Microsoft Word - nhaguidelinesdraft.doc

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

FEASIBILITY STUDY GUIDELINES

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

2019

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA FEASIBILITY

STUDY GUIDELINES

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS) has been increasingly called upon by Congress to

conduct feasibility studies on discreet areas throughout the Nation that may be candidates

for National Heritage Area (NHA) designation. This is an update to the 2003 NPS

guidance document and management policies for undertaking NHA feasibility studies

available for reference by NPS personnel or others performing such studies. These

guidelines provide a suggested methodology, including basic steps or areas of inquiry,

that make up a comprehensive NHA feasibility study; how to apply NHA criteria; an

outline of a typical NHA feasibility study report; and, appendices containing helpful hints

on sources of information, public involvement techniques, and other factors.

National Heritage Area Feasibility Studies Can Be Initiated In Four

Different Ways:

1. The 1998 Omnibus Parks Management Act (Public Law 105-391) establishes certain

requirements for studies of areas for potential addition to the National Park System.

Similar requirements are established by law for studies of Wild and Scenic Rivers and

additions to the National Trail System.

Studies of new units of the National Park

System,

Wild and Scenic River System and National Trail system

can only be initiated if

authorized by Congress. The potential for

national heritage area designation might be

evaluated as

an alternative in one of these

congressionally authorized studies. Chapter 1 of

Management Policies and special directive 92-11 guide

studies of potential new NPS

units.

2. Congress can specifically authorized studies of potential new heritage areas through the

legislative process independently fro

m any consid

eration of creating a new u

nit of the

National Park System, N

ational Trails System, or Wild and Scenic River System.

3. Congress has directed funding from the NPS budget to studies of potential heritage

areas without any specific authorization. Technical assistance projects supported by the

National Park Service may evolve into a study of

an area’s potential as a NHA, also

without any specific authorization from Congress.

4. Local sponsors have undertaken a number of

NHA feasibility studies, either as part of a

state sponsored heritage initiative or

because a local management entity desires to

seek

NHA designation by Congress. NPS then reviews the locally sponsored

feasibility study to

determine if the candidate area qualifies for national designation.

These guidelines are designed to help understand the process and content of NHA

feasibility studies regardless of whether the study is congressionally authorized and

conducted by the NPS or undertaken by local sponsors. A first step in any study process

undertaken by NPS personnel, of course, should be to review the legislative history on

how it was authorized or directed.

These guidelines are offered with the understanding that each study may involve unique

resource and public involvement issues and each region may present different study

opportunities and constraints. Flexibility in the use of the guidelines is assumed

throughout the following discussion. Study team members may also find that altering the

sequence of the study steps better serves their purposes.

II. NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA DEFINITION,

DESIGNATION STEPS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

CRITERIA

On October 26, 1999, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Parks

and Public Lands, House Resources Committee, the NPS articulated its definition of a

NHA, the steps to be completed prior to designation, and 10 criteria to permit the NPS,

Congress and the public to evaluate candidate areas. The NPS definition provides that:

A National Heritage Area is a place designated by Congress where natural,

cultural, historic and scenic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally

distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped by

geography. These patterns make National Heritage Areas representative of the

national experience through the physical features that remain and the

traditions that have evolved in them. Continued use of National Heritage Areas

by people whose traditions helped to shape the landscapes enhances their

Significance.

The term nationally distinctive landscape has not been further defined, but should be

understood to include places that are characterized by unique cultures, nationally important

events, and historic demographic and economic trends and social movements, among others.

They are places that by their resource and cultural values and the contributions of people and

events have had substantial impact on the formation of our national story. The term is not

synonymous with the normal NPS definition of national significance except that a nationally

distinctive landscape may contain nationally significant resources, e.g., units of the National

Park System, National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) and National Natural Landmarks NNLs. To

become a NHA and to warrant NPS involvement, there should be a determination on the part of

the study team that clearly identifiable and important characteristics of national heritage value

exist in the study area.

It is recommended that the study team consider using a round table of experts,

knowledgeable in the resources and stories of the study area and comparable landscapes,

such as State Historic Preservation Office staff, Tribal Historic Preservation Office staff,

Academics, local historians, and local NPS Park staff, to assist in determining how the

potential NHA ranks among these related resources and stories. The round table findings

can assist greatly in, and provide documentation for, the determination of national

distinctiveness. Appendix 1 provides examples of what may

constitute nationally distinctive

landscapes.

