U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–332 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–28

ESTABLISH BLEEDING KANSAS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA;

CHAMPLAIN VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE IN VERMONT

AND NEW YORK; COLONIAL HERITAGE AREA IN MISSOURI;

AND UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE

AREA IN CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 175 S. 322

S. 323 S. 429

MARCH 15, 2005

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

THOMAS LILLIE, Professional Staff Member 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 8

Baker, James, Historic Site Administrator, Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, Ste. Genevieve, MO ........................................................................... 16

Billings, Judy, Senior Vice President, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, Lawrence Convention and Visitors Bureau, Lawrence, KS ..................................... 18

Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas ............................................... 3

Cosgrove, John W., Executive Director, Alliance of National Heritage Areas, 

Scranton, PA ......................................................................................................... 27

Cousins, Ann, Field Services Representative, Preservation Trust of Vermont, 

Burlington, VT ...................................................................................................... 21

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut ................................ 4

Jones, Ronald D., Chairman, Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage 

Area, Inc., Salisbury, CT ..................................................................................... 23

Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ...................................... 5

Knight, J. Peyton, Executive Director, American Policy Center, and Washington Representative for American Land Rights Association, Warrenton, 

VA .......................................................................................................................... 30

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from Connecticut ................................ 6 

Matthews, Janet Snyder, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National 

Park Service, Department of the Interior .......................................................... 9

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from Kansas ...................................................... 7

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 8

Talent, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Missouri ............................................ 15

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 1

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 37

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 39

(1)

ESTABLISH BLEEDING KANSAS NATIONAL 

HERITAGE AREA; CHAMPLAIN VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE IN VERMONT AND NEW 

YORK; COLONIAL HERITAGE AREA IN MISSOURI; AND UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. I believe we’ll get started. We have a little complication today, in that voting around here interferes with the rest 

of our lives, and, at 3 o’clock, we’re going to have five votes in a 

row, so we’re going to have to see if we can’t wind up here by about 

3:10, at the latest. 

So thank you very much. Welcome, Janet Matthews, from the 

Department of the Interior, and our other witnesses to today’s 

hearing. 

The purpose, of course, is to receive testimony on four Heritage 

Area bills that are now in the Senate: S. 175, to establish Bleeding 

Kansas and Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage 

Area; S. 322, a bill to establish Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership in the States of Vermont and New York; S. 323 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 

feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage, State of 

Missouri; and S. 429, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area. 

So, as you all know, the Heritage Area—first, the Heritage Area 

was created in 1986. Since that time, we’ve seen rather large 

growth in the numbers and the density of Heritage Areas. Currently, 27 National Heritage Areas exist, and legislation has been 

introduced for another 16 in this Congress. The State of Pennsylvania has six. The entire State of Tennessee is a National Heritage 

2

Area. The potential exists for hundreds to be designated, and each 

area expects to receive a million dollars a year for 10 or 15 years. 

And I’m a proponent of trying to establish a structured program 

with criteria and a process for the study and designation of future 

heritage areas, with respect to having a national concept, as opposed to having done it in a State, or so on. We have a bill, S. 243, 

and a House companion, by Mr. Hefley, establishing such a program. I encourage my colleagues to pass this policy, this Congress, 

so that then we can make application for how it applies to the bill 

as proposals come in. I’m not opposed, obviously, to the concept of 

National Heritage Areas, but I think it’s important that we define 

the program within the context of the Park Service’s mission, and 

develop a structured process so we can move forward with that. 

So, I want to thank my colleagues for being here today. Senator 

from Hawaii, we have 35 minutes to do this job, so we’re going to 

ask the witnesses to take 5 minutes to put the rest of their statement in the record, printed, and if we can hold our questions to a 

minimum, why, perhaps we can get finished. 

Senator Akaka. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Thomas, Brownback, 

Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, and Roberts follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Good afternoon. I want to welcome Janet Matthews from the Department of the 

Interior and our other witnesses to today’s Subcommittee Hearing. 

Our purpose for this hearing is to receive testimony on four heritage area bills 

introduced into the Senate. 

S. 175, a bill to establish the Bleeding Kansas and Enduring Struggle for Freedom 

National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; 

S. 322, a bill to establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership in 

the States of Vermont and New York, and for other purposes; 

S. 323, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 

feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State of Missouri 

as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; and 

S. 429, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic (‘‘hue-sah-tonic’’) Valley National 

Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

and for other purposes. 

The first National Heritage Area was created in 1986. Since that time we have 

seen a tremendous growth in the number and diversity of heritage areas. Currently, 

27 national heritage areas exist and legislation has been introduced for another 16 

in this congress. The state of Pennsylvania has six and the entire state of Tennessee 

is a National Heritage Area. The potential exists for hundreds more to be designated and each area expects to receive a million dollars a year. 

I have been a proponent of establishing a structured program with criteria and 

a process for study and designation of future National Heritage Areas. My bill, S. 

243, and the House companion, H.R. 760, introduced by Mr. Hefley establishes such 

a program. I encourage my colleagues to pass the overarching National Heritage 

Area policy bill this congress. I am prepared to work with them to make the necessary improvements and get it sent to the President. 

I am not opposed to the concept of National Heritage Areas, but it is important 

that we define the program within the context of the National Park Service mission 

and develop a structured process for review and establishment of new areas. Without such a process, National Heritage Areas will begin to impact other National 

Park Service Programs and diminish future funding opportunities for heritage areas 

themselves. At its current rate of growth up to $54 million per year of the National 

Park Service budget could go to funding Heritage Areas by the year 2016. We need 

to ensure that the National Park Service is given the necessary legislative structure, 

such as S. 243, to effectively implement the program. 

Let me thank my colleagues from the Senate who are here to speak on behalf of 

their bills and all of the witnesses for coming today. I look forward to hearing the 

testimony being presented. 

3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS, ON S. 175

Chairman Thomas and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to speak on behalf of a bill that I authored with Senator Pat Roberts, Representative Jim Ryun and the Kansas Congressional Delegation. It is with great pleasure 

that I speak to you not only on behalf this bill, but on behalf of the State of Kansas 

in supporting the establishment of the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle 

for Freedom National Heritage Area Act, which will serve to nationally commemorate and educate Kansans and our nation on the significant contributions and sacrifices Kansas has made to our nation. 

The great story of Kansas can be summed up in the state motto, ‘‘Ad Astra per 

Aspera,’’ to the stars through difficulties. Though only a short phrase comprised of 

four words, the meaning and passion behind the Kansas motto are as profound as 

they are descriptive of a state that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for 

racial equality and cultural change in this nation from the Civil War, to Reconstruction to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to the present. 

From inception, Kansas was born in controversy—a controversy that helped to 

shape a nation and end the egregious practice of chattel slavery that brutalized an 

entire race of individuals in this country. I cannot think of a nobler or more important contribution provided to our nation—though arguably it was one of the most 

turbulent and darkest hours of, our history. Without this struggle however, the battle to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world would not, have been realized. 

Last year, 2004, marked the sesquicentennial of the signing of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed states to enter into the 

Union with or without slavery. This piece of legislation, which was passed in May 

1854, set the stage for what is now referred to as, ‘‘Bleeding Kansas.’’ During this 

time, our state, then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting passionately to ensure that the territory would inter the Union as a free state and not 

condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the end of a very difficult and bloody 

struggle, Kansas entered the Union as a free state and helped to spark the issue 

of slavery on a national level. However, Kansas’ contributions to the realization of 

freedom in this nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. 

Keeping true to our motto, to the stars through difficulties, Kansas opened up her 

arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended. Many African-Americans 

looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when the South was still an uncertain 

place. Perhaps one of the best examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding 

of Nicodemus, a town in Kansas by African-Americans coming to our state to begin 

their life of freedom and prosperity. 

Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a. legendary slave who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black town in Kansas. 

Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from Lexington, Kentucky and 

grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However, Nicodemus is not the only Kansas 

contribution that shaped a more tolerant nation. Kansas was also one of the first 

states to house an African-American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers. 

The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most distinguished 

and revered African-American military regiments in our nation’s history. One of 

those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 

1866, Congress passed legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that were to be solely comprised of African-Americans. The mounted regiments were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ‘‘Buffalo Soldiers’’ by the 

Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Until the early 1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable 

service on the western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services 

preformed by a regiment in the U.S. Army. 

Finally, perhaps one of the most influential Supreme Court cases heard was 

sparked by a citizen of Topeka, KS, Oliver Brown. Though there were previous cases 

that challenged the legality of the separate but equal doctrine, it was not until the 

now famous case, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, caught fire and changed the 

course of America’s history and the way in which we view equality in the eyes of 

the law. When the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that school segregation laws were 

unconstitutional, the Court demolished the legal foundation on which racial segregation stood. The Court’s opinion, written and delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, 

also served as a stirring moral indictment of racial segregation, and an eloquent 

challenge to America to cast off its prejudices and extend its promises of life, liberty, 

and the pursuit of happiness to all citizens, regardless of race or color. 

4

Indeed, Kansas has a very special place in our nation’s story and this story should 

be told and should be shared with the nation. That is why I am proud to support 

and help guide the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area through Congress and 

I thank this committee for hearing this bill today.

