprofit organizations? If it is so important to protect and obtain
visitation for the ruins of historic Spanish churches along the lower
Rio Grande valley, why must this be done by the Government? It would be
far more consistent with the spirit of the Nation to have the local
chamber of commerce erect a billboard on each end of the town, saying
visit our quaint, scenic, historic, educational Spanish ruins while you
are in town. It would be much cheaper. And it would be far less of a
threat to private property rights.
Mr. Chairman, in spite of assurances and wording to the contrary,
we view this as nothing more than a continued attack on the very
institution of private property, which is the underpinning of our
unique free and prosperous society. All of our freedom is built upon
the right of private property, and without private property right no
other rights or freedoms are possible--they are merely illusory. Our
founding fathers based our Nation and our freedom on the rights of
life, liberty and property. Men as different in their thinking as
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton all agreed on the need for wide
devolution of the Federal lands to ensure a Nation of free and
productive men and women.
Yet we now have a Nation where at least 42 percent of all the land
is owned by government at one level or another, including Federal
lands, State lands, county lands, local and community lands, and native
trust lands. The totals for governmental land ownership are so large
and complex that it is even difficult to obtain exact figures on the
total amounts of land ownership by each level of government and the
various agencies within those governments. One would think there would
be some serious effort at inventorying what government already owns
before setting out on a massive permanent program of endless additional
governmental acquisitions of private lands.
It is important to stop and consider the significance of the fact
that government at all levels in America already owns over 42 percent
of the Nation's land. This is a staggeringly high percentage of
government ownership of land and resources in a free society,
supposedly based upon the beliefs of the founding fathers that the
cornerstone of all our freedom depends upon the widest possible
distribution of private ownership of property. In a most interesting
observation, the liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote: ``The
public lands of the United States exceed the combined areas of Germany,
France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark and Albania. When
socialized ownership of land is concerned, only the U.S.S.R. and China
can claim company with the United States.''
Galbraith made those observations prior to the collapse of
Communism, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the termination of the
collective farms across China. Thus it would appear that, and is
probably likely that, the United States of America probably has the
most socialistic land ownership system in the world. One would hope
that this would give the Republican-controlled Congress some second
thoughts before they become engaged in an aggressive program to extend
the tentacles of government, land management and land ownership still
further and to destroy still more of the underlying private property
that ensures the freedom of our people.
It is way past time for some true vision on the part of our
Government and its leaders. It is time to halt the never-ending trend
to more and more government land-use control and land acquisition. If
we are to maintain a free and prosperous society, it is well past time
to first say: No more land acquisition and no more land-use control. We
need someone to step forward with a true legacy with a national program
and mandate of first no net loss of private land. And then someone to
actually undertake a government land devolution, returning the land to
the private ownership and stewardship envisioned by the founding
fathers and rediscovering the unique tradition of Tocquevillian private
action and voluntary association.
Private landowners in every part of the country who have seen their
land or their neighbors' taken through Government regulation have every
reason to be deeply suspicious of any new Federal program, particularly
one based in the Department of the Interior, and even more importantly
a program emanating from the National Park Service. Even if this new
program will purportedly do little more than designate National
Heritage Areas, and then only create a system of federal designation
and funding.
Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable litany of innocuous-sounding,
well-meaning, Department of Interior programs which were created by the
Congress with clear directions that the National Park Service was to
preserve the local communities and culture and was not to condemn or
acquire private lands.
Yet these programs went drastically awry and offer no hope that
this new program would turn out any better.
Briefly, in 1972 the Buffalo National River was created near the
Ozarks in Arkansas. The area's people, community and especially culture
were so unique that they were featured in a major story in the National
Geographic. The people, their homes, and culture were supposed to be
preserved. When the area was created in 1972 there were 1,108
landowners along the river. When NBC aired a major news program on the
Buffalo National River on its fifteenth anniversary in 1987 during a
debate over how the National Park Service treated landowners--there
were only eight (8) landowners remaining. Despite the clear intent and
mandate of the Congress, the Federal bulldozer removed the people,
their homes, communities and their unique culture.
When the Cuyahoga National Recreation area was created in Ohio in
1971, the Congress again called for the preservation of the community,
rejected condemnation and acquisition and called for the use of
easements. By the early 1980's hundreds of homes had been bulldozed and
burned as people lost their ancestral homes and small businesses and
the few remaining homes in the recreation area belonged to a handful of
people who were wealthy and sophisticated enough, and with sufficient
connections and competent legal advice to hold out from the Federal
bulldozers. Among that handful were Congressman John Siberling and the
editor of the Akron Beacon-Journal. Once again the plain people lost
everything to a harmless program, created to preserve their
communities, homes and cultures--and with no power to take their
private lands. And yet they lost everything.
That is why the twenty-three (23) lines of subsection (h), Private
Property Protection, offers little meaningful protection over the long-
run to any landowners who may find themselves and their homes and
property within the boundaries of a federally-designated National
Heritage Area or National Heritage Corridor.
private alternatives to the national heritage partnership act
This proposed legislation completely overlooks and neglects
America's long and unique heritage of private conservation and private
stewardship. America has a long and successful tradition of private
land trusts which have voluntarily and privately acquired land to
protect a wide range of environmental, historic and scenic values. This
tradition dates back to at least 1891 with the creation of the Trustees
of Reservations in Massachusetts. The creation of an entirely new
system of local or county heritage parks, corridors, recreation areas
and trails fits far better into such a system of private action than
into one funded by Federal taxpayers. Everything from local garden
clubs finding voluntary ways to preserve a wet woods with the county's
last stand of rare orchids, to horseback riders and snowmobilers
creating voluntary right-of-way for non-intrusive public trails across
private lands, to private funding to restore historic sites, have
repeatedly been accomplished easily and without conflict because they
were all voluntary and did not entail the heavy hand of the Federal
Government--and especially of the National Park Service.
If this program is truly to be the non-regulatory program that many
of its proponents have asserted, then achieving its goals through
private action is the way to prove it.
America has a long and exceptionally successful history of private
stewardship of environmental amenities. In fact the first private land
trust in the world was the Trustees of Reservations (TTOR) which was
created in Massachusetts in 1891 as a nonprofit, charitable corporation
for conservation purposes to protect the countryside of Massachusetts
and especially to preserve for the public its ``beautiful and
historical places and tracts of land.''
This was the first independent, private, nongovernmental
organization in the United States established for the purpose of land
preservation. Its purpose was to preserve in perpetuity areas with
unique natural importance, scenic beauty, and historic value. Charles
Eliot, son of the then president of Harvard College, deserves much of
the credit for developing the idea of ``promoting conservation through
voluntary agencies.'' In February 1890 he wrote to Garden and Forest
magazine, urging the protection of the countryside throughout
Massachusetts. He expressed concern that ``several bits of scenery
which possess uncommon beauty and unusual refreshing power are in daily
danger of destruction.'' He further urged the establishment of ``an
incorporated association composed of citizens of [Massachusetts] and
empowered by the State to hold small and well-distributed parcels of
land free of taxes, just as the public library holds books and the art
museum pictures for the use and enjoyment of the public. Its 1891 rules
and regulations called for it to hold and maintain for the public
``beautiful and historical place and tracts of land within this
commonwealth.''
Over the years the Trustees of Reservations have acquired and are
custodians for nearly 100 properties from Western Berkshire County to
Cape Cod and Nantucket. These lands have been acquired in fee, through
gift, bequest, and purchase with funds raised privately for their
acquisition. Additional areas are protected through conservation
easements and restrictions or are otherwise indirectly protected.
TTOR served as the model for the creation of similar land trusts
throughout the world, beginning in 1894 with the National Trust in
England.
The private land trust movement has been one of the fastest growing
areas of land conservation in America. There are probably over 2000
such land trusts operating today, protecting everything from open space
and prime agricultural land to the restoration, protection and
conservation of old barns.
Indeed, there are so many private land trusts, working in so many
different areas of private conservation and preservation, that they
have a national umbrella organization, the Land Trust Alliance, which
was formed in 1982.
It would seem that all of the legitimate preservation, conservation
and recreation goals of the National Heritage Partnership Act could
easily and legitimately be undertaken by private land trusts.
Considering that the environmental movement raises hundreds of millions
of dollars every year, and some estimates place the annual total
receipts of all the Nation's environmental and conservation
organizations as high as $3 billion each year, it should require little
more than dedication and determination to raise the $15 million
requested for the National Heritage Partnership Act.
A series of voluntary heritage area trusts would be fully in
keeping with the Nation's long history of voluntary association and
private conservation activities, and since all relationships between
the various trusts and private landowners would necessarily be
voluntary and contractual--there would be no threat to private property
rights, there would be far less opposition to the program, and it would
be consistent with the national efforts to reduce the size and cost of
government.
national heritage partnership act as a threat to wildlife
One of the most disturbing ironies of this act is that it may very
likely lead to serious environmental harm, pitting the recreationist
wing of the environmental movement against the conservationist wing,
with little public awareness of this fact.
Many, if not most, of the 110 or so proposed National Heritage
Areas and National Heritage Corridors, as well as some of the few that
are operational today, are located along or adjacent to rivers,
streams, lakes and wetlands. This is where most of the proponents of
these heritage areas would like to have parks, recreation areas, and
especially trails and paths. Almost all of these corridors will
encompass some sort of trail system: greenways, bikeways, scenic
trails, national trails, snowmobile trails, jogging paths, rails-to-
trails, canoe trails with put-in and take-out areas, campgrounds,
picnic sites, picnic tables, etc. and that is not an exhaustive list.
Unfortunately all of these recreational/tourist trails and
corridors will be cutting a swath through--i.e., fragmenting--some of
the last remaining vital riparian habitat in the United States. For
years the conservationists and proponents of ecosystem protection and
biodiversity protection have warned of the accelerated loss of riparian
habitat. They have identified this as some of the most important and
critical habitat in the nation, as well as being one of the most
rapidly disappearing ecosystems.
Part of its importance, aside form its function in protecting
streams and wetlands, is as breeding habitat for a substantial number
of wildlife species, especially birds, which are easily subject to
disturbance and which are not well adapted to new threats. Of
particular concern are those neotropical migrants, the birds breeding
in the U.S. and Canada which winter in Central and South America. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other Federal and State agencies, and
most conservation groups have expressed extreme concern about the
growing and dire plight of a great many of these birds. It is argued
that the major reason their populations are declining so rapidly is
because of the fragmentation of their breeding habitat in this country
and loss of their wintering habitat south of the border.
While there is relatively little that can be done quickly on their
winter grounds, there have been calls from all quarters to immediately
limit and reduce fragmentation of their breeding habitat. Whenever a
housing subdivision is proposed, or a new sports arena out in the
countryside, or when a landowner proposes to cut a road through his
brush-covered hillside to allow his cattle to move from one pasture to
another, or when a timber company proposes even a modest clear-cut--
warnings regarding the consequences of any additional habitat
fragmentation are quickly sounded.
Constructing trails and recreation corridors through the remaining
narrow remnants of riparian habitat along most of the rivers and
streams likely to be proposed for National Heritage Areas will almost
totally fragment these habitats, leaving little protection for nesting
neotropical migrant birds. A path down the middle of a riparian forest
opens up both sides to substantially increased predation by brown-
headed cowbirds, which are nest parasites on these species. They lay
their eggs in the nests of smaller species, which end up raising only a
cowbird, and none of their own young. Cowbirds follow even the
narrowest of paths deep into the woods, searching for nests to
parasitize.
Additionally, jays, grackles and crows follow these trails and find
access to the eggs and young of many songbirds. Also raccoons,
opossums, feral dogs, feral cats and free-roaming house cats and
barnyard cats use these trails and corridors with their human scents
and food scraps and waste as little more that a buffet line.
With all of the attention given to the complaints of
environmentalists concerning the harm from habitat fragmentation
resulting from highway construction, home building, timber harvest or
even firebreak construction, it is disturbing that little if any
attention is being given to fragmentation of perhaps the most
endangered type of habitat--the riparian zones being turned into
recreational trails, corridors and greenways. It seems that some
environmentalists oppose anything that fragments habitat except those
things that benefit themselves and their constituents.
If the National Heritage Partnership Act does become law, it should
at the very least be subject to all the NEPA requirements and the
necessity of preparing a detailed EIS regarding the impact of each and
every National Heritage Area and National Heritage Corridor on riparian
habitat, wetlands habitat, and especially upon the neotropical
songbirds which utilize the areas.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is not the sort of program the
Federal Government should be undertaking at this time. The program
should be undertaken voluntarily by private citizens' groups,
conservation organizations, chambers of commerce, and tourism boards on
a local level, by local people, spending their own money, not other
people's money.
Senator Thomas. Okay, fine. Thank you.
Mr. Obey.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG D. OBEY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Obey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, my name's Craig Obey, vice
president for Government Affairs at the National Parks
Conservation Association. On behalf of our 300,000 members, I'd
like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S.
2543.
I also want to begin by thanking both of you for the
leadership that you've demonstrated in pushing Congress and the
administration to fund the operating needs annually of the
national parks. Your help has been indispensable, and we
greatly appreciate the work you're doing there.
National heritage areas are not units of the National Park
System; however, they can and do play an important role in
commemorating, protecting, and interpreting important facets of
our nation's natural, cultural, historic, and recreational
resources through locally driven efforts.
As the subcommittee knows, national heritage areas are
gaining popularity with many communities and members of
Congress. So far during the 108th Congress, 38 bills have been
introduced to designate or study 21 areas, bringing into stark
relief the need to develop consistent standards. It is our hope
that S. 2543 will help produce the highest-possible quality
decisions and legislation related to national heritage areas.
We also believe that the analysis now being undertaken by
the National Park System Advisory Board will provide useful
perspective on the questions with which the subcommittee is
grappling on the role, place and future of national heritage
areas.
We appreciate and applaud the chairman's effort to better
define the national heritage area program within the Park
Service. NPCA has a strong history of supporting standards for
the consideration of new units of the National Park System,
standards that play an essential role in maintaining the degree
of integrity that exists in the National Park System today. We
believe that the national heritage areas program can benefit
from a similar effort to define standards.
We applaud your effort as part of S. 2543 to require that
national heritage areas have national significance--maybe
``importance,'' as the Park Service determined; I'm not sure
which way to go there--and define the mechanisms through which
such significance is determined. The standards you set forth,
if implemented, can help ensure that a national heritage areas
program has the highest-possible degree of integrity. Of
course, their ultimate application will depend, to a very large
degree, on the political will of Congress to adhere to them. As
a practical matter, it's instructive that the only heritage
area enacted during the 108th Congress so far was enacted as
part of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill, something
authorizers love.
We agree with the need for discipline with regard to
funding the national heritage areas. Unlike the Federal
commitment with regard to the National Park System, virtually
all legislation creating national heritage areas contemplates
the eventual sunset for Federal funding after either 10 or 15
years. If a national heritage area cannot wean itself from
these modest Federal funds within a 15-year timeframe, as the
chairman's legislation contemplates, then we would tend to
question the degree of stakeholder support that such an area
legitimately can claim.
S. 2543 contemplates capping the annual funding
authorization for all national heritage areas at $15 million,
with a $750,000 annual cap for funding suitability studies. We
believe a cap may be worthy of exploration, but that the $15
million cap is unrealistic, given current funding levels. As
the subcommittee may know, the Interior appropriations measure
recently passed by the House proposes $15.1 million this year
for national heritage areas, so that would already break the
cap that's in your bill.
We appreciate the chairman's desire to ensure that the
national heritage areas, given their rapidly growing
popularity, do not become a significant drain on the National
Park Service budget. NPCA is extremely concerned, as you know,
about the shortfall of more than $600 million in the Park
Service's annual budget, and about the impact that is having on
the Park Service's ability to protect our national treasures
and serve those who visit them.
As the subcommittee knows, the parks are experiencing a
variety of service cutbacks this summer because of the
cumulative failure over the years by Congress and the executive
branch in meeting the parks' annual needs. In the last 3 years
alone, the national parks have had to absorb $170 million in
new unfunded costs, including the cost of unfunded homeland
security demands, unfunded cost-of-living adjustments, and
unreimbursed damage or other impacts from natural disasters.
Part of ensuring that the parks receive the resources they
need involves ensuring that the flow of reliable information
about park needs, and the submission of realistic budgets that
reflect those needs, occurs. In this year's proposed budget,
for example, the administration requested $2.5 million for
heritage areas, compared to the fiscal year enacted amount of
14.3 million. The same lowballing occurred with regard to the
employee cost-of-living increases on homeland security needs.
Over time, such unrealistic estimates take their toll, and we
are seeing the results of that in many national parks this
summer.
Congress has had its part in this mess, as well. For
example, across-the-board cuts in the Interior bill in the last
couple of years have cost the Park Service's annual budget
roughly $20 million, nearly $5 million more than the annual
budget for national heritage areas.
The point of raising this is simply to illustrate the need
to set realistic targets that can contribute to enforcing
discipline in a way that's sustainable. In this regard, we
would question whether a $15 million cap is realistic, as I
stated earlier. We would, however, suggest a way to help focus
coordinating entities under the bill on the fact that their
funding should ultimately phaseout. We suggest that section 6
of the bill be amended to require that, as part of the annual
report required for each national heritage area, the
coordinating entity also specify specific performance goals
related to making the heritage area self-sustaining upon the
expiration of Federal funding, as well as progress toward those
goals.
My written testimony includes suggestions with regard to
several other specific aspects of the bill. I'd welcome the
opportunity to talk further with the subcommittee about these
and a handful of other minor issues.
In conclusion, although we've had a limited time to review
S. 2543, our initial analysis makes us pleased to support the
chairman's legislation, with some modest adjustments that can
help its effectiveness and clarify its intent.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm pleased
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Obey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig D. Obey, Vice President for Government
Affairs, National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Craig Obey, Vice
President for Government Affairs for the National Parks Conservation
Association. On behalf of the 300,000 members of NPCA, I thank you for
the opportunity to testify today regarding S. 2543, the National
Heritage Partnership Act.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking you for your leadership
in pushing Congress and the administration to provide the national
parks with the operating resources they need to protect our national
treasures and to serve the American people. Your help, along with that
of Senator Akaka and many other members of this subcommittee, is
absolutely essential and we greatly appreciate your efforts.
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
National Heritage Areas are not units of the National Park System.
However, they can and do play an important role in commemorating,
protecting, and interpreting important facets of our nation's natural,
cultural, historic and recreational resources. They are locally driven
and bring together a broad range of stakeholders at the federal, state
and local levels in efforts to preserve important aspects of our shared
heritage.
NPCA has supported the creation of some National Heritage Areas in
the past, including the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National
Heritage Corridor, the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, and
the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. We
supported these areas because they provided an important, community-
driven means to preserve nationally significant historical and cultural
areas at relatively low cost, while facilitating the interpretation of
significant aspects of our cultural heritage.
As the subcommittee knows, National Heritage Areas are gaining
popularity with many communities and members of Congress, for reasons
ranging from the desire to preserve and protect ``cultural landscapes''
to efforts to foster economic development and heritage tourism. So far
during the 108th Congress, members of the Senate and House have
introduced 26 designation bills related to 15 areas, and another 8
study bills on 6 areas. The implications of that popularity on the
relative meaning of a designation as a National Heritage Area and on
the federal resources devoted to these various areas brings into stark
relief the need to develop consistent standards for them.
Understandably, the lack of standards or a systematic approach to
designating National Heritage Areas over the last two decades has
resulted in inconsistent criteria and a variety of components and
charges being included in authorizing legislation for the 24 existing
areas.
Perhaps the issue that has most impacted recent attempts to
designate new areas has been the need to develop standards. It is
noteworthy, particularly as the subcommittee examines how and whether
to enact a measure like S. 2543, that the only National Heritage Area
enacted into law so far during the 108th Congress was designated as
part of the FY 2004 Interior appropriations bill. Despite efforts such
as S. 2543, political pressure undoubtedly will continue to affect the
designation, or lack thereof, of various National Heritage Areas. It is
our hope that standard criteria, mechanisms and processes for studying
and designating new areas will help produce the highest possible
quality decisions and legislation related to National Heritage Areas.
Toward this end, the National Park System Advisory Board has also been
looking into the role of National Heritage Areas as they relate to the
National Park Service's mission, as well as the appropriate level of
assistance and management that the Park Service should provide, among
other issues. We expect this examination to provide a useful
perspective on the questions with which the subcommittee is grappling
on the role, place, and future of National Heritage Areas.
