Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT 

Thursday, June 24, 2004 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Comments on Provisions of 

S. 2543, a Bill to Establish a 

Federal Program and 

Criteria for National 

Heritage Areas 

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

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

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at

(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-04-914T, testimony

before the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, U.S. Senate 

June 24, 2004

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Comments on Provisions of S. 2543, a Bill 

to Establish a Federal Program and 

Criteria for National Heritage Areas 

Provisions of S. 2543 would establish a systematic process for identifying 

and designating national heritage areas, addressing many of the concerns 

identified in GAO’s March 2004 testimony. At that time, GAO reported that 

no such systematic process exists, noting that the Congress has, in some 

instances, designated heritage areas before the Park Service has fully 

evaluated them. S. 2543 contains provisions that would require that a 

suitability study be completed and the Park Service determine the area 

meets certain criteria before the Congress designates a heritage area. While 

the bill defines heritage areas more specifically in terms of their national 

significance, the criteria outlined in S. 2543 will benefit from guidance that 

the Park Service has recently developed to guide the application of the 

criteria. This guidance will improve the designation process. 

 

Provisions of S. 2543 would limit the amount of federal funds that can be 

provided to heritage areas through the Park Service’s budget. In March 2004, 

GAO testified that from fiscal years 1997 through 2002 about half of heritage 

areas’ funding came from the federal government. Specifically, for 22 of the 

24 heritage areas where data were available, $156 million of the areas' $310 

million in total funding came from the federal government. Of this, over $50 

million came from Park Service funds dedicated for this purpose, $44 million 

from other Park Service programs, and about $61 million from 11 other 

federal sources. S. 2543 would restrict annual dedicated Park Service 

funding for heritage areas to $15 million. Individual areas may not receive 

more than $1 million in a given fiscal year and $10 million over 15 years. 

Furthermore, S. 2543 includes provisions that could enhance the Park 

Service’s ability to hold heritage areas accountable for their use of federal 

funds. In this regard, S. 2543 (1) establishes a program that would provide 

the Park Service with the direction and funding needed to manage the 

agency's and the heritage areas’ activities; (2) establishes a schedule and 

criteria for reviewing and approving heritage areas’ management plans; (3) 

identifies criteria for use in reviewing areas' plans; (4) requires that the plans 

include information on, among other things, performance goals and the roles 

and functions of partners; and (5) requires areas to submit annual reports 

specifying, among other things, performance goals and accomplishments, 

expenses and income, and amounts and sources of funds. GAO has identified

potential amendments to S. 2543 that would further enhance areas' 

accountability. 

S. 2543 includes provisions that address some of the concerns GAO 

identified in March with regard to heritage areas' potential restrictions on 

property owners’ rights and land use. For example, S. 2543 allows property 

owners to refrain from participating in any planned project or activity within 

the heritage area. Furthermore, the bill does not require any owner to permit 

public access to property and does not alter any existing land use regulation, 

approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority.

The Congress has established, or 

“designated,” 24 national heritage 

areas to recognize the value of their 

local traditions, history, and 

resources to the nation's heritage. 

These areas, including public and 

private lands, receive funds and 

assistance through cooperative 

agreements with the National Park 

Service, which has no formal 

program for them. They also 

receive funds from other agencies 

and nonfederal sources, and are 

managed by local entities. Growing 

interest in new areas has raised 

concerns about rising federal costs 

and the risk of limits on private 

land use. 

GAO was asked to comment on 

how provisions of S. 2543 might 

affect issues identified in GAO’s 

March 2004 testimony addressing 

the process for (1) designating 

heritage areas, (2) determining the 

amount of federal funding to these 

areas, (3) overseeing areas’ 

activities and use of federal funds, 

and (4) determining the effects, if 

any, they have on private property 

rights. 

The Congress may wish to consider 

amending S. 2543 to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to (1) 

review areas’ financial audit 

reports and (2) develop resultsoriented goals and measures for 

the Park Service’s overall heritage 

area program. 
Page 1 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

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). 
Page 2 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

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 
Page 3 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

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. It also does not alter any adopted land use 
Page 4 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

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. 