Already we have seen wonderful benefits in our state with the creation of this initiative. Through the great work of the Territorial Kansas Heritage Alliance and the 

chair of their planning committee, Judy Billings, there is a renewed fervor surrounding the history of Kansas within our state. We are seeing more coordination 

and networking between our rural and urban communities, which not only strengthens the effort to create this National Heritage Area but also strengthens these cities 

as well. 

Since 1999, the Territorial Kansas Heritage Alliance, which is comprised of historians, tourism agencies as well as grass roots organizations, have worked hard to 

ensure that the guidelines set fourth by the National Park Service were reflected 

in every aspect of this process, including protections for private property owners. Additionally, since its founding, the Alliance has conducted numerous town hall meetings around the State, one of which I was pleased to host. Currently, the Alliance 

is drafting a brochure that will highlight the initiative and begin the process of promoting this project throughout the State. As you can see, this has been a very transparent and inclusive process—one that has encompassed 27 counties in our State. 

Furthermore, the Alliance not only worked to sustain the Bleeding Kansas Heritage 

Area initiative but they also worked tirelessly to assist in the celebration of the 

150th anniversary of Territorial Kansas. 

These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my colleague from 

Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, and enthusiastically support this bill before this Committee today. Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ‘‘Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle 

for Freedom National Heritage Area.’’ Each of these counties will be eligible to apply 

for the heritage area grants administered by the National Park Service. 

The Heritage Area will add to local economies within the State by increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private property owners, and nonprofit groups 

within the Heritage Area. Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before 

they are eligible to receive federal funds from the heritage area. The bill also authorizes $10,000,000.00 over a 10 year period to carry out this act and states that 

not more than $1,000,000.00 may be appropriated to the heritage area for any fiscal 

year. 

Indeed, Kansas has much to be proud of in our history and it is vital that this 

history be shared on a national level. By establishing the Bleeding Kansas and the 

Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, we will ensure that this 

magnificent legacy lives on and serves as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and 

triumphs that created this nation—a nation united in freedom for all people. 

I again thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill and look forward to working with you in order to move this bill through the Senate. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CONNECTICUT, ON S. 429

Chairman Thomas, Vice Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Akaka and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I welcome the opportunity to offer my 

support of S. 429, the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act. I was 

pleased to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, who introduced 

this bill last month. Senators Kerry and Kennedy have cosponsored this legislation 

and Representatives Nancy Johnson and John Olver have introduced companion 

legislation in the House. 

As you may know, Senator Lieberman and I introduced legislation back in 2000 

to authorize a feasibility study and at a May, 2000 hearing, the National Park Service, Department of Interior, gave its stamp of approval to that legislation. In 2003, 

the National Park Service concluded that the upper Housatonic Valley met all criteria for establishing a national heritage area. We introduced legislation to designate the upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area last Congress, but it 

was not enacted before Congress adjourned. 

The Upper Housatonic area is world-renowned for its cultural contributions. It is 

home to such literary notables as Edith Wharton, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman 

Melville, and the Tanglewood Performing Arts Center. The 29 towns in Connecticut 

and Massachusetts located in the Upper Housatonic Valley are home to numerous 

5

sites on the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic and Natural 

Landmarks. The churches and meeting houses provide a window into New England’s small-town past, the small family farms still operate and lakes and rivers 

provide recreational possibilities. 

The people of the Upper Housatonic Valley also made significant contributions in 

the industrial age. Cannons and other supplies were made here for General Washington’s army. In the late 19th century, the finest railroad car wheels were produced 

here. More than 40 blast furnaces dotted the landscape until the 1920’s when westward expansion led to the decline of the iron industry there. 

Heritage Corridors have been a successful public-private partnership and they encourage grassroots efforts to preserve historic and environmental treasures while 

promoting economic development. 

The upper Housatonic Valley has a distinctive history and culture and an abundance of local support for its designation as a Heritage Area. I would like to welcome Ronald Jones, the chairman of the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage 

area, to today’s hearing. He has done extraordinary work over many years and we 

would not be here today without his dedication and commitment. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for moving expeditiously with a hearing on S. 429. 

I am confident of the merits of this legislation and I hope that members of the Committee will support it here and on the Senate floor. I know that you have many challenges ahead this year and I thank you for your consideration of the Upper 

Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS, ON S. 429

Thank you, Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka, for this opportunity 

to testify before the National Parks Subcommittee. I am here today in support of 

S. 429, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in 

Connecticut and my home state, Massachusetts. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley runs along the western border of Massachusetts and 

Connecticut. It is bounded to the east by the commerce and development of the Connecticut River and to the west by the Hudson River. It is area of 950 square miles 

and some 29 communities. 

Thanks to the support of this Committee, we passed legislation 5 years ago asking 

the National Park Service to study whether or not the Valley warranted designation 

as a National Heritage Area. It examined several criteria to evaluate the area’s significance, suitability and feasibility for the heritage area designation. 

The Park Service concluded that the Valley contains ‘‘nationally important resources and represents important national themes.’’ It said the Valley is a ‘‘singular 

geographical and cultural region that has made significant national contributions 

through its literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements, its iron, 

paper, and electrical equipment industries, and its scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts.’’

The Park Service highlighted four themes in the Valley that exemplify our national heritage. They are culture, the land itself, industry and our Revolutionary 

War and democratic government. And it found that no other national heritage area 

in the nation interprets this unique set of themes. 

In other words: No place in America tells quite the same story about America, 

and it is a story well-worth telling. 

The Committee has the Park Service report, and I know the Members are very 

busy this week with the Budget on the Senate floor, so I will not recite each and 

every reason why I hope the Congress acts to create the Upper Housatonic Valley 

National Heritage Area. 

I will simply say that it is a very special place and highlight some of its unique 

characteristics. It has been home to artists, educators and thinkers. People like Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Edith Wharton, W.E.B. DuBois and Norman 

Rockwell. Great music and theater can be heard and seen at Tanglewood, Music 

Mountain and the Shakespeare & Company. 

For decades, the people of the Valley have treasured its beautiful landscape of a 

meandering river, woods, small farms and rolling hills. Through cooperation and a 

conservation ethic they have sought to cleanup industrialized lands and reforest cut 

lands. 

For many years the valley was an engine in the iron, paper and electric industries. Iron production thrived from 1734 to 1923, drawing high grade Salisbury ore 

found along the Taconic range. Iron was first worked into tools used in farming and 

building. Cannons used by General Washington’s Army were cast and drilled at a 

6

blast furnace in the Valley. Its iron fed the Springfield Arsenal and Whitney arms 

factory in New Haven. And later cast iron railroad wheels produced in the Valley 

were delivered to the nation and as far away as South America and Europe. 

And of course, the Valley has its own place in our nation and our democracy with 

its contribution to freedom’s cause in the Revolutionary War, events like Shays’ Rebellion and the writings of Nathaniel Hawthorne and others. This history is so 

unique it has been called the ‘‘Fourteenth Colony.’’ Pieces of that history—in homes, 

buildings, and the land itself—remain preserved today in the Valley for visitors and 

residents to see and explore and to learn a unique chapter in American history. 

I also want the Committee to know that a wide range of groups—historical societies, town governments, museums and historical sites, civic clubs and others—have 

expressed strong support for the establishment of a National Heritage Area. The 

support for this effort is broad and deep. I am pleased that we have made it this 

far in the process—and I want to give all the credit for that to the local leaders 

in the Valley who have worked hard for their cause. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley is a microcosm of the history of the nation, from 

the Native Americans and European settlement through its frontier days, the industrial revolution and the more recent growth in cultural, conservation and recreational activities. 

The National Heritage designation is a means of heightening appreciation of the 

region, preserving its natural and historic resources, improving the local economy 

and quality of life, controlling sprawl, and promoting the cleanup of the Housatonic 

River. 

I hope the Committee will support it. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CONNECTICUT, ON S. 429

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing to discuss S. 429 and the 

designation of the nationally significant Upper Housatonic Valley. This area embodies important pieces of our history and heritage as Americans and I hope you 

will see the value in designating it a National Heritage area. 

In 2000, congress established criteria clarifying the requirements for designation 

of a National Heritage Area. The area must encompass cultural, natural, and historical heritage of national significance. It must have broad public support, and a 

qualified entity to manage the area. The Upper Housatonic Valley has all of these. 

In fact, the Park Service cites the Upper Housatonic Valley as the best example of 

how to go about becoming a National Heritage Area. We hope today that we can 

move the Upper Housatonic Valley toward being an example of more than just the 

process, but of actually being a successful National Heritage Area. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley is a unique cultural and geographical region that 

encompasses 29 towns in the Housatonic River watershed, extending 60 miles from 

Lanesboro, Massachusetts to Kent, Connecticut. The valley has made significant national contributions through literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements. It was the backdrop for many important Revolutionary War era events, the 

cradle of the iron, paper, and electrical industries, and the home to key figures and 

events in the abolitionist and civil rights movements. It includes five National Historic Landmarks and four National Natural Landmarks. All of these are well documented in the Feasibility study that was completed in 2003. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act would officially designate the region as part of the National Park Service system. It would also authorize funding for a variety of activities that conserve the significant natural, historical, 

cultural, and scenic resources, and that provide educational and recreational opportunities in the area. The Upper Housatonic Valley is part of our national identity. 