The testimony continued:

The focus is on the protection and conservation of critical resources; the natural,

cultural, scenic, and historic resources that have shaped us as a nation and as

communities.

In national parks, it is primarily the responsibility of the National Park Service to

ensure that the resources that the Congress has recognized as being important to

our nation’s heritage are protected, interpreted and preserved. In heritage areas

it is the responsibility of the people living within a heritage area to ensure that the

heritage area’s resources are protected, interpreted and preserved and it is the

National Park Service’s responsibility to assist them in that endeavor.

Our experience working with heritage areas around the country has led us to the

recognition that the people who live on the land are uniquely qualified to protect

it. Heritage area designations provide significant opportunities to encourage

citizens, local businesses and organizations, and local governments to work

together to foster a greater sense of community, to reward community pride, and

to care for their land and culture. As Aldo Leopold once said, ‘When we see land

as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and

respect.’ Heritage areas provide the opportunity to pass on the knowledge and

culture of the past to the future. As Loren Eiseley said, ‘Without the past, the

pursued future has no meaning.’ By creating this bond with the next generation,

heritage areas will be insuring their continued support into the future.

The conservation of resources through local initiative has shaped our thoughts on

heritage areas and how best to identify, designate and then support them.

Probably the most important work that goes on in a heritage area is the

organizing that goes on at the beginning of the process. The recognition of

important local resources, the determination of a community’s unique story, the

formulation of a plan involving all parts of a community in how best to protect

those resources and to carry on a community’s heritage through each generation

are the difficult tasks. These are arduous and time-consuming activities, but our

experience tells us that through them there are created strong local commitments

to the conservation of a community’s heritage and its unique resources that help

to define communities and result in vital, thriving communities.

The testimony stresses that the NPS views a NHA, first and foremost, as a vehicle

for locally initiated protection and interpretation of natural, cultural, scenic and

historic resources. While the NPS assists in this effort (primarily through financial

and technical assistance), local partnerships are responsible for planning and

carrying out the strategies and specific tasks to achieve successful resource

protection and interpretation. The testimony also indicates that much of the

important work is the organizing that goes on at the beginning of the process.

In many cases, the feasibility study is a part of the organizing influence that begins the

process. As such, these studies are quite different from others normally conducted by the

NPS. They require an understanding on the part of the study team that they are interacting

in a wider community environment. Pivotal decisions relating to NHA designation rest on

the support, commitment and capacity of those in the community that will be responsible

for undertaking and implementing a heritage area management plan. Providing the

opportunity for the articulation of local visions and suggestions of how heritage area

programming may best be implemented provides opportunities for the community to

better understand the role of a heritage area. This is a critical element in assisting the

study team to measure the potential for local support, capacity, commitment, and

ultimately, NHA feasibility

Four steps are necessary before the Department of the Interior makes findings

and recommendations to Congress through requested testimony at a hearing

regarding designation of a region as a NHA:

1. completion of a feasibility study;

2. public involvement in the feasibility study;

3. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area

residents for the proposed designation; and

4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which may

include governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations,

in addition to the local citizenry.

Three of the four steps carry strong implications that a NHA Feasibility Study entails

a level of public engagement by the study team well beyond the minimum National

Environmental P

olicy Act requirements usually associated with a Special Resource

Study or a NPS unit General Management Plan. Because there will often be

considerable public interest surrounding the potential for NHA designation, public

desire to participate in the study process, or even the necessity by the study team to

actively seek out potentially important players, public involvement strategies and

techniques require careful pre-study planning.

