39–010 

Calendar No. 38 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–26 

NATIONAL HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP ACT 

MARCH 9, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 243] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 243) to establish a program and criteria for National Heritage Areas in the United States, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 243 is to establish a program and criteria for 

National Heritage Areas in the United States. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The National Park Service has defined a Natural Heritage Area 

as a ‘‘place designated by the United States Congress where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form 

a cohesive nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of 

human activity shaped by geography.’’ Heritage Areas are established to commemorate, conserve and promote important areas that 

include natural, scenic, historic, cultural or recreational resources. 

Unlike areas that are under the sole jurisdiction of the National 

Park Service, such as national parks or monuments, heritage areas 

typically remain in non-Federal ownership and are managed by 

local communities and partners. To date, Congress has designated 

27 National Heritage Areas. 

National Heritage Areas receive financial and technical assistance through cooperative agreements with the National Park Service. They also receive funds from other agencies and non-Federal 

sources. Most heritage areas are authorized to receive appropriaVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Mar 12, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR026.XXX SR026
2 

tions of up to $1 million each year, with a maximum total appropriation of $10 to $15 million. Generally, the authorizing legislation 

for each heritage area includes a requirement that Federal funds 

must be matched equally by non-Federal funds. For fiscal years 

1997 through 2002 National Heritage Areas received $310 million 

in funding. Of this total, approximately $154 million came from 

State and local governments and private sources and $156 million 

came from the Federal Government. 

Although the National Park Service has developed criteria for assessing whether an area may qualify as a National Heritage Area, 

there are currently no statutory criteria, no systematic process for 

identifying or evaluating potential heritage areas and no formal 

program for managing them. Of the 27 existing heritage areas, ten 

have been designated by Congress without a thorough National 

Park Service review. Of those ten, six, a quarter of the existing 

heritage areas, were designated by Congress despite the agency’s 

recommendation that designation be deferred. Not surprisingly, the 

opportunity for Federal funding has resulted in an increase in proposals for new heritage areas, with more than 30 heritage areas 

proposed during the 108th Congress. The sizable number of new 

proposals before Congress has raised some concern regarding the 

most effective means to manage the program in the future. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently published 

a report that examined heritage areas and suggested ways to improve their accountability (GAO04–593T, March 30, 2004). The report recommends that standardized criteria be adopted for evaluating potential National Heritage Areas. The GAO report also suggests, given the magnitude of funds appropriated, that certain key 

management controls be instituted to ensure accountability and 

program consistency. S. 243 will establish program requirements 

and criteria for evaluating potential National Heritage Areas, as 

well as place limitations on Federal funding for the program. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 243 was introduced by Senator Thomas on February 1, 2005. 

During the 108th Congress, the Committee considered identical 

legislation, S. 2543. Senators Thomas and Burns introduced S. 

2543 on June 17, 2004. The Senate Subcommittee on National 

Parks held a hearing on S. 2543 on June 21, 2004. The Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2543, as amended, favorably reported on July 14, 2004 (S. Rept. 108–329). S. 2543 was 

passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 15, 

2004. The bill was not considered by the House of Representatives. 

At its business meeting on February 9, 2005, the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 243 favorably reported. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 

open business session on February 9, 2005, by a unanimous voice 

vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 243. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1(a) entitles this Act the ‘‘National Heritage Partnership 

Act’’. 

3 

Subsection (b) contains the table of contents. 

Section 2 contains definitions of key terms used in the Act. 

Section 3 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to establish a National Heritage Area (NHA) program and to provide 

technical and financial assistance to local coordinating entities. 

Subsection (b) describes the duties of the Secretary under the 

program. 

Section 4(a) describes the criteria to be used by the Secretary to 

determine the feasibility and suitability of a proposed NHA. This 

section also describes the administrative process for the transmittal, approval and disapproval of the feasibility study. Designation of NHA’s shall be contingent upon the completion of the feasibility study and approval of that study by the Secretary. 

Section 5 describes the requirements for a heritage area’s management plan. This section also includes procedural requirements 

for the submission, approval, disapproval and amendment of the 

plan. 

Section 6 describes the duties and responsibilities of the local coordinating entity for a heritage area. This section also describes the 

purposes under which the coordinating entity is authorized to expend Federal funds and prohibits the entity from using Federal 

funds to acquire real property. 

Section 7 states that nothing in this Act affects the authority of 

a Federal agency to provide technical or financial assistance to a 

NHA. Other Federal agencies are encouraged to consult with the 

Secretary on issues concerning the NHA to the extent practicable. 

