Scratchpad

From CCoWS Wiki
Revision as of 15:47, 5 March 2021 by Fred (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The National Park Service (NPS) has been increasingly called upon by Congress to conduct feasibility studies on discreet areas throughout the US that may be candidates for NHA designation. NHA designation may be a management alternative to the designation of a unit of the National Park System and be evaluated for its feasibility. The NPS views a NHA as a vehicle for locally initiated protection and interpretation of natural, cultural, scenic and historic resources. The NPS assists in this effort primarily through financial and technical assistance, but local partnerships are responsible for planning and carrying out the strategies and specific tasks to achieve successful resource protection and interpretation. If the study is authorized by Congress as an NHA feasibility study, or is undertaken by a local sponsor without congressional authorization, this step should include management alternatives to NHA designation[1].

At least two management alternatives should be analyzed.

  • The first is the “no action/use of existing authorities alternative.” It is the continuation of the status quo with references to any known changes that may occur including any state or local initiatives that may affect the region. A preliminary analysis of the positive and negative impacts of this alternative should be included.
  • The second management alternative is NHA designation. The preliminary analysis of this alternative should include a description of the likely increases in funding and potentials for resource protection, interpretive programming and other positive or negative results of designation. The experiences of other NHAs may be used to comparatively illustrate potential results and impacts.
  • A third management alternative might describe the potential for local or state operation of a heritage area, independent of a federal NHA designation. In this alternative, there should be a description of likely funding sources and potential for resource protection, interpretive programming and other potential outcomes under state or local administration. An analysis of impacts should be included.
  • Additional alternatives may be explored as relevant to the study and region. These could include other types of heritage partnerships, trails, or other NPS assisted or unassisted endeavors.

All management alternatives presented must be feasible to implement and their impacts described[1].


Edit Later The NPS has indicated that since FY2009, funds have been allocated to heritage areas using formula-based criteria. Such criteria may be established by Congress as part of the annual appropriations process. For example, in the explanatory statement accompanying the FY2017 appropriations law for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Congress allocated funding to NHAs under a three-tier system. This system included $150,000 for each authorized area that was developing its management plan, known as Tier I areas; $300,000 for Tier II areas, which were those with recently approved management plans; and FY2016 funding levels for “longstanding areas.” For both FY2018 and FY2019, Congress directed this formula to remain constant with FY2017 levels, but “with the increase above the enacted level [of FY2017] to be equally distributed to Tier I areas or Tier II areas.” Congress appropriated $20.3 million for assistance to heritage areas in FY2018 and FY2019, $0.5 million higher than the FY2017 level. As a result, the total amount appropriated to each NHA was slightly higher than the Tier I and Tier II baseline levels from FY2017. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $21.9 million to support heritage areas. In the accompanying explanatory text, Congress directed that the distribution formula remain consistent with prior years and that the additional funding would be “sufficient to provide stable funding sources for both the newly authorized and existing NHAs.” For FY2021, the Administration seeks to eliminate nearly all funding for NHAs. Specifically, the Administration proposed a reduction of roughly $21.5 million for the NPS for heritage areas for FY2021. The FY2021 budget requests $0.4 million for administrative support and no funding for grants to existing heritage areas. In an overview of the major savings and reforms outlined in the FY2021 budget, the Administration stated that this reduction in funding was justified due to the heritage area program being “secondary to the primary mission of the National Park Service.” Instead, the Administration encourages existing heritage areas to use the federal designation to facilitate sustainable funding opportunities from local and private sources. Prior budget requests for each of FY2018-FY2020 also proposed funding only NHA administrative costs, with no funding provided to individual heritage areas. In July 2020, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 7612, the FY2021 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. In the related committee report, H.Rept. 116-448, the committee recommended $24.0 million in funding for the NPS Heritage Partnership Program. In addition, the bill included language waiving cost-share requirements for FY2021.31 On July 24, 2020, the House passed H.R. 7608, which included appropriations for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies in Division C. Although the bill did not specify the exact amount of funding provided for NHAs, funding for the National Recreation and Preservation account (from which Congress typically provides appropriations for heritage areas) is at the same level specified in H.R. 7612. In addition, H.R. 7608 provided a similar waiver of cost-share requirements for FY2021.
Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found