The NPS has ten criteria for evaluation of candidate areas by the NPS,

Congress and the public:

1. An area has an assemblage of natural, historic, or cultural resources

that together represent distinctive aspects of American heritage

worthy of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and continuing

use, and are best managed as such an assemblage through

partnerships among public and private entities, and by combining

diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and active

communities;

2. Reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife that are a valuable

part of the national story;

3. Provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, cultural,

historic, and /or scenic features;

4. Provides outstanding recreational and educational opportunities;

5. The resources important to the identified theme or themes of the

area retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting interpretation;

6. Residents, business interests, non-profit organizations, and

governments within the proposed area are involved in the planning,

have developed a conceptual financial plan that outlines the roles for

all participants including the federal government, and have

demonstrated support for designation of the area;

7. The proposed management entity and units of government

supporting the designation are willing to commit to working in

partnership to develop the heritage area;

8. The proposal is consistent with continued economic activity in the

area;

9. A conceptual boundary map is supported by the public; and

10. The management entity proposed to plan and implement the project

is described.

The NPS uses these criteria to evaluate potential ares and has referenced them in

subsequent testimony before congressional authorizing committees regarding legislation

proposing designation of specific national heritage areas.

III. SUGGESTED STEPS IN A NATIONAL HERITAGE

AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY

The steps described below should be sufficient to undertake a comprehensive NHA

feasibility study by NPS personnel. They are also encouraged for use in feasibility studies

undertaken by local organizations seeking National Heritage Area designation. The study

team should feel free to reorder the steps to best fit the circumstances of the study.

NHA feasibility studies conducted by the NPS are subject to the compliance

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106

of the

National Historic Preservation Act

and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The

NPS guidance for addressing NEPA is set forth in Director’s Order

12: Conservation

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making, which outlines several

options for meeting NEPA, depending on the severity of the environmental impacts of

the alternatives.

A “categorical exclusion for which no formal documentation is necessary” is the most

appropriate NEPA pathway for NPS led feasibility studies. Feasibility studies are

excluded from requiring an environmental assessment because they match one of the

categories that under normal circumstances has no potential for impacts to the

human environment. The categorical exclusion selected states:

“Legislative proposals of an administrative or technical nature (including

such things as changes in authorizations for appropriations and minor boundary

changes and land title transactions) or having primarily economic, social, individual,

or institutional effects; and comments and reports on referrals of legislative

proposals” (NPS 2015).

NPS led feasibility studies are consistent with this categorical exclusion because they

are directed by Congress to determine if an area meets the feasibility requirement for

designation as a national heritage area. In this case, a feasibility study is a report on a

legislative proposal. If Congress decides to designate the feasibility study area as a

national heritage area, then a comprehensive management plan would be developed

for the area. Depending on the types of projects, programs, and other actions

proposed in that management plan, an environmental assessment may be

necessary at that time.

The categorical exclusion selected for NPS led NHA feasibility studies requires no

formal documentation; however, both NPS led and locally sponsored studies still

contain several key NEPA components. Principally, a feasibility study relies heavily

on public input and engagement of local stakeholders and subject matter experts to

support its findings.

Because at this stage in the evolution of a heritage area specific programs and

projects may not be known, a note should be included in the study that additional

NEPA compliance and Section 106 compliance work will be required not only for a

heritage area management plan for the region, but also for all future projects

requiring federal funding.

A. Step 1 – Defining the Study Area

The area within which the study is to be undertaken is most often specified by the

congressional authorization. In some cases, however, the authorization may refer only to

a general region. Studies sponsored by local interests may also require careful thought of

a study area.

Where the study area is not specified or apparent at the beginning of the study, a process

for determining an appropriate region needs to be developed by the study team. The

objective of the process should be to identify natural, cultural and/or political limits that

best encompass important resources related to the history of the region and potential

themes that may be identified. Public involvement in delineating the study area can be of

important assistance and serve to promote future public acceptance and support for

potential heritage area boundary alternatives proposed in the study (Criterion 9).

Step 2 – Public In

volvement Strategy

As stated previously, the criteria used for a NHA feasibility study im

ply

significant levels

ublic engagement. If a local organ

ization has already

been for

ed to prom

ote

natio

nal heritage area designation and enjoys the support of local governments, business

interests, organizations and the general public, the public involvement strategy may be

designed to capitalize on its existence and public acceptance. Such organizations can be

helpful in identifying contacts, supplying existing data and often, are willing to arrange

and sponsor public meetings and workshops during the course of the study.