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. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-914T 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 

S. 2543 Would 

Establish a 

Systematic Process 

for Identifying and 

Designating Proposed 

National Heritage 

Areas 
Page 6 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

the existing criteria and the criteria proposed in S. 2543 could be applied 

to better determine the suitability of a prospective heritage area. 

S. 2543 would impose some limits on the amount of federal funds that can 

be provided to national heritage areas through the National Park Service’s 

budget. In our March 2004 testimony, we stated that from fiscal years 1997 

through 2002 about half of heritage areas’ funding came from the federal 

government. According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, the areas 

received about $310 million in total funding. Of this total, about $154 

million came from state and local governments and private sources and 

another $156 million came from the federal government. Over $50 million 

was dedicated heritage area funds provided through the Park Service, with 

another $44 million coming from other Park Service programs and about 

$61 million from 11 other federal sources. We also pointed out that the 

federal government’s total funding to these heritage areas increased from 

about $14 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $28 million in fiscal year 

2002, peaking at over $34 million in fiscal year 2000. Table 1 shows the 

areas’ funding sources from fiscal years 1997 through 2002. 

Provisions in S. 2543 

Would Limit the 

Amount of Federal 

Funds Dedicated to 

National Heritage 

Areas 
Page 7 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

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 fundsa 50,922,562 16.5

Other Park Service support fundsb 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 Development 420,183 0.1

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 awardsc 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. 

a

These funds were provided through the Park Service’s Heritage Partnership Program and Statutory 

and Contractual Aid budget line items. The Heritage Partnership Program promotes the conservation 

of natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources. Statutory and Contractual Aid provides financial 

assistance in the planning, development, or operation of natural, historical, cultural, or recreation 

areas that are not managed by the Park Service. 

b

These funds are from other Park Service budget line items–including the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, Operation of the National Park Service and the Construction Fund–that are not 

typically reported as part of heritage area funding but include funding for specific projects undertaken 

by heritage areas. 

c

These funds earmarked for Federal Government Pass-Through Awards ($610,000) and Hugh Moore 

Historical Park & Museums, Inc. ($325,000). 

S. 2543 restricts the funding for heritage areas that is allocated through the 

Park Service’s budget to $15 million for each fiscal year. Of this amount, 

not more than $1 million may be provided to an individual area in a given 

fiscal year and not more than $10 million over 15 years. For any fiscal year, 
Page 8 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

the costs for oversight and administrative purposes cannot exceed more 

than 5 percent of the total funds. While this provision restricts the amount 

of federal funds passing from the Park Service—the largest provider of 

federal funds—to the heritage areas, these areas can obtain funding from 

other federal agencies as well. 

In March, we also pointed out that, generally, each area’s designating 

legislation imposes sunset provisions to limit the amount of federal funds 

provided to each heritage area. However, since 1984, five areas that 

reached their sunset dates had their funding extended. S. 2543 establishes 

a fixed time frame after which no additional funding, except for technical 

assistance and administrative oversight, will be provided. Specifically, it 

states that the Secretary of the Interior can no longer provide financial 

assistance after 15 years from the date that the local coordinating, or 

management, entity first received assistance. 

S. 2543 includes a number of provisions that could enhance the Park 

Service’s ability to hold national heritage areas accountable for their use of 

federal funds. In March, we stated that the Park Service oversees heritage 

areas’ activities by monitoring their implementation of the terms set forth 

in cooperative agreements. These terms, however, did not include several 

key management controls. That is, the agency had not (1) always reviewed 

areas’ financial audit reports, (2) developed consistent standards for 

reviewing areas’ management plans, and (3) developed results-oriented 

goals and measures for the agency’s heritage area activities, or required 

the areas to adopt a similar approach. Park Service officials said that the 

agency has not taken these actions because, without a program, it lacks 

adequate direction and funding. We recommended that, in the absence of a 

formal heritage area program within the Park Service, the Secretary of the 

Interior direct the Park Service to develop well-defined, consistent 

standards and processes for regional staff to use in reviewing and 

approving heritage areas’ management plans; require regional heritage 

area managers to regularly and consistently review heritage areas’ annual 

financial reports to ensure that the agency has a full accounting of their 

use of funds from all federal sources; develop results-oriented 

performance goals and measures for the agency’s heritage area activities, 

and require, in the cooperative agreements, that heritage areas adopt such 

a results-oriented management approach as well. 