Making it a National Heritage Area will preserve and develop the experiences that 

connect us to our history and heritage as Americans. 

Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage area, Inc., the non profit group that 

has been working on development of the area, has already done much to raise 

awareness of the beauty and historical value of this area. By coordinating with 

other groups they have put together an illustrated Iron Heritage Trail brochure, 

sponsored an October weekend of Heritage walks, organized a summer artistic/environmental painting event, and developed a graduate course for local school teachers 

on the culture, natural, and industrial heritage of the area. 

Through this broad, flexible and locally led initiative, the states of Connecticut 

and Massachusetts will be able to make real progress in protecting the river and 

its heritage and in guiding regional economic development. Making the Upper 

7

Housatonic Valley a heritage area will facilitate locally led and truly voluntary programs that will help protect the river for future generations and strengthen the 

economies of these small towns by developing regional tourism. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley is a precious part of America’s heritage. I am sure 

you will see how much value the Upper Housatonic Valley has for maintaining our 

national heritage and sharing it with generations to come. I strongly support S. 429 

and the designation of the Upper Housatonic Valley as a National Heritage Area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS,

ON S. 175

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on what I believe 

is an important piece of legislation designating the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. This project has joined communities throughout eastern Kansas in an effort to document, preserve and celebrate 

Kansas’ significant role in the political struggle that led to the Civil War and in 

other historic struggles for equality that took place in our state. 

Designated by Congress, National Heritage Areas are places where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a complete and distinct 

landscape. Our state, which has a proud heritage and compelling story, will benefit 

from this national designation that helps preserve and celebrate America’s defining 

landscapes. By enhancing and developing historic sites throughout eastern Kansas, 

we will ensure that the traditions that evolved there are preserved. 

This bill, and this chapter in our nation’s history, are of particular importance to 

me. My great grandfathers were Mr. A. G. Patrick and Mr. John Wesley Roberts. 

They were Kansas pioneers, frontier newspapermen and political rabble-rousers 

during the mid 1800s. 

In 1856, John Wesley Roberts was an Ohio weekly newspaper editor. He championed the candidacy of John Fre ́mont and the newly formed Republican Party, both 

through his newspaper and through a monthly magazine ‘‘for family literary reading.’’

Standing with his son on the northern banks of the Ohio River, Mr. Roberts 

looked south into Kentucky where slaves worked the fields. It was a powerful and 

moving sight. ‘‘Fired with interest in the struggle to make Kansas Territory a free 

state,’’ as one historical account put it, Mr. Roberts shipped a flatbed press by rail 

and steamboat to Ft. Leavenworth, where it was taken by wagon to Oskaloosa. The 

Independent survives today as the state’s second oldest newspaper, published 

through three generations of the Roberts family. 

Mr. Roberts knew fear and lived with violence. Guerillas and bushwhackers bent 

on exterminating free-state men threatened daily. When Quantrill sacked Lawrence 

in 1863, John Wesley and his family watched smoke darken the sky. When he and 

other riders arrived in Lawrence, it was a terrible sight that his son, my grandfather, never forgot. 

Though far from the main campaigns, this massacre made Bleeding Kansas a 

prominent symbol in the fight for the freedom of all people, and the state would become a battleground over the question of slavery. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Patrick, who arrived in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1856 by way 

of Indiana and Kentucky, was also caught up in the fight against slavery. Mr. Patrick was the son of American Revolutionary printers. When he caught the pro-slavery men of Leavenworth stuffing the ballot box, he sent a graphic account to newspapers in Indiana, which wired them back to newspapers in Leavenworth. He later 

joined Captain Wright’s Stranger Creek Company of free-staters. 

Mr. Patrick and Mr. Roberts were united in their efforts, their idealism, and their 

vision of the future. Together, and with thousands of others like them, they built 

Kansas and molded their communities. They saw the frontier not as it was, but as 

the promised land it could be. It is this struggle, and those of generations to come, 

that deserve to be linked through designation of the Bleeding Kansas and the Struggle for Enduring Freedom National Heritage Area. 

I’d like to thank Judy Billings, who is with the Lawrence Convention and Visitor 

Bureau, who has worked diligently on this effort, along the Lawrence City Commission, the Douglas County Commission, and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce. 

Again, I’d like to thank the committee for holding this hearing and I encourage 

the committee’s swift passage of this important piece of legislation.

8

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR

FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, as 

you know, I’m delighted to have been working with you, and look 

forward to that. 

Although all four of the bills we are hearing this afternoon were 

included in an amendment last Congress as a part of a multi-title 

Heritage Area package which was passed by the Senate, only one, 

the French Colonial Heritage Study, in Missouri, has been the subject of a previous hearing in this committee. The other bills would 

designate Heritage Areas in the Champlain Valley in Vermont and 

New York, the Upper Housatonic Valley in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the Bleeding Kansas and Enduring Struggle for Freedom Heritage Area in Kansas. 

Two dozen Heritage Areas have already been designated. At 

least that many have been proposed. While I believe the Heritage 

Area concept is a sound one, I think we need to carefully consider 

how to allow for future expansion of the Heritage Area program 

without overwhelming it with too many new designations. 

I think Senator Thomas’ bill to establish criteria and a formal 

process for new designations is a good start. I’m interested whether 

other policy changes should be adopted to help ensure that if a new 

Heritage Area is designated, it has not only local support, but also 

strong organizational planning. For example, under the current 

process, after a new Heritage Area is established, there is a requirement for the local management entity to prepare a management plan for the area. Perhaps we should consider requiring the 

management plan to be prepared before the area is designated, instead of afterwards. Such a requirement might help differentiate 

areas with strong local support and planning from other areas, 

helping to reduce the number of new areas, without shutting down 

the program. While I am not committed to any specifics, I think it 

is important to have a wide variety of proposals to help ensure that 

the National Heritage Area Program remains a success. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a scheduling conflict today, and, unfortunately, I will be unable to stay here for the entire hearing. However, I look forward to working with you and the bills’ sponsors to 

resolve any outstanding issues so that we can move these bills 

through the Committee process as early as possible. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Salazar, I just said that we’re going to have to be 

through here at about 3:10. So I’m going to ask the witnesses to 

take 5 minutes. And if you have a comment, why, we’d be happy 

to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. My comment is, I just think all these four bills 

are great bills, and I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to continuing to 

work with you and the rest of the members of the committee on 

these important issues. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you very much. 

Ms. Matthews, we’ll start with you. 

9

STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. MATTHEWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, for this—for your committee’s strong 

leadership and support of the National Park Service programs and 

this opportunity to present the Department of the Interior views on 

S. 175, S. 322, S. 323, and S. 429. 

While feasibility studies have found the Champlain Valley, 

Upper Housatonic, and Bleeding Kansas areas appropriate for designation, we recommend that the committee defer action on all 

three bills until program legislation is enacted establishing guidelines and a process for designation of National Heritage Areas. 

Last year, the administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal to establish such guidelines and a process for designation. 

Absent enactment of such program legislation, we will look at a 

number of options, including consideration of potential offsets within the National Heritage Area’s grants programs. Given current fiscal constraints, any discussion of particular National Heritage 

Areas should be consistent with the President’s budget. 

The Department supports authorization of the fourth bill, S. 323; 

however, we request that any funding appropriated be first directed to studies previously authorized by the Congress. 

S. 175 would establish the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring 

Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. The entry of Kansas 

into the Union as a free State was a legacy of struggles, triumphs, 

a catalyst for racial equality in our national. The core area includes, already, seven national historical landmarks, 32 national 

registered properties, three Kansas registered properties, seven 

properties on the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. The bill designates the Territorial Kansas Heritage Alliance 

as the management entity. 

S. 322 establishes the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership in the States of New York and Vermont. In the 1933 Special Resource Study for Champlain Valley, the National Park Service concluded that the Champlain Valley clearly merits designation. 

S. 429 establishes the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the state of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. S. 429 encompasses 29 communities, a singular geographic culture region characterized by significant national contributions in literature, art, music, architecture, and industrial 

achievements, including the National Historical Landmark Home 

of W.E.B. DuBois and Daniel Chester French, who produced the 

‘‘Seated Lincoln,’’ who sits to our west within the Lincoln Memorial. The Appalachian Scenic National Trail follows, parallels, the 

length of the valley. 

S. 323 authorizes the Secretary to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State 

of Missouri as a unit of the National Park system. The Department 

supports, with a minor clarification provided in this testimony, but 

believes any funding requested should be directed toward completing previously congressionally authorized studies. The area contains some of our nation’s only existing examples of the French Colonial period. The Department would like to work with the ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 25, 2005 Jkt 021241 PO 10927 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\21332.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
10

mittee to clarify some potentially confusing language relative to 

terminology. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary remarks, and I welcome your questions. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Matthews follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR

CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ON S. 175

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 

175, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. 

While a feasibility study has found the Bleeding Kansas area appropriate for designation, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 175 until program 

legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for designation of national heritage areas. Last year, the Administration sent to Congress a legislative 

proposal to establish such guidelines and a process for designation. This year, the 

Administration is working on a similar legislative proposal, and we look forward to 

continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue. Absent enactment 

of such program legislation establishing guidelines and a process for designation, we 

will look at a number of options, including consideration of potential offsets within 

the National Heritage Area Grants Program. Another reason we are recommending 

deferral is that given current fiscal constraints, any discussion of particular national 

heritage areas should be consistent with the President’s budget. Funding in the FY 

2006 President’s Budget for the National Heritage Area program combined with 

funding from the First Lady’s Preserve America program, the Save America’s Treasures program, and historic preservation grants will go a long way toward supporting 

local efforts to preserve cultural, historical, natural, and recreational resources that 

reflect our nation’s heritage. 

S. 175 would establish the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. The entry of Kansas into the Union as a ‘‘free’’ state 

was marked by a legacy of struggles, sacrifices, and triumphs that provided a catalyst for racial equality in our nation. The core area is defined by 23 counties in eastern Kansas. They are geographically assembled and thematically related as areas 

that provide unique frameworks for understanding the great and diverse character 

of the United States and the development of communities and their surrounding 

areas. There are seven National Historic Landmarks, 32 National Register properties, three Kansas Register properties, and seven properties listed on the National 

Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. 

The bill designates the Territorial Kansas Heritage Alliance, a non-profit organization established in the State of Kansas, as the management entity for the Heritage Area and outlines its duties. It also authorizes the development of a management plan and authorizes the use of Federal funds to develop and implement that 

plan. If the plan is not submitted within four years of enactment of this Act, the 

Heritage Area becomes ineligible for Federal funding until a plan is submitted to 

the Secretary. Additionally, the Secretary may, at the request of the management 

entity, provide technical assistance and enter into cooperative agreements with 

other public and private entities to carry out this purpose. The use of Federal funds 

may not be used to acquire real property or interests in real property. 

S. 175 would protect private property rights by requiring that owners provide, in 

writing, consent to be included in any request before they are eligible to receive Federal funds from the area. The private property owner in the Heritage Area would 

not be required to permit public access (including Federal, State, or local government access) to his or her property, or to participate in or be associated with the 

Heritage Area. The management entity would be an advocate for land management 

practices consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Area; however, S. 175 provides that nothing in the Act would impose any additional burden on any property 

owner. 

There is already a foundation of stewardship, appreciation, and high public interest in the project with a broad array of public support and opportunity for private, 

foundation, and community partners to be involved in heritage activities. S. 175 

would allow all Federal partners and state and local groups to participate in the 

11

management of the major facilities and resources and allow the core areas to be eligible for grants to be administered by the National Park Service. 

‘‘Bleeding Kansas’’ is the popular phrase describing the conflict over slavery that 

became nationally prominent in Kansas during the time of the American Civil War. 

The region was part of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and the site of a series of 

struggles for freedom. It was the first ‘‘official’’ Indian Country because woodland 

Indians removed from the east were forced to learn how to live in this semi-desert 

landscape. Many of the non-Indian settlers were starting over by either fleeing slavery, taking a stand for or against slavery, homesteading or remaining there when 

they could go no further on any of the pioneer trails. Pro-slavery settlers from the 

south and anti-slavery activists from the north came to the territory because it was 

located at the intersection of northern and southern expansion. 

The Missouri Compromise had excluded slavery from that part of the Louisiana 

Purchase. The original intent behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to continue the balance of power between the free states and the slave states. By dividing 

the Nebraska Territory, it was assumed the northern part, Nebraska, would automatically be a free state, and Kansas, to the south and bordered by the slave state 

of Missouri, would automatically be a slave state. In Kansas, however, communities 

were burned and lives were taken as the slavery conflict continued escalating. Kansas had two capitals, one as a free state and one as a slave state. Additional challenges included the harsh conditions of the landscape and the wide mix of views and 

people who lived there, including abolitionists, proslavery advocates, former soldiers, 

religious colonies, pioneers, homesteaders, Native Americans, including displaced Indian nations, and African-Americans. 

A feasibility study was commissioned by the Territorial Kansas Heritage Alliance 

with the support of the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Planning Committee, two grassroots organizations and completed on January 30, 2004. The study 

process included an outline of the chronology of events, a selection of unifying 

themes, and a comparison of potential management strategies. A review of the extensive literature on the events that occurred in the Kansas Territory also was conducted. In addition, the study incorporated the statewide tourism strategy, in recognition that establishment of a national heritage area could help rural economic 

development. Numerous public meetings were held and local participants were included in the study process. Based on information collected and analyzed in this 

study, the area meets all ten interim criteria that the National Park Service has 

developed for national heritage areas to be eligible for designation. 

For many people, Kansas symbolized the struggle for freedom, and the designation of a national heritage area would ensure the commemoration of this legacy. 

Designation also would provide increased opportunity for resource protection, education, interpretation, recreation, heritage celebration and community involvement 

in telling the inspirational story of Kansas. Local economies also would benefit by 

the increased heritage tourism as well as collaboration between diverse units of 

Government, businesses, tourism officials, private property owners, and nonprofit 

groups. 

The proposed area is historically unique based on the cultural themes and resources that are represented in its publicly and privately owned properties and 

landscapes. The events, landscapes, and cultural resources of the area are representative of major social movements that have had a significant impact on the formation of our national society. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 322

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to present the Department’s views on S. 322, a bill to 

establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership in the States of New 

York and Vermont. 

While a feasibility study has found the Champlain Valley area appropriate for 

designation, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 322 until program legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for designation 

of national heritage areas. Last year, the Administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal to establish such guidelines and a process for designation. This year, 

the Administration is working on a similar legislative proposal, and we look forward 

to continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue. Absent enactment 

of such program legislation establishing guidelines and a process for designation, we 

will look at a number of options, including consideration of potential offsets within 

the National Heritage Area Grants Program. 

12

Another reason we are recommending deferral is that given current fiscal constraints, any discussion of particular national heritage areas should be consistent 

with the President’s budget. Funding in the FY 2006 President’s Budget for the National Heritage Area program combined with funding from the First Lady’s Preserve 

America program, the Save America’s Treasures program, and historic preservation 

grants will go a long way toward supporting local efforts to preserve cultural, historical, natural, and recreational resources that reflect our nation’s heritage. 

S. 322 would establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership. This 

area includes communities containing thematically related resources across the 

States of New York and Vermont as defined by the linked navigable waterways and 

associated lands of the Champlain Valley. Specifically, this region encompasses the 

waterways of Lake Champlain, Lake George, the Champlain Canal, and portions of 

the upper Hudson River. The associated lands include portions of Grand Isle, Franklin, Chittenden, Addison, Rutland, and Bennington Counties in the State of 

Vermont, and portions of Clinton, Essex, Warren, Saratoga, and Washington Counties in the State of New York. The bill also would designate the Lake Champlain 

Basin Program as the management entity for the national heritage area. 

In 1609, Samuel de Champlain arrived on the shores of the lake that the Abenaki 

people called ‘‘the waters between.’’ As the name suggests, the waterways formed 

the territorial boundary between the Western Abenakis and the Iroquois. Confederacy. Champlain’s initial encounter with Native Americans marked the beginning 

of European exploration, settlement, and conflicts that intensified over the next two 

centuries. These conflicts, waged on and along the Champlain waterways, included 

territorial battles among Native Americans, the Seven Years (or French and Indian) 

War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. The conclusion of the War of 

1812 largely brought peace to the region and enabled the Champlain waterways to 

support peaceful pursuits and serve, as they had long before the wars, as a trading 

route between regions. On July 6, 1909, President William Howard Taft, speaking 

at Fort Ticonderoga, summed up the importance of the Champlain Valley saying: 

‘‘This was the passageway, and here were fought the battles contended for two hundred years, and as we may now say, never to recur.’’

In the 1999 special resource study for Champlain Valley, the National Park Service concluded that ‘‘the Champlain Valley clearly merits designation of a national, 

or arguably international, heritage corridor.’’ The main reasons for the study’s conclusions, based on interim national heritage area criteria, are outlined below. In addition, the public review period for the special resource study revealed public support for designation of a national heritage area. A clear majority of the written comments (72%) stated support for designation of a national heritage corridor, citing 

such advantages as greater support for preservation, improved coordination, better 

education, and economic gains resulting from heritage tourism. 

The area’s key themes, ‘‘Making of Nations’’ and ‘‘Corridor of Commerce’’ are reflected by resources that are outstanding in both quantity and quality. The considerations that gave the Champlain Valley its exceptional strategic importance prevailed over an extended period. This created a layering of history, a profound accumulation of physical record in the great fortifications, such as Fort Ticonderoga, and 

in the exceptional collection of historic shipwrecks found in the cold depths of the 

waterways. The most notable of the thematically related resources possess exceptional integrity. One is a unit of the National Park System, Saratoga National Historical Park, which encompasses the lands where the two battles of Saratoga were 

fought and the British invasion was halted, an event considered to be the turning 

point of the American Revolution. Eight resources have been designated as National 

Historic Landmarks: Fort Crown Point, Fort St. Frederic, Fort Ticonderoga, the 

Land Tortoise, Plattsburgh Bay, Valcour Bay, Mount Independence, and Ticonderoga Steamboat. Numerous other important sites are found throughout the region 

and are opened to the public as state historic sites or as private museums. 