STANDARDS
We appreciate and applaud the Chairman's effort to better define
the National Heritage Area ``program'' within the Park Service. In
fact, the 2001 report by the National Park System Advisory Board,
entitled Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century,
recommended that a formal Heritage. Areas program be established ``to
support partnerships among communities, so that the full scope of the
American experience is revealed.'' A host of others have also raised
the need to define standard criteria.
NPCA has a long history of supporting standards for the
consideration of new units of the National Park System. Standards have
played an essential role in maintaining the degree of integrity that
exists in the National Park System today. We believe that the National
Heritage Areas program can benefit from a similar effort to define
standards.
We applaud your effort as part of S. 2543 to require that National
Heritage Areas have national significance, and to define the mechanism
through which such significance is determined. The standards you set
forth, if implemented, can help ensure that a National Heritage Areas
program has the highest possible degree of integrity. However, as the
subcommittee knows, such standards ultimately will be only as effective
as Congress has the political will to allow them. National Heritage
Areas already include portions of 114 congressional districts, and
include formal and informal relationships between the Park Service and
roughly 3,500 partners. These numbers of constituents will continue to
grow as new heritage areas are created, making it doubly important to
set expectations up front with regard to the resources that the areas
can expect to receive from the National Park Service.
FUNDING
We agree with the need for discipline with regard to the funding
provided to National Heritage Areas. Unlike the federal commitment with
regard to National Park System units, virtually all existing
legislation creating National Heritage Areas contemplates the eventual
sunset of federal funding. The funds provided through those bills are
generally envisioned as seed money to enable the areas to get up and
running and leverage additional local, state, and regional dollars.
Consequently, it is important that National Heritage Areas not become
overly dependent on federal seed funds. The authorizing legislation for
individual areas typically has included federal funding sunsets after
either 10 or 15 years. If a National Heritage Area cannot wean itself
from these modest federal funds within a 15-year timeframe, as the
Chairman's legislation contemplates, then we would tend to question the
degree of stakeholder support that such an area legitimately can claim.
It is important to note, however, that a very small number of
existing areas have a somewhat different purpose than the vast majority
of existing National Heritage Areas. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields,
for example, is actually charged with preserving 10 Civil War
battlefields in the historic Shenandoah Valley, and uses easements and
fee purchases to do so. This model is relatively unique, and plays an
important role in preserving resources that otherwise could very well
disappear. Such an option should not necessarily be foreclosed in the
future.
S. 2543 contemplates capping the annual funding authorization for
all National Heritage Areas at $15 million, with a $750,000 annual cap
for funding ``suitability-feasibility'' studies. We believe a cap is
worthy of exploration, but that the $15 million cap is unrealistic
given current funding levels. As the subcommittee may know, the
Interior appropriations measure recently passed by the House proposes
$15.1 million in fiscal year 2005 for Heritage Partnership Programs.
Given that fact, we question whether a $15 million cap would be
sustainable at this point.
We appreciate the Chairman's desire to ensure that National
Heritage Areas, given their rapidly growing popularity, do not become a
significant drain on the National Park Service budget. NPCA is
extremely concerned about the shortfall of more than $600 million in
the Park Service's annual operating budget, and about the impact that
is having on the Park Service's ability to protect our national
treasures and serve those who visit them. As the subcommittee knows,
the parks are experiencing a variety of service cutbacks this summer
because of the cumulative failure over the years by Congress and the
executive branch in meeting the parks' annual needs.
In the last three years, alone, the national parks have had to
absorb $170 million in new, unfunded costs, including the costs of
unfunded homeland security demands, unfunded cost of living
adjustments, and unreimbursed damage or other impacts from natural
disasters.
Part of ensuring that the national parks receive the resources they
need involves ensuring the flow of reliable information about park
needs and the submission of realistic budgets that reflect those needs.
In this year's proposed budget, for example, the administration
requested $2.5 million for National Heritage Areas, compared to the FY
2004 enacted amount of $14.3 million. The same ``lowballing'' occurred
with regard to employee cost of living increases and homeland security
needs. Over time, such unrealistic estimates take their toll, and we
are seeing the results of that in many national parks this summer.
Congress has had its part in this mess as well. For example,
across-the-board cuts in the Interior appropriations bill last year,
alone, cost the Park Service's operating budget roughly $20 million--
nearly $5 million more than the total amount of the budget for National
Heritage Areas.
The point of raising this is to illustrate the need to set
realistic targets that can contribute to enforcing discipline in a way
that is sustainable. In this regard, we would question whether a $15
million cap is realistic, as the Appropriations Committee may very well
exceed it this year. In addition, we suggest that section 6 of the bill
be amended to require that, as part of the annual report required for
each National Heritage Area, the coordinating entity also specify
specific performance goals related to making the heritage area self-
sustaining upon the expiration of federal funding, as well as progress
toward those goals.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Another way to help ensure sustained discipline is to ensure that
the process developed is perceived as effective and fair. We believe
the bill does a relatively good job in this regard. However, depending
on how section 4(d)(2) is implemented, it could frustrate proponents of
both worthy and unworthy designation proposals in a manner that defeats
the purpose of the criteria in the bill. Section 4(d)(2) reserves the
option for the Secretary to recommend against designation of a proposed
area based on budgetary impact or ``any other factor unrelated to the
criteria'' set forth in the bill. We believe that the worthiness of a
particular proposal should be clearly separated from the political
position of any administration regarding whether it should be
designated. We are not convinced that the language in section 4(d)(2)
adequately accomplishes this end.
With regard to section 6(c), the prohibition on acquisition of real
property, the language appears to be sufficiently narrowly crafted that
we have no objection, based on our preliminary examination. For
example, we assume this would not impact the potential acquisition by
national park units that reside within the borders of a National
Heritage Area and that it would not impact the continued ability of an
area like Shenandoah Valley Battlefield to meet its mandates related to
land acquisition.
In addition, we interpret the bill as providing prospective, not
retrospective standards, and as not generally applying to areas already
designated, with the exception of the authorization of funds. However,
this is an issue that may merit clarification in order to minimize
unnecessary confusion. For example, the authorizations of
appropriations in section 9 appear to be directed at existing and new
areas, while the remainder of the bill is directed at areas yet to be
designated. The subcommittee may want to add a savings clause to
clarify this issue.
We would welcome the opportunity to talk further with the
subcommittee about these and a handful of other minor issues as you
proceed with consideration of the bill.
CONCLUSION
In summary, although we have had limited time in which to review S.
2543, our initial analysis makes us pleased to support the Chairman's
legislation, with some modest adjustments that can help its
effectiveness and clarify its intent. Part of the value of National
Heritage Areas is as a low-cost partnership tool to preserve threatened
pieces of America's culture, history and scenery that may not be
readily susceptible to other traditional designations or forms of
protection. Properly executed, National Heritage Areas can empower
local communities and other stakeholders to protect nationally
important aspects of local culture and history they cherish and build
strong community support for their preservation and interpretation. It
is important that the National Heritage Area program facilitate that
support in a manner that maximizes the likelihood of success. Part of
that success requires that these programs ultimately be self-
sustaining. We believe that S. 2543, with some relatively modest
changes, has the potential to be quite helpful in this regard.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Thomas. Fine. Well, thank you, gentlemen. We
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Rice, you mentioned--and I guess I'm a little unclear
about it--the Secretary having veto power. Now, I don't quite
understand that. It seems to me there's two things. One is the
Interior Department can make a recommendation, but the Congress
decides, don't they?
Mr. Rice. You are correct, sir. And I don't have the
specific section of the bill in front of me. But when I read
over the bill, there is a section in there that basically says
if the national heritage area meets all the criteria for
national significance, the Secretary, due to any--quite
frankly, any reason, including budgetary reasons, can withhold
providing that designation. And we just feel, Mr. Chairman,
that that should be your purview, as opposed to the Secretary
of the Interior's.
Senator Thomas. I agree with that, and I think that's our
intention. It may not be the way it is, but that's the
intention that we have, I guess.
Now, you mentioned that there shouldn't be any limitation
on the definition of the hiring and the personnel.
Mr. Rice. I believe--actually, the language I was
recommending, Mr. Chairman, is to basically allow for other
definitions that may be appropriate to fulfill the management
plan.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Rice. I mean, for instance, some management plans may
need to hire a development director to actually go out and
actually raise the money. They may need the assistance of a
marketing individual to actually go out and market the
different resources. Those two positions, in particular, were
not included in the list of definitions. And, you know, we're
not saying that it has to be limited to that, and we're also
not suggesting that it should have unlimited staff. Our
particular heritage area, for instance, Mr. Chairman, we have
six staff members. And actually we have two regional existing
nonprofits already in existence, so we didn't actually go out
and hire new staff; we just basically picked up a lot of the
workload that was already there. And of our Federal
appropriations, we use about 10 percent--10 to 15 percent of
our Federal appropriation for administrative purposes; most of
that goes right into the projects, into the communities. And
it's intentionally set up that way so that, quite frankly,
we're not dependent on the Federal funding. At the same time,
however, we want to be able to leverage those dollars and get
them in the communities where they belong, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Smith, we do have a heritage program.
Mr. Smith. I know, sir.
Senator Thomas. So this effort is to make it work better.
It isn't a matter of whether you're going to have one or not,
as much as you--I guess that's your point of view, we shouldn't
have any. And it doesn't require any purchase of Federal land
or--I agree with you, I think there ought to be a limit on the
amount of Federal land we have for purposes. But this does not
require ownership of land, does it?
Mr. Smith. The stated purpose does not, although it does
say that heritage areas may go out and acquire land.
Supposedly, they're supposed to do it with private funds. But,
as we've already seen, the Shenandoah Valley Heritage Area has
used Federal funds for land acquisition. And the main thing
that we're worried about is, all of these other areas--some of
the wild and scenic rivers, some of the recreation areas--with
even more explicit restrictions on what can be done to
landowners. Landowners have ultimately lost their land, through
one manner or another.
I mean, our fears here is that this is not going to lead to
fewer areas, or better; it's going to lead to more areas,
because, as Deputy Director Jones said, people want the plaque
and want the name, and so there are going to be more people
queuing up as this is now an official program of the National
Park Service. And I think quickly it will be out of control and
continue to grow.