S. 2543 takes several steps that will enhance accountability. In this regard, 

S. 2543 establishes a formal program for national heritage areas to be 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior. By establishing this program, 

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 
Page 9 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

the bill would provide the Park Service with the direction and funding that 

agency officials believe they need to impose management controls on their 

own and heritage areas’ activities. Furthermore, S. 2543 includes a number 

of provisions that address the concerns we raised in March. First, the bill 

establishes a schedule and criteria for reviewing and approving or 

disapproving heritage areas’ management plans. The Secretary must 

approve or disapprove the management plan within 180 days of receiving 

it. If disapproved, the Secretary must advise the local coordinating entity 

in writing of the reason for disapproval and may make recommendations 

for revision. After receiving a revised management plan, the Secretary 

must approve or disapprove the revised plan within 180 days. In addition, 

the bill identifies criteria that the Secretary is to use in determining 

whether to approve an area’s plan. This is a positive step towards 

establishing the well-defined, consistent standards and processes for 

reviewing and approving areas’ management plans that we recommended 

in March. 

S. 2543 also requires that the management plans include information on, 

among others, performance goals, the roles and functions of partners, and 

specific commitments by the partners to accomplish the activities outlined 

in the management plan. Furthermore, to ensure better accountability, the 

local coordinating entity must submit an annual report to the Secretary for 

each fiscal year for which the entity receives federal funds. This report 

must specify, among other things, the local coordinating entity’s 

performance goals and accomplishments, expenses and income, amount 

and sources of matching funds, amounts and sources of leveraged federal 

funds, and grants made to any other entity during the fiscal year. 

While provisions contained in S. 2543 address some of the issues we raised 

in our March testimony, they do not require that the Park Service 

consistently review areas’ financial audit reports or develop resultsoriented goals and measures for the agency’s heritage area activities as we 

recommended in March. We continue to believe that these are important 

management controls that are necessary to ensure effective oversight and 

accountability. 
Page 10 GAO-04-914T National 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. 

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. 

S. 2543 Provides 

Some Measures for 

Ensuring That 

Owners’ Use of Their 

Property Is Not 

Restricted by the 

Establishment of 

Heritage Areas 

Conclusions 
Page 11 GAO-04-914T National Heritage Areas 

Several of the provisions in S. 2543 represent positive steps towards 

addressing the concerns we raised in March. In particular, by establishing 

a formal program, the bill would remove the obstacle to effective 

management and oversight identified by agency officials. Furthermore, by 

establishing a more systematic process for designating heritage areas, S 

2543’s provisions can help to ensure that only the most qualified sites 

become heritage areas. In addition, by placing a $15 million per year cap 

on funding to the heritage areas through the Park Service, the bill limits 

the federal government’s funding commitment to these areas. Finally, 

provisions in S. 2543 would enhance the Park Service’s ability to oversee 

and hold areas accountable for their use of federal funds by establishing 

criteria for reviewing and approving areas’ management plans and by 

requiring heritage areas to annually report on performance goals and 

accomplishments. 

To ensure greater accountability for the use of federal funds, the Congress 

may wish to consider amending S. 2543 by adding provisions directing the 

Secretary to (1) review heritage areas’ annual financial reports to ensure 

that the agency has a full accounting of heritage area funds from all federal 

sources, and (2) develop results-oriented performance goals and measures 

for the Park Service’s overall heritage area program. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

For more information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

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

Matters for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgements 

(360498) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs