![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.302083333333333in" height="1.125in"}

# 

# Legislative Bulletin.................................................October 23, 2007

**Contents:**

**H.R. 1483 ---** To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage
areas, and for other purposes

H.R. 1483 --- To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act
of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas,
and for other purposes (Regula, R-OH)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 1483 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 subject to a closed rule (H.Res.
765). The rule:

-   waives all points of order against *consideration* of the bill
    except those for earmarks and PAYGO;

-   provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Natural
    Resources Committee, an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
    modified by a self-executing amendment, shall be considered as
    adopted;

-   waives all points of order against the bill itself, as amended,
    except for the earmark point of order; and

-   allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

**[Summary:]{.underline}** H.R 1483 would create six new National
Heritage Areas to conduct heritage centered conservation and development
projects within a designated geographic area. Each new Heritage Area
would be authorized for 15 years and would be eligible to receive a
maximum of \$1 million annually. The bill would also reauthorize nine
existing heritage areas and require a feasibility study for a new area.

***Designation of New Heritage Areas***:

The bill would create six **new** Heritage Areas and authorize their
designation for 15 years from the date of enactment. Each of the
following areas would be authorized to receive up to \$1 million
annually with a limit of \$15 million throughout the duration of the
designation:

-   Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area in portions
    of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia

-   Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in New York

-   Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in Alabama

-   Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in Massachusetts and New
    Hampshire

-   Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area in Illinois

-   Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona

The bill would designate a management entity for each new area. A
management entity is to be made up of federal, state and local
governments along with organizations, private industries and individuals
involved in promoting the conservation and preservation of the area.

The entity would be responsible for developing, approving, and executing
a management plan for the area, as well as the distribution of the \$15
million authorized by the legislation. The management entity would be
required to submit reports regarding the heritage area's management plan
and conservation activities to Congress.

H.R. 1483 requires that any federal funds used under the Act must be
matched by the management entity using either state, local, or private
funds.

Each heritage area would offer private property protections, and to that
end, H.R. 1483 states that nothing in the bill:

-   "abridges the rights of any property owner, including the right to
    refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or
    activity conducted within the National Heritage Area;

-   "requires any property owner to permit public access to their
    property, or to modify public access or use of their property owner
    under any other Federal, State, Tribal, or local law;

-   "alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved land use
    plan, or other regulatory authority of any Federal, State, Tribal,
    or local agency, or conveys any land use or other regulatory
    authority to any local entity;

-   "authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of water or
    water rights;

-   "diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife;
    and

-   "creates any liability of any private property owner with respect to
    any person injured on the private property."

**[Note]{.underline}**: There is no private property protection that
allows a property owner to opt out of inclusions from the Heritage Area
designation or requires the management entity to notify the property
owner when the designation occurs.

***Northern Neck National Heritage Area Study***:

H.R. 1483 requires the Secretary of Interior to conduct a three year
feasibility study to determine the suitability of designating an area in
Virginia as the Northern Neck Heritage Area.

***Reauthorization of Existing Heritage Areas***:

The bill would reauthorize nine existing Heritage Areas that were
created in 1996. The following Heritage Areas would be reauthorized for
20 years, through September 30, 2027. The reauthorization would increase
the current level of funding from \$10 million to \$15 million with a
maximum of \$1 million available annually. Below is a list of the
Heritage Authorized being reauthorized, and the amount of federal money
that each area has received since 1996:

-   National Coal Heritage Area in West Virginia (\$1.9 million)

-   Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area in Tennessee (\$2.1 million)

-   Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in Georgia (\$4.7 million)

-   Steel Industry American Heritage Area in Pennsylvanian (\$9.4
    million)

-   Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts (\$9.3 million)

-   South Carolina National Heritage Corridor in South Carolina (\$7.9
    million)

-   America's Agricultural Partnership in Iowa (\$5.1 million)

-   Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor (redesignated as the
    Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway) in Ohio (\$9.4 million)

-   Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in New York (\$6 million)

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The National Park Service (NPS)
describes a National Heritage Area as a "complex matrix of public and
private land" wherein conservation and preservation efforts are
centrally managed. The designation creates a managing entity composed of
federal, state, and local governments, along with private sector
organizations. The goal of the collective is to encourage and develop
conservation projects within the area. The managing entity creates a
management plan and receives federal funds on the areas behalf. The
National Park Service provides technical and financial assistance, for a
limited number of years following designation. According to the National
Heritage Area
[website](http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/FAQ/INDEX.HTM), the
designation is permanent, but the role of the NPS is supposed to lessen
over time.

Although no legislative criteria exist for designating a National
Heritage Area, 37 have been created to date, with the majority in the
eastern half of the country. Unlike a National Park designation, the
jurisdiction of a heritage area stretches across cities, states, and
large swaths of privately owned land. For instance, the proposed Journey
Though Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, the most contentious
heritage area in H.R. 1483, would be comprised of a 175 mile stretch
through four different states.

Because H.R. 1483 has no provision that would require the notification
or consent of private property owners included in the heritage area,
residents are often unknowingly lumped into the designation. In
addition, the bill lacks language that would allow private property
owners to withdraw from the heritage area boundary or require that they
be notified before they are included. Such provisions are commonplace in
previous National Heritage Area designations (see requirements for the
inclusion of private property in previous Heritage Area authorization
bills
[here](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~mdbsmpV8Sx::)).
Furthermore, a recent [Heritage Foundation
report](http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg2025.cfm)
referred to a stand alone version of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground
National Heritage Area designation as, "a badly flawed bill that would
give a handful of environmentalists and wealthy landowners extraordinary
powers over the use of private property along the Route 15 corridor."

Previous National Heritage Area designations have been unpopular with
the residents who were either unknowingly included in the boundary or
were not aware of the level of regulating power the management entity
had over the designated area. The Yuma Crossing Heritage Area, which was
authorized by Congress in 2000, surprised and frustrated many residents
who complained about the restrictive zoning regulations associated with
historic preservation. The bill creating the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area
was eventually amended in the 109^th^ Congress as a direct result of the
public outcry. According to [House Report
109-294](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr294)):

> When the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area was authorized in 2000, the
> public in Yuma County did not understand the scope of the project and
> was surprised by the size of the designation. Citizens originally
> believed that the heritage area would focus mainly around the historic
> districts and the wetlands. Furthermore, many property owners were not
> aware that they were also included in the new designation. Concerns
> were raised by citizens about the size of the designation and the
> potential for additional Federal oversight. The fear of adverse
> impacts on private property rights were realized when local government
> agencies began to use the immense heritage area boundary to determine
> zoning restrictions.

Often times, the managing entity is able to regulate zoning and other
restrictions across local governments. As a result, residents are often
not aware of newer restrictions imposed by heritage area designations
because they are different than local regulations.

In addition to property rights issues that are associated with National
Heritage Areas, it is often difficult to track the federal money spent
by the management entities because there is very little oversight. In a
letter to the Natural Resources Committee concerning the Journey Through
Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, the National Center for Public
Policy Research referred to heritage areas as "the Kelo decision and
earmarks rolled into one." For example, the Journey Through Hallowed
Ground management entity was given funding by way of an anonymous \$1
million earmark two full years before it was even introduced into
Congress. Although it does not identify which member of Congress
included it or what its purpose may be, the [Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ059.109)
(SAFETEA) of 2005 lists the following earmark:

VA The Journey Through \$1,000,000

Hallowed Ground Rt. 15

scenic corridor management

planning and

implementation, FY 2006.

In response to these issues, certain Members of Congress whose districts
are inside of potential heritage area designations have made attempts to
improve current legislation.

On March 1, 2007, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), whose district
includes a large portion of the proposed Journey Through Hallowed Ground
National Heritage Area, offered H.R. 1270, which would establish the
heritage area, but includes additional protection for private property,
and removes all references to federal funding. When no action was taken
by the Committee, Rep. Bartlett and Rep. Virgil Goode, whose district
would be included in the same designation, attempted to offer an
amendment to have their districts removed from the heritage area, but it
was rejected by the majority. According to the dissenting views signed
by 13 Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee, an amendment by
Rep. Rob Bishop to "allow residents to remove their land from the
heritage area boundaries and require the management entity of a heritage
area to obtain written consent from an owner before their property is
conserved, preserved, or promoted" was also rejected. Since the bill
will be considered under a closed rule, neither of these amendments will
be considered on the floor.

[**Possible Conservative Concerns**:]{.underline} Some conservatives may
be concerned that National Heritage Area designations can lead to
restrictive federal zoning and land-use planning. The management plan
could restrict how residential and commercial property owners utilize
their private property without any notice or warning. Furthermore, some
conservatives may be concerned because H.R. 1483 would not allow a
property owner to escape inclusion in the heritage area.

Some conservatives may be concerned that funds for National Heritage
Areas are difficult to monitor and that management entities often
receive funding through earmarks. In addition, funding and federal
support for National Heritage Areas is intended to decrease as the
management entity becomes more autonomous over time, but H.R. 1483
increases funding for nine existing heritage areas and extends their
federal authorization for 20 years.

Finally, some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 1483 is being
considered under a closed rule and, as such, Members will be unable to
address concerns they may have with the bill, especially Members whose
districts will be directly impacted.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1483 was introduced on March
12, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, where are
mark-up was held on September 26, 2007. The bill was reported by a vote
of 23 -- 12.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: A statement of the
Administration's position is currently unavailable.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, implementing H.R.
1483 would cost \$46 million from

FY 2008 -- FY 2012, and \$60 million thereafter, assuming the
appropriation of the necessary funds.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes, the bill creates six new National
Heritage Areas to receive federal funds and manage the public-private
conservation entity.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}**: The Natural Resources
Committee, in [House Report 110 --
338](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr388)),
asserts that, "H.R. 1483 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9
of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Natural Resources
Committee, in [House Report 110 --
338](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr388)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, but does not
cite a specific clause. House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that
all committee reports contain "a statement citing the *specific* powers
granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the
bill or joint resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.