Due to their cold, fresh water, Lake Champlain and Lake George contain what 

is considered to be the finest collection of shipwrecks in North America. Lake 

George contains the remains of numerous bateaux, plus the French and Indian War 

radeau, Land Tortoise, described as the oldest intact warship in North America. 

Lake Champlain contains the remains of Benedict Arnold’s last unexplored gunboat. 

The remnants of the British and American fleets from the 1814 Battle of Plattsburgh Bay rest near Whitehall, with other relics still lying in Plattsburgh Bay. Outstanding examples of shipwrecks representing the commercial era include: a horsepowered ferry believed to be the world’s only surviving example; the steamboat 

Phoenix, considered to be the oldest surviving steamboat hull in the world; and the 

Water Witch, considered to be the oldest completely intact commercial vessel in 

America. 

13

The resources of the Champlain Valley are best managed through public/private 

partnerships due to the multiplicity of ownership and the fact that they are distributed over a large geographic area. Because of the importance of Lake Champlain 

and Lake George to the region, numerous federal, state, local, and nonprofit organizations are involved in various aspects of managing and planning for the natural, 

cultural, historic, recreational, and heritage tourism resources of the region, including the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the Lakes to Locks Passage initiative, and 

the Champlain Valley Heritage Network. Plus, there are over 60 nonprofit organizations and historical societies in the Champlain Valley active in the areas of historic 

preservation, education, planning, and stewardship of historic sites. 

The area reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folkways of a number of native 

and immigrant groups who peopled the region over the last several centuries. These 

groups included: the Abenaki and Iroquois, French lumberjacks and fur trappers, 

New England Yankee settlers, Quakers, French Canadian and Irish mill workers, 

Lithuanian and Ukrainian iron mine workers, and Swedish forge operators. The stories of the Native Americans and the many immigrant groups who came to this area 

for different reasons provide a glimpse into the process of early migration, settlement, and assimilation that characterizes the region. 

The public education and heritage tourism potential for the Champlain Valley is 

immense. Almost three-quarters of a million people live in the region, and millions 

more live within a day’s drive. The region contains over 400 properties listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places, 18 of which are designated as National Historic 

Landmarks, as well as eight National Natural Landmarks. These important sites, 

along with the region’s numerous museums offer an enormous potential to provide 

in-depth educational opportunities through thematic linkages. The education potential of this region is complemented by its proximity to the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area and the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, creating 

additional opportunities for linking educational programs. In addition, Lakes Champlain and George are recognized as preeminent recreational resources. The lakes 

and their shores offer a wide range of easily accessible recreational opportunities. 

On Lake Champlain alone, there are over 100 public boat-launching areas, nearly 

50 commercial marinas, and nearly 70 public beaches. Plus, there are over 30 major 

parks, forests, and recreation areas within the region. 

This concludes my testimony on S. 322. I would be happy to answer any questions 

that you or any of the members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 323

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views 

on S. 323, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability 

and feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State of Missouri as a unit of the National Park System. 

While the Department is supportive of S. 323, with the minor clarification provided in this testimony, we believe that available funding should be first directed 

toward completing previously authorized studies. Currently, 31 studies are in 

progress, and we hope to complete and transmit 19 to Congress by the end of calendar year 2005. 

S. 323 would authorize the Secretary to complete a study on the suitability and 

feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area as a unit of the National Park System. The French Colonial Heritage Area (Area) includes the 

Bequette-Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk homes, and the related and 

supporting historical assets in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. The Area contains 

some of the only existing examples of the French Colonial Period settlement, including two of the five poteaux-en-terre (post-in-the-ground) vertical log French buildings remaining in North America, dating from circa 1785, in addition to several 

other important historical resources. The Area is located within the expanded 

boundaries of Ste. Genevieve National Historic District (District), a National Historic Landmark. No current National Park System unit has comparable historic features providing the cultural backdrop required to adequately interpret the story of 

the early French in the New World. 

In April 1980, the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service completed a brief Reconnaissance Report of Ste. Genevieve Historic District. The Reconnaissance Report reviewed the District’s cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational 

resources as well as ownership patterns and possible threats to the District. The Reconnaissance Report will provide valuable background information should this legislation be enacted authorizing a more in-depth study of suitability and feasibility, 

which includes a review of management alternatives. 

14

The Department would like to work with the Committee to clarify some potentially confusing language in the bill. While the bill authorizes a study on the suitability and feasibility of designating a new unit of the National Park System, it also 

identifies the study area as the ‘‘French Colonial Heritage Area.’’ A national heritage area differs from a unit of the National Park Service in a number of different 

ways, most notably is that a national heritage area is locally driven and does not 

include management by the National Park Service, whereas a unit is managed 

wholly or in part by the National Park Service. 

If the intent of the bill only is to study the area for potential designation as a 

national heritage area, we recommend amending the bill to authorize a feasibility 

study to examine such designation. If the intent is to study the area for potential 

inclusion as a new National Park System unit, or if it is unclear which type of designation is desired, the bill should be clarified by eliminating the references to the 

term ‘‘heritage area’’. A suitability and feasibility study to designate an Area as a 

unit will examine a range of alternatives, including whether a national heritage 

area designation is more appropriate than creating a new unit. We will be happy 

to work with the subcommittee to develop clarifying language prior to enactment 

of this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 429

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to present the Department’s views on S. 429, a bill to 

establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

While a feasibility study has found the Upper Housatonic Valley area appropriate 

for designation, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 429 until program legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for designation 

of national heritage areas. Last year, the Administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal to establish such guidelines and a process for designation. This year, 

the Administration is working on a similar legislative proposal, and we look forward 

to continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue. Absent enactment 

of such program legislation establishing guidelines and a process for designation, we 

will look at a number of options, including consideration of potential offsets within 

the National Heritage Area Grants Program. 

Another reason we are recommending deferral is that given current fiscal constraints, any discussion of particular national heritage areas should be consistent 

with the President’s budget. Funding in the FY 2006 President’s Budget for the National Heritage Area program combined with funding from the First Lady’s Preserve 

America program, the Save America’s Treasures program, and historic preservation 

grants will go a long way toward supporting local efforts to preserve cultural, historical, natural, and recreational resources that reflect our nation’s heritage. 

S. 429 would establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, encompassing 29 communities in western Massachusetts and northwestern Connecticut, extending 60 miles through the watershed of the upper Housatonic River, 

from Kent, Connecticut to Lanesboro, Massachusetts. The bill would also identify 

the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, Inc. as the management entity for the national heritage area. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley, sometimes referred to as ‘‘the fourteenth colony’’ is 

a singular geographical and cultural region that is characterized by significant national contributions in literature, art, music, and architectural achievements; its 

iron, paper, and electrical equipment industries; and scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts. The region contains five National Historic Landmarks including the homes of W.E.B. DuBois, Edith Wharton and Herman Melville. 

Over 120 sites and 18 historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places 

dot the landscape. It was home to Nathaniel Hawthorne, painters Norman Rockwell 

and Jasper Johns, and sculptor Daniel Chester French, who sculpted the ‘‘Seated 

Lincoln’’ at the Lincoln Memorial. Among the Upper Housatonic Valley’s early iron 

masters was Ethan Allen, the hero of Fort Ticonderoga and an early mercantile activist. Important events related to the Revolutionary War, Shays’ Rebellion, and 

early civil rights activism also took place in the area. The region’s performing arts 

centers—the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s summer home at Tanglewood, Music 

Mountain, Norfolk Chamber Music Festival, Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, Berkshire Theatre Festival, and Shakespeare & Company—are internationally known. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley contains a myriad of natural resources and has 

been the beneficiary of a long history of innovative environmental conservation iniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 25, 2005 Jkt 021241 PO 10927 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21332.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
15

tiatives that have been influential across the country. These include pioneering 

state parks and private nature preserves and the first village improvement society 

in America, the Laurel Hill Association, of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Four National Natural Landmarks including unique bogs and an old growth forest have 

been designated here. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail follows the length of 

the Upper Housatonic Valley. 

The region was the site of pioneering endeavors in the iron, paper, and electrical 

generation industries. The iron industry, which was responsible for manufacturing 

75% of the cannons used by the Continental Army during the American Revolution, 

was active from 1735 until 1923. The first mill in America to make paper from wood 

pulp was located in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. 

Tied together by the Housatonic River, the region offers extensive opportunities 

for resource preservation, education, and heritage tourism. The heritage area designation would link together several existing historic sites, such as protected iron 

smelting sites, to strengthen the understanding of the regional historical significance of the valley. The area also reflects the rich traditions and folkways of the 

Mohican Indians, Shakers, Yankee farmers, African-Americans, and European immigrant groups. The educational and preservation value of the valley to residents 

was a major point of public support for designation. 