An effective public involvem

ent strategy is based on the assumption that a successful

NHA study can only be achieved with the active pa

rticipation of affected interests in the

region. Indeed, the criteria require findings of public

support and commitment

to heritage

area designation. The objectives of a public involvement strategy sh

ould normally

include:

1. promotion of public understanding of the study and its components;

2. m

aximization of participation and contributions of interested and affected

governments, organizations and individuals in the study process; and

3. assessment of public support for designation, and local capacity and

commit

ments to successfully undertake he

ritage area resource protection

and

programming.

Elements of the strategy may include a process for identifying stakeholders, extensive

individual and organizational outreach, workshops and meetings, written materials

(meeting handouts, brochures, newsletters, and press releases), a web site, social media,

and the use of surrogate methods (e.g. asking other organizations, web sites

and

publications to inform the public of the study, request information on historical research,

resources that exist within the study area and potential themes that may be considered,

etc.). Workshops and charrettes are particularly useful in permitting the public to assist in

the identification of regional resources, potential heritage area themes and in creating

their own vision of the region’s future. Appendix 2 provides sources of information on

public involvement strategies and techniques that can be adapted for NHA study

purposes.

Public workshops associated with the conduct of a NHA feasibility study often provide

an opportunity for the NPS to facilitate a regional or community vision of a NHA.

Visioning workshops are a vehicle to bring interested publics together to discuss and

describe desirable futures and the roles that each may play in their achievement.

Visioning workshops are useful, too, in promoting an understanding of how resource

protection, interpretation and economic development may be compatibly undertaken.

The process better permits the public to determine if a NHA designation would be useful

in achieving community goals and to understand what actually occurs in a NHA.

C. Step 3 – Determination of the Region’s Contribution to the

National Heritage and Development of Potential Themes

NHAs, by definition, are places representative of the national experience. They are

regions that have contributed in substantial ways to our national heritage. Most often, the

authorizing legislation for the study will include findings about these contributions.

When a locally sponsored study, the study team will need

to explore these contributions.

The study team should assemble historical information about the region and understand

the contributions of the study area and its peop

le and events to the national story. These

have varied considerably among existing heritage areas. Some repr

esent specific historic

events leading to the formation and development of our nation, or early industrial or

technological achievements that fashioned

today’s society. Some are based on specific

cultural groups in a given region. Others ce

lebrate important landscap

es that were the

focus of literature, art and social experimentation. Famous persons are often honored, as

well as the contributions of

immigrants, early settlers, woman, labor, African Americans,

Native Americans and others wh

ose experiences and contributions are important for

understanding the nation’s heritage.

By first determining the regio

n’s contributions to our national heritage, the study team

may better focus its work

on identifying the natural and cultural resources associated

with

those contributions an

d the themes that may best enable the public to understand,

appreciate and celebrate thei

r importance. One potential element in determining if a

region contributes to the national heritage is the presence of a related National Park

System

unit (National Park, National Trail

or Wild and Scenic River), and National

Historic Landmarks and National Natural Landmarks within the study area.

Most often, knowledgeable experts and the

public are able to contribute significant

information to the study team

about source

materials and persons familiar with the

history of the region, events of importance, historical figures and the contributions of

various communities.

Tapping into and synthesizing this knowledge is a key to capturing

the true picture of the region’s contributions

and the community’s view of its shared

heritage. A round table of experts can assist the study team

in evaluating the role and

importance of the region as it relates to comparable landscapes in other parts of the

country and potential stories that may constitute viable themes.

The study team should also ascertain information about traditions, customs, beliefs, and

folk life that characterize the region (criterion 2). The traditions, customs and beliefs may

or may not exist in today’s society. Many that don’t are celebrated by local festivals,

exhibits and throug

h other commemorativ

e events. Identifying the ways in which these

important aspects of heritag

e are still evident, shared, or celebrated through

commemoration are necessary elements in understanding the region’s history an

contributions. The analysis shoul

d assist the team in discovering whom in the community

shares a common culture that is important

to the region’s story and if it continues to the

present day.

Themes are the organizing framework within

which interpretation of

related natural and

cultural resources is conducted. They are the bridges to increased public understanding of

the importance of the region and its theme-related resources. NHA themes are derived

from analyses of the region’s contributions to our national heritage

. They

represent the

broad stories that integrate the collection of individual resources so that they

may be

viewed within the context of the whole.