One of the problems that we have is that the real problem
of people who are inside a designated heritage area, and there
is essentially nothing they can do about it. A lot of the
property-rights community have believed in something called
``opt out,'' the ability to opt out. But, in some of the heated
hearings that we have, very confrontational hearings that we
had on the House over many years, Mr. Steve Hodapp, who is
probably the point person on the House Resources Committee and
formerly worked with the Park Service to create this program,
pointed out to the property-rights people that opt-out sections
are simply meaningless, a will-o'-the-wisp. You're either
inside the geographical boundaries of an area, or you're not
inside it. You're either inside or outside. And if you're
inside, since it was created to protect some sort of values,
whether scenic or cultural or historic or whatever, then if you
decide that you, as a private landowner, are going to put in a
pig farm or paint your silo purple with yellow stripes,
somebody somewhere is going to find a way to regulate you and
control you in there.
Senator Thomas. Do you know any examples of that in
heritage?
Mr. Smith. I will submit some examples to you in writing,
sir.
Senator Thomas. The Shenandoah one that you used had
specific area and language for that, which this is not the same
language as the Shenandoah. So, you know, we're trying to
keep--as I said, I agree with you. On the other hand, I have to
tell you, where I grew up, right outside of Yellowstone, our
ranch was on the border of the Shoshone Forest. Now I go out
there, and all below that is full of houses and so on. I'm kind
of glad that we set that aside. So your broad statement that it
all ought to be privately owned, I think you'd have to take
another look at that if you got out and looked at some of those
areas.
Mr. Smith. May I make one additional comment?
Senator Thomas. Absolutely.
Mr. Smith. One of the things we have had, even in areas
like this--I mean, part of the genius of the American people--
Tocqueville's observations about America's use of voluntary
associations, private actions going back to 1891, the first
land trust in the world was created by the son of the president
of Harvard University, in Massachusetts, called the Trustees of
Reservations. This was over a hundred years ago. And he was
worried, at that time, the private sector, about urban sprawl.
He set up the Trustees of Reservations to acquire lands that
were disappearing all around the State--historic areas, a house
where a treaty was signed, a field where the Indians had a
meeting, things that were disappearing, old houses and so on--
to create what he called a ``living landscape'' of the State of
Massachusetts to be managed in perpetuity for the people, just
like a library or an art museum. And that has worked
fantastically successfully. I would like to see more efforts--
--
Senator Thomas. There's a lot of those around just like
that, aren't there?
Mr. Smith. Right. There are something like 2,000 land
trusts and 3,000 chambers of commerce, and I would like to see
them do more of this, instead of the government.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Smith. I just don't trust the Government not to
eventually do something bad to private landowners.
Senator Thomas. I see. All right.
Mr. Smith. I don't mean you, sir, but the Government, per
se.
Senator Thomas. I understand your point of view. Let's see,
my time's out.
Senator?
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Rice, the first point in your testimony is that
national heritage area designation must come after planning.
You have proposed seven proposals. Under Senator Thomas' bill,
designation of a heritage area must be preceded by the
completion of a feasibility study by the National Park Service.
To follow up on your point, would it make sense to require the
designated management entity to have its management plan for
the area completed before formal designation as a national
heritage area?
Mr. Rice. Senator, we believe it would. Because, as I
indicated, a comprehensive planning process in which you
basically examine all of the issues--the suitability and
feasibility addresses some of the issues, but a management plan
is a comprehensive plan, an interpretation, a business plan. It
is a very comprehensive plan. And what we are suggesting,
Senator, is that you may discover that, through that
comprehensive planning process, a couple of things--one, we may
get to this answer, in terms of how many heritage areas should
be designated by Congress as a national significance, because
we haven't had a process in the past. They've been designated
through a lot of different process. This actually gives us a
structure.
For instance, we may find out, through this comprehensive
planning process, it doesn't need to have Federal involvement,
it's better managed best through local or State involvement.
Also, it may be best managed through a scenic byways program, a
State program. There are hundreds of programs and opportunities
out there, but by completing a thorough management-plan
process, we'll get to that answer.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Obey, Mr. Rice has suggested that
heritage areas should be able to have their authorization
extended beyond the current 10- or 15-year period, and that
heritage areas should be made at least, quote, ``affiliated
areas,'' unquote, of the National Park System. Do you agree
with Mr. Rice's recommendations?
Mr. Obey. Well, we see the value in having a sunset. We
think that the program itself, over time--that's been part of
the bargain. And one of the ways, I think, to get local buy-in,
frankly, is to persuade folks that they really need to be
supporting these areas locally, going out, beating the bushes
for funding, and that type of thing, over time. I think 15
years, hopefully, will provide ample time for most heritage
areas to do that. So we think it's reasonable to contemplate a
sunset.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Well, let's see, I had one here. I've
forgotten whether----
Mr. Obey, you mentioned, your testimony, that the NPCA
supported the creation of the Erie Canal Heritage Corridor,
Illinois and Michigan Canal Corridor, and Shenandoah Valley
Heritage Corridor--Battlefield Heritage Corridor. Has your
group opposed any national heritage area designations? And if
so, why?
Mr. Obey. To my knowledge, we haven't opposed them, but we
haven't necessarily actively supported a number of them. I
pointed those out specifically because those are some of them
we actually were active in supporting. I'd be glad to find out
if anyone else has an answer.
Senator Thomas. Well, I was just wondering if you have had
any criteria in your group that, sort of, you know----
Mr. Obey. Kind of like the Federal Government, we haven't
had criteria on that one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Whatever. Okay.
Well, gentlemen, we appreciate it. Certainly, there are
different points of view about how we do this. The fact is, of
course, that we're into heritage areas, and we can either not
have any at all, or we can continue to do it the way we are, or
we can hopefully make it a better and more effective program,
which is what we're seeking to do here. And, obviously, we
appreciate your suggestions, and we'll go back and take a look
at this and see if we can do something a little more.
So if there's nothing further, gentlemen, we appreciate it.
The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
National Parks Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee on National Parks on June 24, 2004,
regarding S. 2543. I am writing in response to the questions included
in your follow-up letter of June 30. My responses to your questions are
attached.
I hope you find this information useful, and I thank you again for
the opportunity to testify. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I
may be of further assistance to the subcommittee.
Best regards,
Craig D. Obey,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
[Enclosure.]
questions from senator thomas
Question 1. The National Parks Conservation Association has been a
vocal opponent of programs that take funding away from park expansions
and park maintenance.
Part 1. Can you provide specific examples of National Park Service
funding requirements that draw funding away from traditional park
programs such as enforcement, interpretation and maintenance?
Answer. As you know, NPCA's primary priority with regard to park
funding has been base operations for the national parks. In March of
this year, we released our report, Endangered Rangers, which
illustrates the service cutbacks that are occurring in the national
parks this summer by virtue of the $600 million shortfall that exists
in park base operations. This annual funding backlog is every bit as
significant as the widely publicized maintenance backlog, if not more
so, in terms of the impact it has on the Park Service's ability to
protect our national parks for future generations. I am attaching a
copy of the report for the subcommittee.
One example of funding requirements of the National Park Service
that draw funding away from traditional park programs such as
enforcement, interpretation and maintenance is the increased and
unbudgeted homeland security requirements placed on the national parks
since September 11, 2001. The Park Service has had to spend millions of
dollars on added security in our nation's icon and border parks, and
has even sent personnel to guard Bureau of Reclamation dams--assistance
for which their parks have not been reimbursed. These new requirements
have placed significant pressures on an already strained budget for the
parks, and Congress should make the parks eligible to receive homeland
security funding.
In addition, unbudgeted mandatory cost of living increases also
draw funding away from traditional park programs. Although such COLA's
are important, when the administration's budget submissions fail to
account for the full cost of likely salary increases that Congress
mandates, core programs of the national parks suffer--particularly
operations.
Finally, a specific program that draws funding away from
traditional park programs such as enforcement, interpretation and
maintenance is the Department of the Interior's Cooperative
Conservation Initiative. Initiatives like CCI, whether worthy or not,
do not constitute core programs that keep the parks up and running,
serving the public, and protecting our national legacy. The consequent
failure to provide the parks with sufficient resources means they can
lack sufficient staff to carry out the types of goals that programs
like CCI promote. The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee cut
funding for such add-on programs in their proposal for FY 2005 in order
to increase funding for base operations of the parks. This is a trade-
off with which we agree.
Part 2. Would you include National Heritage Areas in that same
category?
Answer. We believe you are right to focus on getting control over
the Heritage Areas program, in order to ensure that any designated
areas are truly worthy of designation. However, we would not put the
National Heritage Areas in the same category as a program like the CCI.
The primary reason is that designation as a National Heritage Area can,
in certain circumstances, actually provide a fiscal benefit to the
National Park System. One of the reasons the National Heritage Area
Program was created was to provide a low-cost form of recognition that
provides for the preservation of nationally important resources that
may not quite exceed the bar necessary for designation as a national
park. If the program did not exist, there. would be much more political
pressure to create national parks out of some of these areas--a cost to
the park system both in terms of operations funding and in terms of its
integrity and quality. National parks should be the most superlative
examples of America's natural and cultural heritage. That does not
mean, however, that other parts of our heritage, including those
commemorated by National Heritage Areas, are not worthy of preservation
or the relatively modest funds that the heritage areas receive.
Question 2. You mentioned in your testimony that NPCA supported the
creation of The Erie Canal Heritage Corridor, Illinois and Michigan
Canal Corridor, and Shenandoah Battlefields Heritage Corridor. Has NPCA
opposed any National Heritage Area designations? If so, which ones and
why? Why has NPCA chosen not to support the remaining National Heritage
Areas?
Answer. NPCA has not formally opposed any National Heritage Area
designations, nor have we expressed our formal support for very many.
An absence of expression of opinion by NPCA about a particular proposal
should not be taken as either support for or opposition to it. As I
stated during the hearing, NPCA, not unlike the Congress, has not
established any formalized criteria with regard to whether an area
should or should not be designated as a National Heritage Area. More
often than not, our focus has been on whether proposed national park
units or expansions of units are suitable as additions to our National
Park System, as we are the NATIONAL PARKS Conservation Association, and
heritage areas are not units of the National Park System.