Nothing in this Act limits, modifies, alters or amends any authorized use of Federal land. 

Section 8 contains several savings provisions. 

Paragraph (1) states that nothing in this Act shall affect the 

rights of any private property owner. 

Paragraph (2) states that nothing in this Act requires a private 

property owner to permit public access. 

Paragraph (3) states that nothing in this Act affects any existing 

land use regulation or alters any land use or provides regulatory 

authority to the coordinating entity. 

Paragraph (4) states that nothing in this Act authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of water, or water rights. 

Paragraph (5) provides that nothing in this Act diminishes the 

authority of a State to manage fish and wildlife. 

Paragraph (6) states that nothing in this Act shall affect the liability of any private property owner. 

Section 9(a) authorizes the appropriation of $750,000, for each 

fiscal year, to conduct and review feasibility studies for potential 

heritage areas. Not more than $250,000 is authorized for any individual study for any given fiscal year. 

Subsection (b) authorizes and limits annual appropriations for 

heritage areas to $15,000,000 with not more than $1,000,000 annually for any individual heritage area. A total appropriation of 

$10,000,000 may be made for an individual heritage area over all 

fiscal years. The Secretary’s authority to provide technical and financial assistance to each heritage area is limited to 15 years, but 

the area is authorized to retain the designation of National Heritage Area after Federal funding has terminated. The Secretary may 

extend up to five percent of the annual authorized appropriation of 

4 

$15,000,000 for the purposes of technical assistance and oversight 

and administration of the program. 

Subsection (c) requires the recipient of any grant made under 

this Act to provide, through non-Federal sources, an amount equal 

to the Federal grant. The non-Federal contribution may include inkind contributions of goods and services. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of this 

measure has been requested but was not received at the time the 

report was filed. When the report is available, the Chairman will 

request it to be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice 

of the Senate. 

S. 243—National Heritage Partnership Act 

S. 243 would provide a framework for establishing new national 

heritage areas (NHAs). The procedures established by S. 243 could 

affect how many and how quickly new NHAs could be established 

in the future, but none of the activities authorized by the bill could 

be carried out without further authorizing legislation. As a result, 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 243—by itself—would have no effect on the federal budget. 

This legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

S. 243 would establish criteria and mechanisms for assessing, 

planning, designating, and developing new national heritage areas. 

For each proposed new NHA, Congressional action would be required to authorize both the first step, a feasibility study, and the 

final step, a formal NHA designation. 

Under the bill, once a feasibility study of a potential NHA has 

been authorized by the Congress, the NPS would either conduct the 

study itself or allow one to be undertaken by an interested local entity. Completed and assessed studies would then be submitted to 

the Congress. If legislation to designate the NHA is enacted and 

funds are made available, the chosen local coordinating entity for 

the area would have three years to submit a general management 

plan to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. 

The bill would authorize the appropriation of up to $250,000 annually for individual feasibility studies (up to a total of $750,000 

a year). Finally, the bill would authorize the appropriation of up to 

$1 million per NHA per year (up to a total of $15 million annually) 

for financial and technical assistance to local coordinating entities. 

Such funds (up to 15-year total of $10 million per NHA) would be 

used to develop and implement management plans and administer 

the area. 

Because the authority to appropriate funds provided in S. 243 

would depend on subsequent acts of Congress to authorize feasibility studies and designate new NHAs, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation alone would have no effect on the federal budget. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. The estimate was reviewed by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

5 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S. 243. 

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 243. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior and 

the Government Accountability Office at the Subcommittee hearing 

on S. 2543 in the 108th Congress follows: 

STATEMENT OF A. DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is 

my pleasure to appear before you today to testify on behalf 

of the Department of the Interior on S. 2543, the National 

Heritage Partnership Act. The Department strongly supports this bill, but has a few concerns about some of the 

provisions. 

The Department strongly supports legislation to establish a national heritage areas program. We would like to 

thank Chairman Thomas for his leadership over the last 

year in evaluating programmatic issues, identifying areas 

for legislative action, and introducing this bill based on the 

Administration’s legislative proposal. This legislation was 

developed through a year-long process of Congressional 

oversight hearings, outside evaluations of the program 

(such as the March 2004 report by the General Accounting 

Office) and meetings among many of the groups interested 

in this issue. 

S. 2543 provides a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage area designations, offers 

guidelines for successful planning, clarifies the roles and 

responsibilities of all parties, and standardizes timeframes 

and funding for designated areas. 