A good NHA theme structure enables residents

and visitors to understand the r

egion’s

overall contributions to our national heritage and the elements that enabled them to

occur. The elements may include, among many other factors, natural and cultural

resources, important events or decisions and the roles

of specific places, people, social

movements, beliefs, folkways and traditions.

The study team should understan

d that themes developed during the NHA feasibility

study may not be fully carried into a future heritage area management plan completed by

a local management entity. The purpose of theme development for the study is to

determine that a viable them

e structure exists in the study area. Careful consideration of

themes and a public process for developing

them during the study will assist local

interests in later theme related planning if NHA desig

nation results. Researching the

broad array of stories and resources connected with them is also critical to the later

development of potential NHA boundaries.

D. Step 4 - Natural and Cultural Resources Inventories, Integrity

Determinations, and Affected Environment Data

The determination of a nationally distinctive landscape is partially dependent on the

evaluation of resources existing within the study area. Conducting a carefully planned

natural and cultural resources inventory not only provides a basis for measurement, it

leads to a better understanding of how NHA designation may contribute to additional

public education and protection of a region’s resource base. The key is to focus the

inventory process on producing the results necessary for the study’s purposes. There

are generally three purposes for the inventory:

1. to assist in assessing whether the region is a

nationally distinctive landscape

(criterion 1);

to assess whether there are resources important to the identified themes and if

they retain integrity for interpretive purposes (criterion 5);

to determine if there are outstanding opportunities for conservation, recreation

and education (criteria 3&4)

Since the study being conducted is one investigating the feasibility of NHA designation,

an exhaustive resource inventory ma

y not be necessary for the second objective. Criterion

5 calls for the determination that resources important to the identified theme or themes of

the area retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting interpretation. The study team

should focus on identifying a strategic assemblage of natural and cultural resources that

relates to the identified themes. It is these resources for which integrity assessments

should be made. While many additional theme-related resources may be identified, the

feasibility study needs to find only that there is a sufficient assem

blage with integrity to

provide a viable interpretive experience. The NPS and State Historic Preservation

Offices, as well as state and local agencies and organizations, have inventories of cultural

and natural resources that may assist greatly in the investigation. Refer to the National

Historic Landmarks listing, National Register of Historic Places, State registries, and

National Natural Landmarks listings, to name a few.

In addition to natural and cultural resources, information necessary to assess outstanding

opportunities for conservation, recreation and education (criteria 3&4) should include an

analysis of existing public and publicly accessible private open space, recr

eation and

heritage education resources, and whether there are potential opportunities

to increase the

level and quality of such resources through heritage area designation.

For both NPS led and locally sponsored stu

dies, additional information may need to be

collected by the study team to enable the completion of the criteria analysis. These

should include at minimum, additional information on:

1. population and socio-economic conditions;

2. land use and transportation;

3. tourism, business and industry; and

4. air and water quality.

Through the review of the affected environment, the study team should identify

necessary information

enabling a determination that heritage area designation

will

be consistent with continued economic activity (criterion 8).

E. Step 5 – Management Alternatives And Preliminary

Assessment of Impacts

Within an NPS Special Resource Study, NHA designation may be a management

alternative to the designation of a unit of the National Park System and be evaluated for

its feasibility using these guidelines. 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.

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 i mpacts of this

alternative should be included.

The second management alternative is NHA designation. The preliminary analysis of this

alternative should include a de

scription 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.

Depending on its feasibility, a third management

alternative

might describe the potential

for local or state operation o

f 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, of course, must be feasible to

implement and their impacts described.

F. Step 6 - Boundary Delineations

Prospective heritage area boundaries should include resources with integrity (determined

in Step 4) that have important relationships to the potential themes developed in Step 3.

All resources related to the themes in the study area need not be included within a

proposed boundary. A strategic or representative assemblage that enables

residents and visitors to fully understand how the region has contributed to the national

story and that offers opportunities for additional resource protection is a desirable result.

Boundary alternatives may be developed that provide (1) the core resources necessary for

a successful heritage area or (2) the core plus additional resources that may significantly

add to public understanding and foster additional opportunities for resource protection.

Criterion 9 provides that a conceptual boundary is supported by the public. As with other

aspects of the study, public involvement in the delineation and evaluation of alternative

boundaries can be an important element in this determination.