However, the Heritage Areas that we have supported in the past all
had something basic in common--all were, in our judgment, areas of
particularly high value and sufficient national importance that we felt
they merited special recognition and protection, although not
necessarily national park status. The areas cited in my testimony--
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields, Erie Canalway, and the Illinois and
Michigan Canal--also tend to be resource-based National Heritage Areas,
as opposed to other areas that would be more properly described as
tourist districts.
Question 3. Your testimony states that NPCA applauds the
requirement that National Heritage Areas have ``National Significance''
to achieve designation. How would it change interpretation of the bill
if the term ``National Importance'' was used in place of ``National
Significance'' as the National Park Service has suggested?
Answer. We believe the most important guide is the definition you
choose to associate with the term you use in the legislation, whether
``national importance'' or ``national significance''. The fact is, a
federally designated National Heritage Area should have national
significance. If the term ``national importance'' is preferred by the
Park Service to avoid confusion, a desire we can understand, then we
encourage you to define national importance in a manner sufficient to
provide a sufficient measure of quality and distinctiveness. We would
not suggest that the subcommittee use the same definition of national
significance as is used for national parks, as that would mean a
National Heritage Area would essentially have the same significance and
place in American society as a national park.
For the benefit of the subcommittee, I am attaching copies of three
fact sheets to help shed further light on the analysis NPCA has done
with regard to the few National Heritage Areas on which we have focused
significant attention. Two of the fact sheets describe areas cited in
my testimony that have already been designated--Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields and Erie Canalway--and the third refers to the meritorious
potential designation of a National Heritage Area to commemorate
Gullah/Geetchee culture. We believe each of these three to have
significant national importance. If the word ``significance'' provides
an added measure of comfort, the subcommittee might want to use the
term ``significant national importance''.
Question 4. Your testimony questioned the legitimacy of a heritage
area that is not able to ``wean'' itself from Federal funding within 15
years. Are you recommending that National Heritage Areas that do not
develop an adequate level of stakeholder support should loose their
national designation?
Answer. No. Although we believe an area that does not achieve
independent funding within 15 years should not necessarily continue to
receive federal funds, we believe actual designation should be
considered independently.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: Enclosed are the answers to the follow-up
questions from the hearing held by the Subcommittee on National Parks
on June 24, 2004, on S. 2543, the National Heritage Partnership Act.
These responses have been prepared by the National Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on this
matter. We apologize for the delay in our response.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS
Question 1A. Twenty-four National Heritage Areas and several
hundred state heritage areas currently exist. The potential for growth
in the number of national areas is unlimited.
Do you agree that criteria are needed to control the growth in
National Heritage Areas?
Answer. Yes. The National Park Service has been applying criteria,
outlined in previous testimonies, to evaluate potential new National
Heritage Areas for many years now. We agree that it would be extremely
valuable for Congress to provide direction on what criteria should be
applied to assure that only the most important stories and places are
recognized as National Heritage Areas.
Question 1B. Will the criteria included in S. 2543 improve the
National Heritage Area program?
Answer. The National Park Service strongly supports the adoption of
criteria for the evaluation of proposed National Heritage Areas. The
criteria in S. 2543 require that proposed National Heritage Areas
demonstrate evidence of place-based resources that tell a nationally
important story with the involvement and commitment of the local
community and its leaders. This analysis is a strong predictor of the
future success of a heritage proposal.
Question 2A. S. 2543 defines National Significance and requires
that new National Heritage Area designations be Nationally Significant.
In your testimony, you suggest using the term National Importance in
place of National Significance to avoid confusion with the process for
designating units of the National Park System.
Wouldn't it be best to use the same terminology for selecting sites
where the National Park Service is involved in funding and guidance?
They are receiving national recognition and Federal funding, is it too
much to ask that they be nationally significant?
Answer. National heritage areas are not units of the National Park
System. The land is not owned or managed by National Park Service
(except in cases where park units exist within the boundaries of
national heritage areas). They are locally driven, initiated and
managed by the people who live there and tend to be larger living
landscapes than units of the National Park System. There are many types
of programs where the National Park Service provides recognition and
funding, from affiliated areas to the National Register of Historic
Places to Wild and Scenic Rivers. Each program is different and thus,
different sets of criteria are applied depending on our level of
involvement and assistance. We do agree that National Heritage Areas
need to be nationally important and illustrate major historic,
cultural, natural or social themes important to the history of the
United States and that the resources have integrity and are outstanding
examples of features that relate to the theme.
Question 2B. How is the term national significance applied to units
of the National Park System?
Answer. The National Park Service Management Policies, updated in
2001, state that to be eligible for consideration as a unit of the
National Park System, an area must possess nationally significant
natural or cultural resources. An area must meet all of the following
standards:
It is an outstanding example of a particular type of
resource.
It possesses exceptional value of quality illustrating or
interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our Nation's
heritage.
It offers superlative opportunities for public use and
enjoyment, or for scientific study.
It retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate,
and relatively unspoiled example of the resource.
Question 2C. Could you explain the difference between national
importance and national significance?
Answer. The definition of ``national significance'' as used by the
National Park Service to evaluate new national park units is described
above. In S. 2543, ``national significance'' is a requirement for
National Heritage Area designation and is defined as, possession of ``.
. . unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, or
recreational 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.'' In
comparing the definition of ``national significance'' in S. 2543 and
the Department's proposed definition of ``national importance'', we
find that both definitions acknowledge that for an area to be
designated as a National Heritage Area, it needs to illustrate major
themes important to our nation's history and have the resources to
support these themes. The biggest difference between the definitions is
that under S. 2543, the resources would have to be ``unique'' to be
contained within a National Heritage Area. Because National Heritage
Areas are living landscapes that arise from patterns of human activity,
they contain old factories, stores, houses, and most importantly,
people living their lives. There is no goal of preserving resources
unimpaired for future generations because heritage areas are always
evolving and changing based on the people who live and work there; nor
are the resources ``unique''.
Question 3. S. 2543 states that sites will retain the title
``National Heritage Area'' after the sunset provision has kicked in.
The intent is to create self-sustaining, nationally recognized
programs, with Federal start-up funding. Is it appropriate to allow the
title to be retained after Federal funding is discontinued?
Answer. The designation of a ``National Heritage Area'' tells
visitors and locals alike that this area has met a high standard of
national importance. The Federal matching funds a National Heritage
Area receives are intended to help the local management entity get
established in conserving and interpreting the area's nationally
important resources and stories in a sustainable manner. It is
appropriate to retain the National Heritage Area designation so long as
the standard for designation continues to be met.
Question 4A. If the Heritage Area Program is successful there will
be many nationally designated areas which will appear to be under the
auspices of the National Park Service--but in reality--the Agency will
have little, if any, management control.
What will be the role of the National Park Service once a Heritage
Area becomes self sustaining?
Answer. Even after National Park Service funds are no longer
available to a National Heritage Area, the NPS may provide technical
assistance to these areas and work with them to protect natural,
cultural, scenic and historic resources. NPS will also monitor the
areas to ensure they continue to meet the criteria. In addition, the
partners in these areas will be able to apply for funding and other
assistance programs offered by the National Park Service. For example,
communities will be able to apply for assistance from the Rivers and
Trails Program, owners of national historic landmarks can apply for
Save America's Treasures grants, and battlefield conservation
organizations can apply for assistance from the American Battlefield
Protection Program. Finally, as long as the area retains its national
designation, it will be treated as a partner by the National Park
Service and listed in our brochures and-publications, which will
highlight its national importance.
Question 4B. Is the National Park Service concerned about
maintaining a level of site integrity once Federal funding is
discontinued?
Answer. National heritage areas are large living landscapes that
will continue to change and adapt to new conditions. The integrity of
any individual site within the larger National Heritage Area or region
is not essential as long as the overall nationally important theme is
preserved along with resources to illustrate the theme, an involved and
aware citizenry and the local capacity to plan and implement steps to
preserve and interpret the resources. As long as a representative
selection of nationally important sites or other resources are still
available to interpret the theme of the area, the area will retain its
importance. If the region has developed the capacity to prepare a
locally supported management plan and has created a stewardship ethic
within the community, there should be an appreciation of the
significance of region's resources and the need to care for them.
Question 4C. How would the National Park Service handle a Heritage
Area that did not maintain minimum program standards or requirements
after reaching its sunset date?
Answer. The criteria offered in S. 2543, if adopted and followed by
Congress, will go a long way to ensuring that only areas with the
strongest local coordinating entities are designated in the first
place. The criteria would require, among other things, local
coordinating entities to demonstrate during the designation process a
strong commitment to the heritage area through many years of planning
and organizing. If the leadership and community residents in a
designated National Heritage Area did lose interest in providing
stewardship for the nationally important resources in an area or
stopped caring for and interpreting the resources, the National Park
Service could offer technical assistance, as feasible. Ultimately,
however, it would be up to Congress. Since heritage areas are
designated by statute, only Congress could remove a heritage area
designation.
Question 5. S. 2543 requires the National Park Service to submit
annual reports to Congress regarding use of funds by National Heritage
Areas. Does the park service currently conduct any audits of National
Heritage Areas to ensure funds are being used for the intended purpose?
Answer. All National Heritage Areas currently receiving National
Park Service funding are required by their cooperative agreements to
undertake an annual audit and provide them to the NPS regional office
with oversight of the area. In the future, the agency will incorporate
the findings from these audits into an annual expenditure report to
Congress.
Question 6. How does the process for Heritage Area designation in
S. 2543 compare with the designation process for units of the national
park system?
Answer. To be designated a unit of the National Park System, an
area must be evaluated and meet specified criteria for national
significance, suitability, and feasibility. In addition, various
management options are also weighed. The professional staff of the
agency carries out this evaluation, known as a special resource study.
Under the process established by the National Parks Omnibus Management
Act of 1998, any study for inclusion of an area in the National Park
System must be authorized by a specific act of Congress.
Under the framework provided by S. 2543 for evaluating National
Heritage Areas, a study would be required to assess whether a proposed
area meets the specified criteria. This study can be conducted by the
National Park Service if authorized by Congress or conducted by one or
more interested parties and reviewed by the Secretary to ensure the
area meets the criteria for Congressional designation.