The Department supports the national heritage areas 

approach to resource conservation through partnerships 

with communities. National heritage areas are intended to 

preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic, 

and recreational resources through the creation of partnerships among Federal, State and local entities. National 

heritage areas are locally driven, initiated and managed by 

the people who live there and do not impose Federal zoning, land use controls nor do they require land acquisition. 

At its best, the collaborative approach of this program embodies Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s ‘‘Four Cs’’—

6 

Communication, Consultation and Cooperation, all in the 

service of Conservation. 

S. 2543 supports a conservative strategy that recognizes 

that the people who live in a heritage area are uniquely 

qualified to preserve it. Being designated as a national 

heritage area can benefit visitors, community residents, 

existing National Park units located in the area, and other 

federal lands by expanding the opportunity to interpret 

and protect resources over a larger landscape and by telling our shared national story. 

There are three provisions in S. 2543 that we wish to 

discuss in more detail and to offer suggestions for improvements. 

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

The standards for evaluating areas proposed for national 

designation are an essential element in establishing a national heritage areas program. While many places in this 

nation have special meaning to the people that live there, 

for many places designation as a State or local heritage 

area may be most appropriate. The National Park Service 

should be the lead partner only when the resource within 

a proposed heritage area are of national importance. 

The Department has some concerns about the use of the 

term ‘‘national significance’’ and the definition provided in 

S. 2543. We recommend replacing the term ‘‘national significance’’ with the term ‘‘national importance’’ to avoid 

confusion. The National Park Service specifically uses the 

term ‘‘national significance’’ in suitability and feasibility 

studies for new National Park System units. For this reason, the term ‘‘national importance’’ has been informally 

used by the National Park Service to describe the assessment of national heritage area resources. 

In addition, having a concise, appropriate, and practical 

definition for ‘‘national significance’’ or ‘‘national importance’’ is critical. We would suggest a revised definition as 

applied in practice to existing and proposed national heritage areas: ‘‘The term ‘National Importance’ is ascribed to a proposed heritage area that illustrates major historic, cultural, natural or social themes important to the history of 

the United States and contains resources that are outstanding examples of natural and cultural features that 

contribute to the theme, and which possess a high degree 

of integrity, and are compatible with continued community 

development, public enjoyment, and use.’’

SUITABILITY/FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Department believes that a study should be required for every proposed national heritage area and the 

study should be evaluated against legislatively established 

criteria before designation. S. 2543 requires that such a 

study be prepared that demonstrates evidence of placebased resources that tell a nationally significant story, 

which has the support and involvement of the local comVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Mar 12, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR026.XXX SR026
7 

munity. 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 costeffective use of Federal resources. Most of these newer 

areas are managed by a non-profit entity or a State government and include a funding formula of not more than 

$10 million Federal dollars over a fifteen-year period. Our 

legislative proposal recommends codifying this approach 

and for the first time requires that a business plan be developed as part of the management planning for proposed 

new areas. This would ensure that from the beginning, national heritage areas are working towards and have an established plan for self-sufficiency. So far, no existing areas 

has ‘‘graduated’’ from the program, even after 20 years and 

in some cases, and nearly $100 million invested overall. 

For this reason, we recognize the need to work with existing areas to assist them in a transition strategy as they 

reach the end of their funding authorization. As areas become self-sufficient, available resources could be reallocated to newly designated areas or other priorities. 

The Department is concerned with the new provision in 

section 9 of S. 2543 that caps the heritage areas program 

at $15 million per year. The Administration did not propose a cap on the program because we believe it is more 

appropriate to cap the amount of appropriations each area 

is authorized to receive, and to limit the authorized period 

for appropriations. Currently, there are 15 new national 

heritage areas pending for designation in Congress. In addition, there are 24 designated national heritage areas, 

many of which are authorized to receive appropriations of 

8 

$1 million per year. However, we would expect to allocate 

funding among these areas within the levels of funds appropriated, which might require providing less than the individual authorized ceilings in some instances. 

CONCLUSION

Recent studies and our own experiences have shown that 

the national heritage area approach links people and 

place, nature and culture, and the present with the past. 

National heritage areas capitalize on the unique role local 

communities play in preserving their heritage and telling 

their stories. S. 2543 respects these principles. It assigns 

the appropriate roles and responsibilities to the key partners that must work together to make the program successful. It also recognizes the need to target our assistance 

to those areas where there is a national interest and 

where the local partners meet established criteria for success. We look forward to working with the committee to 

enact this important legislation. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 243 as ordered reported. 

Æ