It is important that the study team views the process of delineating boundary alternatives

as being responsive to the research undertaken to develop potential themes in Step 3 and

the resource based inquiry undertaken in Step 4. Boundary alternatives should be justified

on the quantity and quality of resources that are integral to the interpretation of themes,

community vision of the region’s desired future, and opportunities for increased resource

protection.

G. Step 7 – Heritage Area Administration and Financial

Feasibility

Criterion 10 provides that the management entity for the potential NHA be described.

Management entities for NHAs have included nonprofit organizations, federal

commissions and state agencies or public corporations. In any structure analyzed, the

study team should ensure that the entity is representative of the varied interests in the

potential heritage area including natural and cultural resources organizations,

governments, businesses and industries, recreational organizations and others that may be

affected by heritage area plans and programs. Where a local heritage area organization

has not been previously formed, the study team will need to include a strategy to

ascertain whether any existing organizations are interested in becoming the local

management entity and the level of public support they may receive. The study team may

need to facilitate discussions to ascertain the feasibility of the creation of a new

organization for this purpose if a ready candidate is not in place.

A conceptual financial plan outlining the roles for all participants (criterion 6) should

also be devised. The financial plan should demonstrate, at a minimum, the ability of the

management entity to meet federal matching requirements that may become available

upon NHA designation. The team should also assess capabilities of the management

entity to leverage federal funding with other potential financial resources. It is recognized

that the latter resources may not be able to be specifically identified during the study.

What may be gauged is the past or potential capacity and creativity of the management

entity to attract additional financial support. A five-year conceptual financial plan is

suggested. The plan should, if possible, include estimates of funds to be made available

by the management entity, state or local contributions, and potential funding by private

interests (foundations, corporations and other organizations). The study team should be

cognizant of any state sponsored assistance programs for heritage areas, regional projects

and/or heritage tourism grants that may be investigated as potential funding sources.

NHA management entities often use a portion of their federal funding to make matching

grants to local organizations. The portion of federal funds anticipated to be used for

grants should be estimated, as well as any corresponding matching funds to be provided

by grantees. A sample of a conceptual financial plan revenue chart is presented in

Appendix 3.

Estimating expenditures for a potential NHA is not a necessary inclusion in a feasibility

study. At this stage in the evolution of a heritage area, how funds will be specifically

expended may not be known. Such figures are more appropriately contained in a heritage

area management plan. If the potential management entity has developed preliminary

expense projections they should, of course, be portrayed in the study.

H. Step 8 – Evaluation of Public Support and Commitments

Since NHAs are locally controlled, planned, and implemented, the study team’s

evaluation of public support for designation (criterion 6) and commitments to

partnerships within the study area (criterion 7) are critical to the feasibility analysis.

Findings of public support or opposition can be derived from comments at public

meetings, letters from individuals and organizations, resolutions from governing bodies,

and actual evidence of formal commitments by local governments and others to

participate in heritage area planning and programming.

Partnership commitments demonstrate, in large part, the capacity of the local participants

to undertake and implement a future NHA. They may be agreements for working

relationships, financial contributions, or pledges of other types of assistance. As in the

case of the conceptual financial plan, specific commitments may be difficult to ascertain

during the study. Indications of commitments to assist and work in partnership with the

management entity by state and local governments and other organizations may be

substituted for actual dollar or other specific contributions. The study team should,

however, attempt to ascertain tangible commitments that partners are willing to

contribute to the successful implementation of the heritage area. A sample way to portray

commitments to the partnership is presented in Appendix 4.

IV. SAMPLE REPORT OUTLINE

The following outline is intended as an example to demonstrate how the various study

steps may be integrated into a NHA feasibility study report and to analyze if a heritage

area vision, mission and goals are attainable. Study teams will need to design their own

report formats based on the level of information available and the manner which best

portrays the viability of a potential NHA.

A. Executive Summary – The summary should include a concise description of the

study, including a discussion on why the area has been judged to be nationally

distinctive, and a conclusion as to whether the ten criteria for NHA designation

have or have not been met. It should specify any supplemental steps to be taken

that will permit any criterion to be met.