Question 7. S. 2543 sets a funding cap of $15 million annually for
the National Heritage area program. Your testimony states that a
funding cap should not be established in legislation. However, on many
occasions the Administration has testified that new funding should be
deferred until the maintenance backlog has been addressed. How can you
object to a funding cap for National Heritage Areas while advocating
that new efforts be deferred until the maintenance backlog is
addressed? It looks as though you are trying to have it both ways.
Answer. The Department does not support unlimited funding for
heritage areas, but believes that it is more appropriate to cap the
amount each area is authorized to receive and limit the time during
which they can receive it, instead of imposing a cap on the entire
program. There are currently 24 designated National Heritage Areas,
many of which are authorized to receive appropriations of $1 million
per year. We would expect to use the appropriations process to allocate
funds among these areas, which could provide less than the individual
authorized ceilings.
The Department's position on individual heritage study and
designation bills has evolved through the years. During the 107th
Congress, the Department testified in support of individual National
Heritage Areas but decided to recommend focusing all available
resources on the maintenance backlog. During the 108th Congress, the
Department testified in support of the National Heritage Areas program,
but recommended deferring action until heritage program legislation was
enacted.
Question 8. The NPS currently employs one full time individual to
manage the National Heritage Area Program. Do you anticipate a need to
increase the number of NPS personnel working on the National Heritage
Area Program if S. 2543 becomes law?
Answer. While the National Park Service allocates funding for only
one FTE, staff in the Regional offices and in the Washington office are
already providing oversight and assistance to the program as collateral
duty. Under S. 2543, up to five percent of the funds made available to
heritage areas could be used for technical assistance, administrative,
and oversight duties by the National Park Service.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Peyton Knight, Executive Director,
American Policy Center
Chairman Thomas and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit the following testimony on the behalf of property
rights advocates across the country who are concerned with the impact
of National Heritage Areas (NHAs), and the ``National Heritage
Partnership Act'' (S. 2543) in particular, on land use, private
property rights and local communities.
National Heritage Areas undoubtedly lead to restrictive federal
zoning and land use planning. Funding and technical assistance for
Heritage Areas is administered through the National Park Service (NPS),
a federal agency with a long history of hostility toward private
landowners. The recipient of these funds and NPS direction is a
management entity, which typically consists of strictly ideological
special interest groups and local government officials. This public/
private juggernaut then imposes its narrow vision of land use planning
on unsuspecting landowners within a Heritage Area's boundaries. The
result is a top-down approach to local zoning, with little or no
involvement from the local citizenry.
Heritage Areas are not innocuous designations bestowed upon local
communities simply for the purpose of national recognition. Rather,
they are land use mandates foisted upon property owners in the name of
preservation. Quite simply: Heritage Areas have boundaries, and those
boundaries have consequences for property owners unfortunate enough to
reside within them. Incredibly, proponents of Heritage Areas argue that
despite their mission of ``preservation,'' Heritage Areas do not
influence zoning or land use planning. Yet by definition this is
precisely what they do.
According to S. 2543, a NHA is an area that has ``an assemblage of
natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational
resources'' that are ``nationally significant to the heritage of the
United States.'' The legislation goes on to dictate that a NHA
``provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, historical,
cultural, or scenic features.'' As for the absurdly arbitrary term
``national significance,'' it is defined in the bill as ``possession of
unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, or
recreational resources of exceptional value or quality.''
This sweeping definition ensures that every single square inch of
land in the United States can arguably qualify as a National Heritage
Area-and therefore be eligible for millions of taxpayer dollars,
federal protection, federal oversight, and federal land use
restrictions. No wonder when the first incarnation of S. 2543 (the
``American Heritage Areas Partnership Program'') first surfaced ten
years ago, the late Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) strongly
warned his colleagues against the scheme. In a letter dated September
19, 1994, Solomon wrote:
I urge you to defend property rights and strongly oppose the
American Heritage Area Participation Program . . . The
environmentalists advocating this bill have FEDERAL LAND USE
CONTROL as their primary objective.
The bill wastes tax dollars that could be more appropriately
spent on maintaining our national parks . . . Property rights
defenders have legitimate concerns about the provision in the
bill requiring localities to obtain approval by the Secretary
of Interior or land use plans . . .
WHY SPEND $35 MILLION ON NON-FEDERAL HERITAGE AREAS WHEN OUR
NATIONAL PARKS DESPERATELY NEED FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND
REPAIR?
Again, I ask you to defend property rights and oppose this
bill.
(The emphasis is Rep. Soloman's--not mine.)
Little has changed in the ten years since Gerald Solomon warned his
congressional colleagues about the foolishness and danger of a National
Heritage Areas program. The advocates of NHA program still have federal
land use control as their primary objective. The bill still wastes tax
dollars that would be better spent on a Park Service maintenance
backlog that now numbers in the billions of dollars. And the Secretary
of Interior still has the ultimate say over the management and land use
plans that govern a National Heritage Area, as is stated in section
5(b) of S. 2543. Again, a National Heritage Areas program is nothing
less than federal land use policy.
Also on September 19, 1994, Rep. Bob Smith (R-OR) penned a letter
to fellow Congressman Richard Pombo, warning him about the inherent
dangers of a National Heritage Area program:
Dear Richard: On Tuesday, the House will consider legislation
that I consider to be the most significant threat to private
property rights I have seen during my twelve years in Congress.
This legislation . . . will threaten private property by
authorizing a broad new program of federal land use controls,
extending from coast to coast. There are nearly 100 Heritage
Areas currently under consideration and it's likely that your
constituents will be impacted by these incredible restrictions
on private property.
This program is based on the existing Columbia Gorge Scenic
Area in Oregon and Washington. The management plan for the
Gorge regulates nearly every detail of private property use,
including the color landowners can paint their homes and the
species of trees they can plant in their own yard. Your
constituents, like mine, will be outraged at this gross abuse
of government over-regulation if this bill is enacted. Believe
me, you do not want to be part of a town hall meeting after
masses of your constituents learn the federal government has
the final say over what they can do on their own property.
Two NHAs that recently passed the House Resources Committee
illustrate this federal encroachment on local land use policy. Both the
National Aviation and the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area Acts
specifically direct the management entity to ``encourage local
governments to adopt land use policies consistent with the management
of the Heritage Area and the goals of the Management Plan.'' This can
be construed as nothing less than a top-down, federal zoning mandate.
In the Oil Region National Heritage Area Act, section 5(b)5 calls
for creating an ``inventory of the resources contained in the Heritage
Area, including a list of any property in the Heritage Area that is
related to the themes of the Heritage Area and that should be
preserved, restored, managed, developed, or maintained because of its
natural, cultural, historic, recreational, or scenic significance.''
Thus, landowners are subject to the whimsical interpretations of the
preservation-driven management entity. Should their property be deemed
``significant'' in any way to the Heritage Area, you can bet that its
use will be strictly curtailed. Again, this is a federal zoning
mandate.
S. 2543 is no different than these examples above, as it too calls
for the creation of an ``inventory'' of property to be set aside for
``resource protection'' (read: land use restrictions and lost property
rights).
The National Heritage Partnership Act establishes a program whereby
federal funds are dangled as a carrot in front of local authorities,
environmental organizations, and preservation societies, while the
stick of federal zoning and land use mandates are firmly applied. For
example, when the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in Georgia was
in its developmental stages in 1994, NPS Associate Director of Planning
and Development Denis P. Galvin refused to accept the management plan
put forth by the planning committee until they succumbed to the Park
Service's vision of zoning and land use. Specifically, the Park Service
testified that the Augusta Heritage Area needed to submit ``evidence of
commitment to modify zoning regulations, and evidence of commitment to
create a State Park.'' Of course, S. 2543 provides the same opportunity
for the Park Service to make heavy-handed dictates.
Property rights and limited government advocates are also concerned
that National Heritage Areas will effectively become a feeder program
for a ravenous national parks program. These fears are well founded.
The Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area in southwestern
Pennsylvania states boldly on its website:
Rivers of Steel is spearheading a drive to create a national
park on 38 acres of original mill site . . . Bills have been
introduced before the U.S. Congress to make this urban national
park a reality.
Thus, here is an example of a National Heritage Area, funded and
guided by the National Park Service, taking the initiative in lobbying
Congress for land acquisition authority and the creation of yet another
national park. It hardly appears that Heritage Areas and National Parks
are strictly dichotomous.
Given the adverse impacts that Heritage Areas can have on property
owners, it is absolutely appalling that S. 2543 does not provide for
landowner notification prior to an NHA designation. It is morally
imperative that each and every property owner within the boundaries of
a proposed National Heritage Area be notified on an individual basis
(i.e. a simple, one-page letter sent via U.S. Postal Service), and
given the opportunity to opt-in to the designation. This is far more
than a common courtesy to landowners. It is the only way to truly gauge
whether or not the local population is supportive of the designation.
Advocates of S. 2543 claim that local support is a prerequisite for the
creation of a National Heritage Area. However, they refuse to document
this so-called support, and when common-sense mechanisms to gauge
support are suggested, they stonewall them at every turn. In reality,
input from the local citizenry is shunned by NHA proponents as they
prefer to steamroll these designations into existence and spring them
on unsuspecting landowners.
In conclusion, the National Heritage Partnership Act is a worse
idea now than it was ten years ago. Experience shows that it will not
only become a funding albatross, as more and more special interest
groups and local governments gather around the federal trough, but also
a program that quashes property rights and local economies through
restrictive federal zoning practices. The real beneficiaries of a
National Heritage Areas program are conservation groups, preservation
societies, land trusts and the National Park Service-essentially,
organizations that are in constant pursuit of federal dollars, land
acquisition, and restrictions on property rights.
The National Heritage Partnership Act represents federal policy
making at its worst. Should it become law, S. 2543 will quickly build a
legacy of wasted tax dollars, lost property rights, and local
communities swallowed by federal land use restrictions.