There is extensive citizen involvement in heritage activities in the Upper 

Housatonic Valley involving a broad array of municipalities, private organizations, 

and individuals. The non-profit organization, Upper Housatonic Valley National 

Heritage Area, Inc., has a broad-based membership and a strong track record in organizing heritage initiatives. Comments at public meetings, and those received as 

the draft feasibility study concluded, indicate strong public support for national heritage area designation. 

The Department’s Feasibility Study for the Upper Housatonic Valley National 

Heritage Area found that the Upper Housatonic Valley meets the Department’s ten 

interim criteria for designation of a national heritage area. The Upper Housatonic 

Valley is distinctive for having a landscape that includes a blend of industrial innovations, environmental conservation initiatives, and cultural achievements of national significance. 

This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or any members of the subcommittee may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. I think we’ll generally 

try to submit questions for the record, rather than take our time 

now. 

Senator Talent, we’re trying to get through here in half an hour. 

Did you have a statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MISSOURI 

Senator TALENT. Well, in view of that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll just say 

welcome to Jim Baker, who’s here from Ste. Genevieve to testify on 

the second panel, and I’ll go ahead and submit my statement for 

the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Talent follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI, 

ON S. 323

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing on S. 323, a bill to 

authorize a feasibility study regarding the future of historically French area in Ste. 

Genevieve, Missouri. And, thank you to Jim Baker, the Site Administrator in Ste. 

Genevieve for coming to Washington to testify in support of this legislation. 

The Ste. Genevieve is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River, just 1 

hour south of St. Louis. The community contains many wonderful historic buildings 

and sites that are historic and cultural assets that tell the story of the significance 

of French culture and settlement of the United States. 

Although numerous French historic and cultural assets exist throughout the country, few sites explore the vast influence of the French presence in the Midwest prior 

to the Louisiana Purchase. The historic homes and buildings are the only original 

French Colonial Village left in the United States. 

16

These remarkable historic resources in Ste. Genevieve are unique, but most people outside Missouri haven’t visited the area. This bill, S. 323, would authorize the 

National Park Service to do a feasibility study to see if the area would qualify to 

become a unit of the Park Service, or a National Heritage Area. 

The homes and buildings dating back to the late 1700’s are currently managed 

by the State Department of Natural Resources and enjoy wonderful support from 

the local community. This feasibility study will mark the beginning of a local, state 

and federal partnership. 

Thank you so much for including S. 323 in this hearing and I look forward to 

statements from Mr. Baker and the National Parks Service. 

FRENCH HERITAGE SOCIETY, 

New York, NY, March 9, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: I am writing in support of Senate Bill 323, the ‘French 

Colonial Heritage National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’. The value of the historic 

resources described in the text of the bill is immense, and the scope of their significance truly ranks them on a national level. Our organization, the French Heritage 

Society, fully supports the legislation intended to study the suitability and feasibility of designating this area as a unit of the National Park System. 

The French Heritage Society, established in 1982, is dedicated to the preservation 

of French architectural patrimony in the United States and France. Our membership in 16 chapters throughout the country provides support for scores of significant 

historic buildings and gardens, as well as sponsoring cultural and educational programs for French and American curators, architects, students, and artisans. 

The architectural and historic resources of Ste. Genevieve deserve the close examination that would be accomplished as part of the National Park Service study described in Senate Bill 323. Their inclusion in the National Park System would allow 

the preservation and interpretation of these remarkable, nationally-significant 

treasures. 

Sincerely, 

JANE BERNBACH, 

Executive Director.

Senator THOMAS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Just in summary, then, the Department, of course, has a study 

in one, supports the other three; however, suggests that they be 

held back until we get more clearly defined where we’re going with 

Heritage Areas. Is that right? 

Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. MATTHEWS. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, can we have our second panel, please? 

This panel consists of Mr. James Baker, historic site administrator, Missouri Department of Natural Resources; Judy Billings, 

senior vice president, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, Lawrence 

Convention and Visitors Bureau, also from Kansas; Ronald Jones, 

chairman, Upper Housatonic Valley Heritage Area, in Connecticut; 

and Ann Cousins, field representative, Preservation Trust of 

Vermont. 

Thank you all. 

Mr. Baker, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES BAKER, HISTORIC SITE ADMINISTRATOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STE. GENEVIEVE, MO 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you. 

17

Chairman Thomas, members of the committee, my name is 

James Baker, and I serve as site administrator of the State-owned 

historic properties in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. I’m here to testify 

on behalf of the State of Missouri in support of S. 323, legislation 

to authorize an assessment of the significance of our French Colonial resources as a national historic site. I will present the key 

issues that justify this study. And I also bring letters of support 

from Ste. Genevieve and other organizations interested in this 

unique area of our Nation. 

Although numerous French historic and cultural assets remain 

throughout our country, few sites are able to reveal the vast influence of the French presence in the center of our continent prior to 

the Louisiana Purchase. The remarkable French Colonial resources 

in Ste. Genevieve are unique, but they’re not widely known or represented in our national interpretive efforts. We have an opportunity to tell the story of this cultural identity at one of the most 

significant places in this country, an area proposed as the French 

Heritage Area. 

The site proposed for study in the legislation includes two of the 

only five remaining poteaux-en-terre, or posts-in-the-ground, 

vertical log houses known to survive in North America, the 

Bauvais-Amoureux House, circa 1792, and the Bequette-Ribault 

House, circa 1808, still stand together on their original sites, silent 

witnesses to an earlier time and culture. 

In addition, there is an opportunity to acquire adjoining land 

from willing private sellers to make the proposed French Heritage 

National Historic Site a reality. This site can interpret the Colonial 

settlement of the mid-Mississippi River Valley and draw attention 

to this unique area of our country. 

The cultural identity forged in this region during the 18th century is a story of national significant well beyond the ability of any 

State or local interpretive facility to present in an appropriate 

manner. The study authorized in S. 323 is the vehicle that can 

apply a national focus to these resources and create an integrated, 

interpretive approach to correct this problem. 

The historic region around Ste. Genevieve focuses on a corridor 

of French Colonial settlement along the Mississippi River, including resources at Cahokia, Fort de Chartres, Kaskaskia, Old Mines, 

and the St. Louis region. This rich collection of resources includes 

Ste. Genevieve’s National Historic Landmark District, which preserves a significant number of 18th century French Colonial structures. 

Local archeological resources include the original sites of Ste. 

Genevieve and New Bourbon, as well as the salt-producing settlement at the Saline Creek and the rich agricultural resources of Le 

Grand Champ. 

We believe this framework of historic and cultural assets can 

provide the basis from which to tell an integrated and comprehensive story of the significance of French culture and settlement on 

the national character and fabric of the United States. 

Interpretive themes of national significance can be further developed to enhance the understanding of the region’s resources. These 

include French Colonial exploration and settlement of the mid-Mississippi River Valley, French Colonial influences on the social, arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 25, 2005 Jkt 021241 PO 10927 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\21332.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
18

chitectural, and economic history of the region, significance and impact of the Louisiana Purchase on the existing settlements, crosscultural experiences between the French, English, black, and Native-American populations, and the ongoing French influence in 

this area of our country. We feel the proposed assessment will confirm our belief in the national scope of these historic resources of 

this region. 

In summary, an untapped set of national assets in the region 

begs to be assessed and integrated within an overall interpretive 

plan. An opportunity to bring these national assets together as the 

proposed French Heritage National Historical Site can provide a 

place where the French experience can come to life while promoting 

the ongoing protection and visitation to the region’s historic resources. 

S. 323 is legislation that is timely and needed, providing the opportunity to properly assess these resources and interpretive 

themes, and to chart an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the 

State of Missouri and its Department of Natural Resources are in 

full support of the legislation introduced by Senator Talent. 

I’m available for any questions. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for 

completing. You’ve got 50 seconds left. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THOMAS. This is your State, Senator. Do you have any 

comment? 

Senator TALENT. Well, I sure don’t want to exceed the 50 seconds, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a wonderful area. And if we can unify it, this study shows 

that we can make it available to more people in a more coherent 

way. It’s going to be great for everybody, preserve a part of history 

that just is not accessible or available in other places, and also be 

a tremendous asset to Ste. Genevieve and Missouri. And I applaud 

the Department on your foresight in seeking the study. 

And I appreciate your holding the hearing so expeditiously. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Billings. 

STATEMENT OF JUDY BILLINGS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

LAWRENCE, KANSAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, LAWRENCE, KS 

Ms. BILLINGS. I’ll try to be as short. 

Chairman Thomas, members of the committee, my name is Judy 

Billings. I’m senior vice president of the Lawrence, Kansas Chamber of Commerce, and I serve as chair of a planning committee 

made up of representation from 27 counties in eastern Kansas to 

establish Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area. We appreciate 

the opportunity to make a presentation to you today. 

We began the process toward establishing a National Heritage 

Area in 1999 by forming a 501(c)(3) management organization, 

with the goal of interpreting and promoting our shared heritage to 

commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the establishment of the 

Kansas Territory after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 

1954. 

19

Public meetings determined that the Bleeding Kansas story and 

all its underlying themes of the struggle for American freedom 

have had a significant impact on the development of our Nation. 