B. Chapter 1: Introduction – The introduction should include the following:

• Purpose of the Study

including reference to the authorizing

legislation

(if

applicable);

• The Study Process

including the methodologies used to develop the

study scope;

• Description

of the Study Area;

• Public Involvement Strategies;

• Coordination With Concurrent Studies and Efforts

including other

NPS and state or

local initiatives within the study area; and

• Steps to Be Undertaken

at the Conclusion of the Study including

public review requirements, transmittal of the study to Congress by the

Secretary of the Interior and the need for designating legislation.

C. Chapter 2: Study Area History and Contributions – The chapter should

describe the events, people, places or other factors (including the results of any

expert round table discussions) that result in the conclusion that the region is a

nationally distinctive landscape that contributes substantially to our national

heritage. The chapter utilizes information developed in

Step 3.

D. Chapter 3: Themes –

The chapter should describe

the process for developing

potential themes and discuss the selected themes and any associated sub-themes.

The chapter utilizes information develo

ped in Step

E. Chapter 4: Affected Environment – The chapter should include information

from

the natural and cultural resources inventories and other data included in Step

4. Maps should also be included here.

F. Chapter 5: Management Alternatives –

This chapter

sets forth NHA

designation and other potential management alternatives including alternative

boundary delineations. The chapter utilizes information developed in Steps 5 and

Chapter 6: Application

of National Heritage Area Criteria – This

chapter

discusses each criterion and evaluates the potential for heritage area

designation.

The chapter draws upon the information set forth in previous

chapters, particularly

chapters 2, 3 and 4 with additional information developed in

Study Steps 7 and 8

regarding the proposed management entity and evidence of

public support and

local commitments.

Chapter 7: Vision Statement –

If a visioning process has been included in the

study as a vehicle for public engagement, a

suggested heritage area vision should

be presented.

Chapter 8: Impact Assessment – This chapter describes the anticipated impacts

related to the various management alternatives and any boundary alternatives that

may be contained in the study. It should address potential impacts of identified

alternatives, including “no action” on the elements described in Chapter 4 –

Affected Environment.

J. Appendices – Appendices should include necessary consultation documents, and

sources of positive and negative public comments. It may also include charts

representing data gathered during the

study, e.g., a matrix of NHL and National

Sites with integrity ratings, public accessibility, ownership, lists of

municipalities represented in

boundary alternatives, literature or other

references consulted, and other useful i

nformation to further inform

the public.

APPENDIX 1

EXAMPLES OF NATIONALLY DISTINCTIVE LANDSCAPES

Nationally distinctive landscapes are places that contain important regional and

national stories that, together with their associated natural and/or cultural

resources, enable the American people to understand, preserve and celebrate key

components of the multi-faceted character of the Nation’s heritage. The landscapes

are often places that represent and contain identifiable assemblages of resources

with integrity associated with one or more of the following:

1. important historical periods of the Nation and its people;

2. major events, persons and groups that contributed substantively to the Nation’s

history, customs, beliefs, and folklore;

3. distinctive cultures and cultural mores;

4. major industries and technological, business and manufacturing

innovations/practices, and labor advancements that contributed substantively to

the economic growth of the Nation and the well-being of its people;

5. transportation innovations and routes that played central roles in important

military actions, settlement, migration, and commerce;

6. social movements that substantively influenced past and present day society;

7. American art, crafts, literature and music;

8. distinctive architecture and architectural periods and movements;

9. major scientific discoveries and advancements; and

10. other comparable representations that together with their associated resources

substantively contributed to the Nation’s heritage.

APPENDIX 2

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Members of the Study Team should consult Director’s Order 75A which provides

guidance on NPS policies relating to civic engagement and public involvement. This

Director’s Order contains a number of helpful web sites containing information on public

involvement strategies and techniques.

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) staff members are skilled in a variety

of public involvement and community visioning techniques. The study team should

consider enlisting RTCA staff assistance in designing the proposed public involvement

strategy for a NHA feasibility study. If possible, the team should consider involvement of

RTCA staff in the various public meetings and forums conducted during the study. The

NPS Denver Service Center has also developed a public involvement model that may be

consulted.

Director’s Order 75A contains a number of useful resources that may assist in devising

strategies and techniques for public involvement in a NHA feasibility study including:

(This list is provided for the convenience of readers. Web links may change or become

obsolete).

National Park Service Civic Engagement Resources:

https://www.nps.gov/civic/resources/index.html

NPS Sources

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection handbook (U.S. Department of the Interior

1997):

http://obpa-nc.org/DOI-AdminRecord/0048953-0049060.pdf

NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Programs Community Toolboxes:

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/resources.htm

Other DOI Bureau Sources

A Handbook for Outreach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

2001 https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/document/

id/70

Other Federal Sources

EPA's Public Participation Guide: https://www.epa.gov/

international-cooperation/public-participation-guide

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:

https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/

citizens-guide-section-106-reviewNon

Non-Federal Sources

International Association

for Pu

blic Participation

www.iap2.org

nternational Association of Facilitators

www.iaf-world.org

Oregon Conservation and Land Development Agency's policy:

ttps://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/index.aspx

APPENDIX 3

SAMPLE PORTRAYAL OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY FINANCIAL

CAPABILITY FOR STUDY COMPONENT 7

The sample portrayal of financial capability provides an estimate of anticipated federal

funding over a 5-year period and potential sources of local matching contributions. While

contemporary NHA legislation provides federal funding authorizations of up to $1

million a year over a 15-year period with a required 50:50 non-federal match to any

federal funds from this program, newly designated NHAs rarely receive $1 million in the

first few years. The sample portrays anticipated federal funding below the maximum

authorization and based off of an NHA receiving ~$150,000 in federal funds for years

1-3 and then ~$300,00 for years 4-5, after the approval of a Management Plan.

Five Year Revenue Projection

Total Revenues - $2,100,000

Revenues in Each Column May be Adjusted Upward or Downward Based on Actual

Federal Appropriations

Anticipated Federal

Appropriations

Anticipated State

and Local

Contributions

(Match)

Other Private

Grants, Donations,

and Miscellaneous

Income (Match)

Grantee Matching

Requirement for

$500,000 in

Management Entity

Sub-Grants to other

Organizations (Match)

1,050,000 $300,000 $500,000 $250,000

The study team should provide explanations in the study setting forth it’s reasoning on

how estimates on anticipated state and local contributions, as well as other private grants,

donations and miscellaneous income were determined. Specific financial commitments, if

known should be identified. Where specific commitments cannot be determined, the

study team should provide information on the past capacity of the management entity to

attract funding, or the rationale that a new management entity may do so in the future.

Interviews with potential public and private funding sources can assist in determining the

local interest of future financial support for heritage area projects and programs.

APPENDIX 4

SAMPLE PORTRAYAL OF PARTNERSHIP COMMITMENTS TO POTENTIAL

NHA

Partnership commitments demonstrate, in large part, the capacity of the local participants

to undertake and implement a future NHA. They may be agreements for working

relationships, financial contributions, or pledges of other types of assistance. A sample

way to portray commitments to the partnership is presented below:

Organization Activity $ Commitment TA/Education

Commitment

State Lands Agency

And Nonprofit Land

Trusts

Land Acquisition

and Trails

Development in

Heritage Area

X $$ Heritage Planning,

Programming and Open

Space Preservation

Management Entity

Operational Budget

(exclusive of federal

funding)

Planning and

Implementation

X$$ Partnership Development,

Historic and Open Space

Preservation and

Interpretation

Nonprofit

Organization

Historic

Preservation

X $$ to Provide

Match to NHA

Local Grantees

Historic Preservation and

National Register

Nomination Advice

State Tourism

Association

Tourism

Development

Marketing and Tourism

Advice

Private Foundation Open Space and

Historic

Preservation

50/50 matching

Grant for Planning

and Resource

Protection Projects

Corporate Sponsor Sponsor and

Provide Tangible

Contributions for

Heritage Events

County Government Provide Office

Space for

Management Entity

Provide Web Page for

Heritage Area Activities

Chamber of

Commerce

Provide Design and

Printing of Heritage

Area Brochure

As in the case of the conceptual financial plan, specific commitments may be difficult to

ascertain during the study. Indications of commitments to assist and work in partnership

with the management entity by state and local governments and other organizations may

be substituted for actual dollar or other specific contributions. The study team should,

however, attempt to ascertain tangible commitments that partners are willing to

contribute to the successful implementation of the heritage area.