______
Statement of Carol W. LaGrasse, President,
Property Rights Foundation of America
I had the honor of testifying in opposition to National Heritage
Areas before the hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
conducted by Senator Craig Thomas on March 30, 2004, which was followed
by the Senator's request in a letter dated April 5, 2004 for additional
answers to four sets of questions on National Heritage Areas. My reply
to these questions is extremely relevant to S. 2543, the National
Heritage Partnership Act, which presents a grave threat to private
property ownership and private property rights. During the past fifteen
years, I have devoted a great deal of time to raising questions and
opposition to National Heritage Areas and various federal and state
preservationist land designations. Because of this, Rep. Jerry Solomon,
then Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, arranged that I be
'invited to present the first opposition testimony to any Heritage Area
in a hearing on July 28, 1994 held by the House Resources Committee,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. This hearing
precipitated Rep. Solomon's vociferous, visible opposition to National
Heritage Areas. My work against National Heritage Areas has continued
all these years. The answers below were presented in my reply to the
April 5, 2004 letter. I'd like to request that this statement be
appended in full to the record of the hearing held on June 24, 2004 by
the Senate Energy and Resources Committee.
Question 1. The GAO did not find any adverse impact to private
property. Do you have any specific examples of private property being
adversely affected by a heritage area? What could GAO have done
differently to better address private property impacts?
Answer. As I explained in my testimony, the system of partnerships,
compacts, carrots and sticks, and the like to establish these greenway
programs involves precipitating local, multi-jurisdictional and
regional land use control enactments, land acquisition programs, and
trails that adversely impact private property rights without putting
the onus on the heritage area commissions or National Park Service to
carry out the on-the-ground impositions on private property owners. My
testimony cited clear-cut policy statements by the Park Service,
management plans and formative thinking in the greenway advocacy world
that show how the greenway system is designed to carry out its goal of
landscape preservation.
As I explained on the telephone during the adversarial interview by
Preston Hurd and other members of the staff of the General Accounting
Office during August 2003, the careful distancing of the official
federal agencies from local land use jurisdiction makes it impossible
for an organization of this modest capacity to investigate the impact
of a National Heritage Area on private property rights. The
investigator would have to follow a chain of events, from the creation
of the management plan; the establishment of the heritage area
commission; to the partnerships, compacts, many meetings of a public
and less public nature; documents promulgated during implementation of
the management plan and the like; resultant local, multi-
jurisdictional, and regional enactments; enforcements by such non-
federal agencies; and litigation. The investigator would have to do
interviews and studies of affected property owners and studies of tax
impacts. Such studies would have to be conducted over a reasonable
period of time from establishment of a heritage area, perhaps in the
neighborhood of a decade. Separate study of trails being created in
connection with heritage areas would be essential and probably more
quickly fruitful, because it appears that there is yet no way to
establish trails through private property through legislation that
leaves property owners entirely bamboozled about the taking of their
rights, and once the trails are being created or are in existence, at
least a few of the property owners take their time from compelling
their day-to-day affairs to forcefully complain of infringements.
With respect to trails, which are unfailingly associated with
heritage areas, it is relatively easy, when a complaint arrives here at
PRFA to see a connection with a larger motivating entity, such as the
National Park Service, whose behind-the-scenes responsibility for an
innocent appearing segment of a relatively long trail in a particular
locality can be brought to light. However, as with almost all examples
of private property rights infringements that come to the attention of
PRFA, examples of these trail infringements on private property rights
come to the attention of PRFA by pure happenstance, e.g., someone e-
mails or telephones for help, mails a clipping, or the like.
Examples of threatened and executed condemnations, or threatened
forced sales, for trails associated with heritage areas that have
recently come to the attention of PRFA are:
a. The City of Schenectady, N.Y., threatened condemnation of the
property belonging to Janice Revella for the 500-plus mile cross-state
National Park Service Erie Canalway Trail within the Erie Canal
National Heritage Area. (David Riley, ``Tour de Schenectady--Local
resident fights City Hall's attempt to put a bike path in her
backyard''--Metroland, Albany, N.Y., Nov. 7, 2002)
b. The Town of Wawarsing, N.Y., initiated condemnation proceedings
for the historic Port Ben railroad station owned by Herter Diener for
the National Park Service-instigated cross-state Delaware and Hudson
Canalway Trail within the Delaware and Hudson Heritage Corridor.
(Dianne Wiebe, ``Negotiations off track in drawn-out dispute over train
station,'' Daily Freeman.com, Kingston, N.Y., 12/17/2002, referenced 8/
7/03). This heritage corridor involves the Delaware and Hudson Heritage
Corridor Alliance, but is not yet a National Park Service National
Heritage Area.
c. Farmer Ed Richardson, whose land is located near the Saratoga
National Historical Park in Stillwater, N.Y., complained about being
approached to allow the trail through his property by representatives
for the Champlain Canalway Trail, which is the northern spur to Lake
Champlain from the Erie Canalway Trail in the Erie Canal National
Heritage Area (according to a reports and an article in the Saratogian,
Saratoga Springs, N.Y.). Ironically, no newspaper article or other
public information about this trail appeared until this reporter for
the Saratogian read my article about the secrecy involved in the trail
in the New York Property Rights Clearinghouse (``Saratoga County
Canalway Trail Shrouded in Secrecy,'' Property Rights Foundation of
America, Fall 2002).
d. Considering the National Parks typically have property rights
impacts, anew 38-acre Homestead Words National Park being advocated by
the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area for the formerly 400-acre
Homestead Works site may have property rights impacts if private land
is contemplated for acquisition.
(Ref.: http://www.riversofsteel.com/ros.aspx?id=23&h=80&sn=95 Apr.
15, 2004)
The GAO could have should addressed property rights impacts more
deliberately. When interviewing this property rights advocate, the GAO
interviewers should have taken an interest made, instead of arguing
about whether to hang up in disgust at this interviewee's remarks. With
the viewpoint presented that the property rights impacts happen through
the programs established through the Heritage Area, rather than
directly, the GAO should have attempted to address that viewpoint. The
report simply cites the concerns of property rights advocates and GAO
interviews of officials involved with Heritage Areas and leading
property rights advocates. This amounts to study by interview.
``. . . However, property rights advocates fear the effects
of provisions in some management plans. These provisions
encourage local governments to implement land use policies that
are consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow
the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use
planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their
property. Nevertheless, heritage area officials, Park Service
headquarters and regional staff, and representatives of
national property rights groups that we contacted were unable
to provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly
affecting--positively or negatively--private property values or
use.''
(Excerpts from ``What GAO Found,'' GAO Testimony Before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, March
30, 2004, on the page before page 1)
To study the impacts on private property rights, studies could
consider:
a comparison of the level of zoning before and after
implementation of a Heritage Area, including a study of factors
influencing changes in zoning with a mind to ascertaining how
Heritage Area designation was involved;
the change in land ownership patterns (e.g., government and
non-profit as compared to private) after establishment of a
Heritage Area;
the change in property values, as compared to similarly
situated properties outside during the same time period;
census statistics showing changes in population age groups
and ethnic constituency, income levels as after establishment
of the Heritage Area (See Toni Thayer, ``National Heritage
Area: Water or Historical Preservation?'' September 2003;
real estate tax impacts, possibly caused by the reduction of
availability of developable land and the high prices paid for
land by government and non profits; increase in litigation
following from zoning enacted after establishment of Heritage
Area;
study of treatment of property owners whose land is used for
trails, involving interviews of every owner to consider the
land acquisition or easement acquisition process, modeled after
Bo Thott's study of National Park Service acquisitions of land
from property owners (``Willing Seller Willing Buyer,'' Bo W.
Thott, Washington County Alliance, Cutler, Maine, 1993, posted
on PRFA web site at http://www.prfamerica.org/WillingSeller/
WillingBuyer.html)
surveys of land owners along trailways as to information
made available as opposed to segmented development and
concealed agenda;
study of experience of trail easement property owners and
neighboring property owners with liability and intrusions, as
well as reverse harassment of property owners; and
inventory of new or enlarged local and state parks, National
Parks, Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, National Historic Register designation of Sites or
Districts, and similar government land acquisition and
regulatory structures in Heritage Areas. Studies of affected
property owners.
Question 2. Over 45 million people live within the boundaries of
existing heritage areas Do you think it would be feasible and even
possible to implement a system for allowing each property owner to opt
in or opt out?
Answer. This response is directed to the query about whether it
would be feasible to implement a notification system for the opt in or
opt out concept.
Yes, it would be feasible. Each individual Heritage Area would be,
of course, tackled individually. The number of private property owners
would be somewhat less than the population, considering household size
and the fact that individual property owners hold multiple properties,
and own rental properties.
In each real estate taxing jurisdiction, notices are routinely sent
to every property owner for the taxes due on each property. All of this
information is computerized today. Therefore, the name and address of
every property owner are readily available in a form that is readily
usable for mailing purposes to conduct an opt out or opt in survey.
In addition, it is common for jurisdictions to have access to GIS
(Geographic Information Systems), whereby coordinate-based
computerization of tax assessment maps can be utilized to select
properties fitting almost any description, such as one-mile from a
given watercourse.
Today, this can be done automatically and all the names and
addresses of these geographically selected property owners) even if the
boundaries of the Heritage Area are not a municipal jurisdictional
boundary) spewed out of the computer for a mailing for any purpose.
The opt in or opt out provisions would have importance even though
they would not eliminate the property from within the bounds of the
Heritage Area and its concomitant increase in land use restrictions and
other pressures on property owners. The opt in or opt out provisions
would afford property owners a notification process that the Heritage
Area is in the works and be an even-handed notification that would
encourage public participation from all sectors, not just the select
few who are advocates for greenways and trails and those individuals
who act as advocates for private property rights by attempting to
assiduously monitor these programs.
Question 3. What sort of discussion have you had with
representatives from the National Park Service or managers of any
specific Heritage Areas regarding your concerns?
Answer. I have engaged in discussions with representatives of the
National Park Service and managers of specific Heritage Areas on
numerous occasions over the past decade and longer. With rare
exceptions, the officials expressed their offense at my presence and
questions by their contemptuous manner and refusal to straightforwardly
answer my inquiries or to answer the inquiries at all. Park Service
officials have attempted and to marginalize me, insult me, they have
treated me in a consistently demeaning manner, attempting to convey
publicly that I and others concerned about property rights were
ignoramuses, fanatics, and disrupters. Most interesting of all, except
for one official whose work I complimented a number of years ago in the
very respect that the higher officials were in the process of
reversing, they have never taken any of my comments seriously or
allowed any of my comments to have any impact on the direction of their
programs, except for their becoming more secretive and evasive about
the programs.
For purposes of this reply, I'll refer to only one or two specifics
at four relatively recent discussions.