Activities undertaken by volunteers over the past 4 years have 

brought us here today. We’ve followed the critical steps and suggested criteria defined by the National Park Service in a process 

that has been public and has fully informed key constituents, including governments, industry, private and nonprofit organizations, 

in addition to interested citizens. There has been full support from 

our Kansas congressional delegation. 

A suitability study demonstrating the significance of our story 

and its related themes—and I have it with me today—was funded 

through contributions by 52 entities, matched by our Kansas Department of Commerce. 

From its creation, Kansas found itself at the center of the storm 

brewing over slavery. The original intent behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act was to continue the balance of power between the free 

States and the slave States. Popular sovereignty gave the determining voice to local voters. The Kansas question became a focus 

of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and ‘‘Bleeding Kansas’’ was a moniker that was popularized by Eastern newspapers describing the 

activities in Kansas. 

The core question that led to the Civil War was played out on 

the Western frontier in a series of heated and frequently deadly encounters. Kansas was an intersection of Northern and Southern expansion. It was freedom’s frontier. 

Native Americans, African-Americans, women, free-staters, proslavers, and the government all had their own struggles in Kansas. 

Each of these groups had members who viewed Kansas as a ‘‘Promised Land,’’ where they would live in freedom and fight for their 

rights. 

Events in Kansas were significant to the evolving story of American freedom. The Battle of Black Jack in 1856 was the first time 

two forces on opposing sides of the slavery issue met in open battle. 

In much the same way that the Battles of Lexington and Concord 

sounded the opening shots of the Revolutionary War, John Brown’s 

victory at the Battle of Black Jack in Kansas was the first in the 

long Civil War over American slavery that would end at Appomattox Courthouse. 

Subsequent events echoed the early history of the area. Haskell 

Indian Nations University began in 1884 as a boarding school dedicated to destroying Indian culture. Its mission today includes the 

preservation of Indian traditions and the adaptation to current 

needs. 

The modern civil-rights movement played out in the landmark 

case Brown versus Board of Education now commemorated in a national historic site recently dedicated in Topeka, our capital city. 

Willing partners of all types in rural and urban areas have discovered links among our communities and our quest to share stories. We have a collective resolve to preserve, conserve, and share 

our interconnected stories, and we want to educate the youth of 

Kansas to generate a sense of place and pride and a shared heritage that gives them a desire to make Kansas their permanent 

home. 

20

Federal designation is compatible with our economic development 

initiatives, and will provide credibility for our work to enhance the 

inherent strengths of our rural communities based on heritage. We 

have considered and protected the impact on private-property 

rights, as written into our legislation. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I 

ask for your support of S. 175 to establish the Bleeding Kansas and 

the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Billings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDY BILLINGS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LAWRENCE

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, LAWRENCE, KS 

Chairman Thomas and Members of the Committee, my name is Judy Billings. I 

am Sr. Vice President of the Lawrence, Kansas, Chamber of Commerce & Convention and Visitors Bureau, serving as Chair of a planning committee, made up of representation from 27 counties in eastern Kansas, to establish Bleeding Kansas and 

the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. We appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation to you today. 

We began the process toward establishing a national heritage area in 1999 with 

the formation of a 501C3 organization called Territorial Kansas Heritage Alliance 

(TKHA). This grassroots group of historians and tourism agencies was successful in 

completing a series of activities and projects in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Kansas Territory established as a result of events that took place 

after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. 

After much research of the heritage area movement and consultation with representatives of the National Park Service as well as with existing heritage areas, 

a facilitated Heritage Summit was held in January 2003 with 75 people in attendance representing various organizations and communities in the area. As a result 

of the Summit, the group determined that the Bleeding Kansas story and all the 

underlying themes of an Enduring Struggle for Freedom have had a significant impact on the development of our nation and that we should bring these heretofore 

hidden stories forward in a more comprehensive and collaborative way. The current 

grassroots planning committee was launched with a goal to gain federal designation 

during the Sesquicentennial Year of the Kansas Territory, an ambitious goal! Activities undertaken by volunteers over the past four years have brought us here today. 

We have conscientiously followed the critical steps and suggested criteria as defined by the National Park Service in a process that has fully informed key constituents including governments, industry, private and non-profit organizations in addition to interested citizens. There has been tremendous public involvement and support including from our Kansas Congressional delegation and staff. 

All partners have been fully and equally engaged in contributing important information to be included in the required suitability/feasibility study compiled by a local 

historic preservation consultant and funded through the contributions by 52 entities 

ranging from $25 to $15,000 that was matched by the Kansas Department of Commerce. The study (show study) demonstrates the significance of our story and identifies major themes with national significance unique to this area. The study also 

demonstrates the widespread support of this effort. 

There are many layers in our story of the struggle for freedom. With the route 

of Lewis and Clark along the eastern boundary of the Bleeding Kansas Heritage 

Area and the path of the California, Oregon and Santa Fe Trails through several 

counties in the defined area, stories reflect the significant impact of those who came, 

those who stayed and their struggles that endure even today in this sparsely populated part of the country. 

From its creation Kansas found itself at the center of the storm brewing over 

Slavery. The original intent behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act was to continue the 

balance of power between the Free States and the Slave States. Popular Sovereignty 

gave the determining voice to the local voters. The determination that Kansas would 

enter the union as a free state was not without tremendous struggle. ‘‘The Kansas 

Question’’ became a focus of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and ‘‘Bleeding Kansas’’ 

was a moniker that was popularized by Eastern newspapers describing the activities 

in Kansas. The core question that led to the Civil War, which would ultimately redefine the identity of the nation, was played out on the western frontier in a series 

of heated and frequently deadly encounters. Kansas was an intersection of Northern 

and Southern expansion. 

21

Native Americans, African-Americans, Women, Free-Staters, Pro-slavers, and the 

Government all had their own struggles in Kansas. For example, immigrant Native 

American tribes forcibly relocated from the Southeast and Eastern Woodlands experienced the challenge for survival in a move from well wooded lands with a decent 

supply of game to the drier areas of Kansas. African Americans were brought in as 

slaves by Missionaries, government employees and later purchased by some Native 

Americans. Each of these groups had some members who chose to seek freedom by 

escaping bondage while viewing Kansas as a ‘‘Promised Land’’ where they could live 

in freedom if they reached the right area through the Underground Railroad. 

Women saw the Kansas Territory as a fertile site to fight for their rights and FreeStaters were the first opposition group in Kansas to rebel against voter fraud and 

the attempt to force Kansas in as a Slave state. 

Events in Kansas have been significant to the evolving story of American freedom. 

The Battle of Black Jack in southern Douglas County was the first time two forces, 

on opposing sides of the slavery issue, met in open battle. In much the same way 

that the Battles of Lexington and Concord sounded the opening shots of the Revolutionary War, John Brown’s victory at the Battle of Black Jack was the first in the 

long Civil War over American slavery that would end nearly a decade later at Appomattox Courthouse. 

Subsequent events echoed the early history of the area. Haskell Indian Nations 

University began as a boarding school dedicated to destroying Indian culture by removing children from their homes and families, and trying to force them to abandon 

their traditions. Ironically, the school developed into a focal point for the creation 

of an inter-tribal Native American identity. Haskell today is the country’s only four 

year Indian university which accepts students from all the federally recognized 

tribes, and its mission includes the preservation of Indian traditions and their adaptation to modern needs. 

The modern civil rights movement has been played out to a significant degree in 

our area as well. The landmark case Brown vs the Board of Education is commemorated in a national historic site recently dedicated in Topeka, our capital city. 

The process we have followed has already brought rural areas together with 

urban areas. We have found willing partners of all types and discovered links 

among our communities in our quest to share our stories. There are at least 7 National Historic Landmarks, 32 National Register properties, 3 Kansas Register properties and 7 properties listed on the National underground Railroad Network to 

Freedom that contribute to our heritage area as well as other significant properties 

that have not been designated at this time. 

We have a collective resolve to preserve, conserve and share our interconnected 

stories with Kansas citizens as well as visitors from around the world with great 

potential for recreational and educational opportunities. We want to educate the 

youth of Kansas to generate a sense of place and pride in a shared heritage and 

to give them a reason to make Kansas their permanent home. 

A heritage area designation for our state is compatible with our economic development initiatives and is needed in order to expand the existing cooperative framework to achieve key preservation, education and other significant goals. Federal designation will provide credibility in enhancing inherent strengths of small towns and 

rural communities—close-knit communities, strong local business networks, and a 

tradition of entrepreneurial activity based on our heritage. Private property rights 

are important in our state and we have considered and protected the impact on private property rights as written into our legislation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today. I ask for your support 

of S. 175 to establish the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom 

National Heritage Area.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Cousins. 

STATEMENT OF ANN COUSINS, FIELD SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE, PRESERVATION TRUST OF VERMONT, BURLINGTON, 

VT 

Ms. COUSINS. Chairman Thomas, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity, on behalf of the Cultural Resources 

Heritage Organizations and the American and traveling public that 

will benefit from enactment of the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act. 

22

Looking at a map of Eastern North America, it is not hard to 

imagine the significance of the 350-mile-long water corridor formed 

by Lake Champlain and its linked waterways. Formed from receding glaciers 15,000 years ago, this inland waterway became one of 

the most strategic north/south transportation corridors. 