Champlain Valley National Heritage Corridor: Meeting at the
canal park in Whitehall on September 19, 2001, presided over by
Bill Howland, Executive Director of the lake Champlain Basin
Program. This program involves New York, Vermont and Quebec,
and is especially hard to get a handle on. It also goes by the
name of the Champlain-Richelieu Valley Heritage Corridor. In
the viewpoint of its many critics, this Heritage Corridor keeps
metamorphosing. At present, after vociferous objections to the
heritage corridor, the Lakes to Locks Scenic Byway appears to
be an early implementation phase. At the meeting, I advocated
that the continuous trail be eliminated. This comment was
ignored. I asked Mr. Howland to divulge the federal funding to
date. After some diversion tactics, he divulged the funding for
that year: I noted his reply of $1.5 million from the EPA,
$150,000 from USDA, $350,000 from National Park Service for
heritage. (The latter caveat probably related to the fact the
Park Service also funds the Lake Champlain Basin Program, along
with other agencies.) The funding to date, which I requested,
was not available.
Champlain Valley National Heritage Corridor: Meeting at City Hall,
Plattsburgh, N.Y., November 19, 2001. The corridor name was referred to
as the Champlain-Richelieu Valley Heritage Area. Bill Howland,
Champlain Basin Program, presided. Many opposition concerns were voiced
from the floor. Opposition was dismissed as concerns because of the
Adirondack Park. We were referred to as ``the property rights people,''
by the person assisting him and, after objection, an apology was
proffered to us for this. Mr. Howland said that the area would have no
boundary. Jack Vitvitsky wanted to know the boundary that would be
affected, but the lack of a boundary meant that no answer was given. I
complained that the local lifestyle does not fit with tourism, because
it may not necessarily fit the appealing formulas being prescribed, and
that the program goals would present a fundamental problem for the
ordinary local people. Mr. Howland asked for this comment to be stated
in writing. Susan Allen asked, ``Why are you writing the bill?'' [and
not us] No response to this. Mr. Howland claimed that there were no
regulations contemplated, only grants, but the many people at the
meeting who had not come to request grants did not believe him, because
nothing of substance was offered to back up this statement, and the
promotional aspect of the slides indicated a contrary scenic
preservation goal. Concern was expressed about a federal Lakes to Locks
Scenic Byway, which was formerly the state Champlain Valley Scenic
Byway, but this topic was evaded. Mr. Howland claimed that he had
refocused the program to economics on account of property rights. He
said that he was considering an opt in--opt out method. However, he did
not have any credibility, especially when he said that they had already
entered into a contract with Quebec Labrador Foundation, an
organization that no one concerned with property rights knew anything
about. He said that funding was brought to the program by the National
Park Service.
Champlain Canalway Trail: Cozy meeting in public school cafeteria,
Schuylerville, October 9, 2002. Attending were officials from the
National Park Service, New York State Canal Corporation, consultant
from the New York Parks and Conservation Association and perhaps two
private individuals, totaling six individuals, plus my husband and I.
My husband and I were not invited to this small meeting, as the public
was not noticed. After sitting through the planning session to form a
``local'' ``Friends'' group and obtain a first grant, I attempted to
obtain funding information, but was totally denied, and charged with
being disruptive for persisting in my questions.
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor: Public meeting, The Hyde
Museum, December 9, 2003. The official greeting attendees said that
questions would be answered from the floor throughout the meeting, but
no one called on me when I repeatedly raised my hand. I had to call my
questions out. I asked for funding amounts, and was given partial
information after repeating my question several times. During the
section on recreation, I asked how the Erie Canalway Trail eminent
domain ``partnerships'' with local municipalities worked, and pointed
out Janice Revella in the audience, whose property was threatened by
condemnation. I received no answer, and finally was told that eminent
domain was not on the agenda. During the section on economic
development partnerships, I asked how the partnerships worked that a
single developer was sold all the development rights to the entire 500-
plus mile canal for a mere $30,000 (Michelle Breidenbach, ``Man pays
$30K for canal rights, Syracuse Post-Standard, article published in
Post-Star, Glens Falls, N.Y. September 15, 2003), and was told that
this was the Canal Corporation, which was entirely separate. However, a
few minutes later, the presiding officer introduced a representative of
the Canal Corporation in the audience, as though he were an honored
guest.
Question 4. Heritage areas are here to stay, but we have an
opportunity to make improvements as new heritage Areas are proposed.
What recommendations would you make for protecting--private property
rights in current and future Heritage Areas?
Answer. The following recommendations would allow the preservation
of the nation's heritage to receive federal support while eliminating
the greenway potential of Heritage Areas and the infringements on
property rights that are designed into the Heritage Area program.
Respect and promote living historic heritage
Where a specific heritage is to be preserved, such as an industrial
heritage, the heritage program should feature the importance of
industry to the heritage of the area up to the present time. For
instance, the Congress should require a certain proportion of funding
to involve a promotion of awareness of the importance of modern
factories and industrial production, and the heritage program proffered
in the management plan could also promote tours of modern operating
factories and industrial facilities. Factory tours have rebounded in
popularity, and this could be promoted with the heritage program. For
example, in New York's Hudson Valley, tours of the large shorefront
facilities of the cement industry should be facilitated with federal
funding.
Where the heritage is lumber production, typical landscape
preservation consultants who produce falsified history should be
avoided, and qualified historians who retain an interest in the present
used. An example in upstate New York where a Scenic Byway kiosk system
was put in place, this focus on preserving the living heritage would
change the policy so that the role of government land acquisition in
reducing timber production would be factually presented, rather than
blaming industrial factors. Tours of present-day logging operations
could be promoted. In Corinth, N.Y., a historic paper mill operated by
International Paper Company on the Hudson River recently closed.
Federal investment for living historic preservation might make a
difference in the maintenance of such living heritage typical to a
geographic region.
Establish a fair granting process
Where Heritage Areas and trails are being promoted, the granting
process is pre-ordained by the relationships that already exist between
the National Park Service and its ``partners'' consultants. The
application process should be publicly and widely advertised and all
comers should be able to apply for the lucrative grants that become
available. Consultants such as the New York Parks and Conservation
Association should not be routinely selected, but should have to
compete in the open arena. Subcontracts through consultants should be
accessible to freedom of information law where government funds are
involved. A variety of ``heritage'' projects should be open to
competition, including those that benefit private property owners
rather than nonprofits and government entities.
Establish Procedures for Public Scrutiny of Budget at the Local Level
Open up to public scrutiny the budget of the entire heritage
process, including all funding from ``partner'' agencies at federal,
state, regional and local level. Publicly maintain financial statements
and audits of the origin and routing of all funding from appropriation
to on-the ground expenditures for actual work. Where funding is
contemplated that affects a particular area, advertise publicly for
public comment on that expenditure.
Eliminate geographic delineation of Heritage Areas
Heritage programs should not be geographically delineated because
this works toward the greenway goal and landscape preservation that has
been central to National Heritage Areas from inception. With the
realization that Heritage Areas are not about historic preservation or
any but the most narrow sphere of economic development, comes the
necessity of a single measure that would stymie their purpose of
landscape preservation. Instead of geographically delineated Heritage
program, direct the program to block grants allocated state-by-state by
an agency that is not geared to landscape preservation, such as Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of Commerce, or a new bureau in
the National Park Service that is not oriented to landscape
preservation, but is instead expert in all spheres of national
heritage, especially the living industrial heritage and the continuing
multifaceted independent rural lifestyle with its scruffy way of living
that is not designed to fit into an elite subdivision.
Instead of attempting to restore the quaint past by regulation,
where the product is only empty shells of dead villages that lonely
city dwellers visit transiently, let's celebrate the past along with
the constant evolution of new traditions in the context of our evolving
heritage.
Instead of implementing harsh landscape preservation where ordinary
rural people will be displaced, get the federal government our of
sophisticated advocacy for land use control, and let the chips fall
where they may with local people controlling their future with the
degree of planning regulation that they freely choose without heavy
pressure from the ``experts.''
Prohibit all the partnerships and the Park Service's self-promotion
Prohibit the Park Service from promotional work for its policies at
the local level, and from studies of historical or regional areas.
Prohibit the Park Service from working with nonprofit agencies. This
can be accomplished by opening up the procurement process to bidding.
This change can be assisted by ceasing to write any specific non-profit
into Congressional legislation.
Take the Park Service out of trail development
With its terrible record of treatment of private property owners,
and its one-sided agenda of promoting landscape preservation to the
detriment of the maintenance of existing National Parks, it is
essential to get the Park Service's spidery reach out of private
property all across the country. An important and easy way to
accomplish this is to prohibit the Park Service and its personnel from
participating in the studies and development of trails, or developing
support organizations. All trails should be publicly laid out in their
full length, width and other aspects, such as style of ownership and
access, desired viewsheds, from the proposal stage, and all potentially
affected property owners individually notified. If trails are
developed, the development should be administered by the Department of
Transportation and the eminent domain protection protections under the
federal highway law applied.
Inventory government-owned land
No additional Heritage Areas should be established and no further
development of trails should take place until a full inventory of lands
owned by the federal and state government, and of federal areas such as
National Heritage Areas and trails, is completed.
Conduct environmental impact analysis of Heritage Areas including land
ownership impact studies
In some federal areas under consideration in Congress, major
changes of land ownership patterns are underway. Consider the Highlands
Area proposed for Northern New Jersey, Southeastern New York, eastern
Pennsylvania, and western Connecticut. In New York, the State
government, the Open Space Institute, other land trusts, and other
agencies are cutting into the base of private landownership without any
land ownership impact studies being conducted. Tax impacts are becoming
profound, while future economic potential is being narrowed. If an area
is to be designated, contrary to the recommendation above, when it is
proposed, the specific area should be studies for land ownership trends
and these should be projected, with the concomitant taxation and
economic and social impacts, in an environmental impact study I
accordance with NEPA.
My goal in this examination of the National Heritage Area program
is to offer information, viewpoints and specific proposals that are
worthwhile and practical to help preserve our heritage in its great
diversity while promoting private property rights to their fullest
extent as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. This analysis
of the National Heritage Area program leads to the conclusion that the
S. 2543, the National Heritage Partnership Act, presents serious
threats to private property and private property rights, and should be
withdrawn. A bill that would preserve our constitutional heritage of
private property ownership and private property rights would have
fundamental differences from the bill before the Committee.