Paleo-Indians arrived in the Champlain Valley not long after 

that last glacier receded, and, in 1609, European explorers first 

ventured into the region: Henry Hudson, traveling north on the 

river that now bears his name to what is now Albany, and Samuel 

de Champlain venturing south, on behalf of France, to the lake 

that also has his name, Lake Champlain. 

The valley served as trapping and hunting grounds to feed the 

European fur trade. When competition led to Iroquois raids on 

those French posts, the French built a series of fortifications and 

allied themselves with the Algonquians. This rising tension coincided with the British takeover of New Netherlands and their penetration into the Champlain Valley. 

This meeting of nations resulted in a 150-year struggle for control, and the Champlain Valley became a theater for a series of 

bloody conflicts, including inter-tribal wars, the French and Indian 

War, the American Revolution, and concluding with the War 1812. 

Two battles, in particular, help to illustrate the national significance of this area. But for events on Lake Champlain, the outcome 

of the War for Independence would like have had a very different 

outcome. In 1776, Benedict Arnold’s hastily built Champlain fleet, 

America’s first, engaged the Royal Navy at what has become 

known as the Battle of Valcour Island. Today, that site is a national historic landmark. 

One historian described it best 100 years ago, ‘‘The little navy on 

Lake Champlain was wiped out, but never has any force, large or 

small, lived to better purpose or died more gloriously. That the 

Americans were strong enough to impose a capitulation of the British Army at Saratoga was due to the year delay secured by their 

little navy on Lake Champlain.’’

With history repeating itself, strategic consideration again placed 

Lake Champlain in the center of the War of 1812. A series of raids 

and bungled invasions brought little consequences to the first 2 

years of that war, but, in 1814, the British mounted a major invasion of the American colonies by water and land. Thomas 

Macdonough led the American fleet to victory in the pivotal, nationally significant Battle of Plattsburgh Bay, and the British 

Army, without its naval support, retreated back to Canada. As a 

result, in December 1814, the Treaty of Ghent brought lasting 

peace between Great Britain and the United States. 

Peace in the Champlain Valley ushered in an era of commerce 

and industry. That regional prosperity was directly related, again, 

to the transportation corridor. Transportation of goods going north 

into Canada, south to New York via the Champlain Canal that was 

built, in 1823, and the Chambly Canal, in 1943. 

By the mid-19th century, Lake Champlain bustled with trading 

schooners and sloops, sailing canal boats, barges, steamboats, even 

horse-powered ferries, moving everything produced in the Champlain Valley and bringing back everything needed. 

23

Today, these storied waterways are enjoyed by countless visitors. 

Tourism is vital to the region’s economy. Champlain Basin visitors 

spend 1.4 billion on goods and services annually. 

Senators, our stories can be read in history books and experienced at the heritage sites, like Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, but there are over 150 organizations in the region working in heritage-related activities. We have almost an embarrassment of riches and a tremendous need. 

State and local museums have long stewarded our nationally significant artifacts. Now they look to this act to help protect and 

share that legacy. Enactment of the Champlain Valley Heritage 

Partnership Act will provide them with a coordinating structure. 

The bill is rightfully called a partnership. It brings Federal financial and technical experience to benefit local publicly and privately 

owned and managed sites. It builds on the strength of existing initiatives. It does not—this protection does not include land acquisition or top-down management. The program does not delineate a 

boundary, yet it creates unifying themes that local communities 

and organizations can choose to opt into, or not. The act responds 

to public sentiment. 

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a strong constituency poised to 

take advantage of this act in appropriate ways. 

I thank you for your consideration. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD D. JONES, CHAIRMAN, UPPER 

HOUSATONIC VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, INC., 

SALISBURY, CT 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the privilege of appearing before you in support of S. 

429. 

I am Ronald Jones, of Lakeville, Connecticut, and I am the chairman of the Upper Housatonic Valley Heritage Area, Inc. We would 

hope to add the word ‘‘national’’ in there. And we have worked for 

many years to become a National Heritage Area; indeed, since 

1999. 

Pursuant to the 2000 legislation directing a study of our area, 

the National Park Service did study and found that we met all the 

criteria for designation. I should note that those criteria are essentially identical to those criteria in the generic heritage bill that you 

have proposed. We are living test of the working of that process 

that you set forth in the generic bill. 

Our area, with its small towns, ancient mountains, flowing 

streams, has, as the National Park Service recognized, a very special cultural and natural and historical heritage of national significance. We have very broad public support for our program, from 

the cultural and conservation organizations, schools, businesses, 

the rotary clubs, the chambers of commerce, the local governments, 

the State governments, and many others. Indeed, in 6 years that 

I’ve been working on this, no one has risen in opposition to the designation; and, indeed, I have never heard anyone say, ‘‘Gee, that’s 

a crazy idea. That’s a bad idea.’’ That is very rare, in my experience. 

24

Earlier on, we were told that if we wanted to be designated as 

a Heritage Area, we should start acting like one. And we have five 

ongoing efforts that we are doing. We’re working on a shoestring, 

but we are undertaking some heritage trail—we have a heritage 

trail brochure, we have a graduate course in—for high-school 

teachers, we have other—we have annual heritage walks. We are 

trying to act like a Heritage Area to show that we deserve to get 

the designation. 

We think it is a great, great program. It’s a wonderful Federal/

State partnership. And we hope that our bill will be considered by 

your Committee. 

I thank you, and the green light is still on. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD D. JONES, CHAIRMAN, UPPER HOUSATONIC

VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, INC., SALISBURY, CT, ON S. 429

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Ronald D. Jones and I am 

appearing in support of S. 429, the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area 

Act. I am Chairman of the proposed Management Entity, Upper Housatonic Valley 

National Heritage Area, Inc. (‘‘UHVNHA’’) I am also past-President of the Falls Village-Canaan (CT) Historical Society, Secretary of Friends of Beckley Furnace, Trustee of the Salisbury Association and a former Member of the Connecticut Humanities 

Council. I appreciate the opportunity to present our thoughts on the proposed legislation. 

S. 429 proposes to designate the Upper Housatonic River Valley as a National 

Heritage Area and to establish guidelines, standards and requirements for the Area. 

UHVNHA would be designated as the management entity for the Heritage Area, to 

work with the National Park Service and the many local heritage organizations. 

Pursuant to the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Study Act of 

2000, P.L. 106-470, the National Park Service conducted an extensive feasibility 

study and earlier this year issued a ninety one page report concluding that our area 

meets all of the criteria included in the Study Act. The Report concludes that the 

Area does have a cultural, natural and historical heritage of national significance, 

that the Area’s organizations, local governments and residents strongly support designation and that UHVNHA is qualified and suitable to be the management entity. 

Pursuant to the 2000 Act, the National Park Service submitted the Report to the 

House Committee on Resources. 

The Report and the subsequent National Park Service Brochure identify these 

four major heritage themes:

1. Artists, Writers and Musicians of yesterday and today have made the Area a 

unique cultural area within the United States, 

2. The Area has a renowned scenic landscape, much of it reclaimed from the 18th 

century iron and other industrial activity, 

3. The Iron, Fine Paper and Electric Industries all developed a nationally significant presence in the Area, and 

4. From Ethan Allen and Shays’ Rebellion to W.E.B. DuBois and today’s leaders, 

the Area has played a nationally significant role in the development of democracy.

The Report also identified further heritage themes, including the Mohican Indians, the Shakers and the many historic Towns. I will not restate all of this material, 

but will provide my thoughts on the main points. 

THE UPPER HOUSATONIC AREA HAS A DISTINCTIVE HISTORY, HERITAGE AND CULTURE

WORTHY OF IDENTIFICATION AND PRESERVATION

In the early days of our country the upper Housatonic valley was often referred 

to as the ‘‘Fourteenth Colony’’ because of its distinctive history and culture. The 950 

square mile area, located in northwestern Connecticut and western Massachusetts, 

is a quiet area bounded by commerce and development along the Connecticut River 

to the east and the Hudson River to the west. The valley contains many small, old 

towns, with the largest cities being Pittsfield (population 41,000) at the northern 

end and Great Barrington (population 7,600) in the central part. Farms still dot the 

countryside, homes from the 1700’s and 1800’s stand throughout the area. 

25

An iron production industry thrived in the upper Valley from 1734 to 1923, drawing on the high grade Salisbury ore found along the eastern side of the Taconic 

range. The iron activity had no use for state boundaries and provided a heritage 

common to northwestern Connecticut and western Massachusetts. Similarly, artists, 

authors and actors have ignored the state boundary in developing the cultural community that thrives to this day. Developing this common heritage by incorporating 

parts of the two States will ensure the maximum support and coordination. 

THE VALLEY’S STORY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE

The upper valley iron industry played an important part in the nation’s history, 

beginning with the early tools, artifacts and anchors forged in the mid-1700’s. During the Revolutionary War, cannons were cast and drilled at the blast furnace in 

Lakeville, Connecticut. Because of their quality and since the British troops never 

reached the remote northwest corner, some 75 % of all of the cannons made in the 

states for General Washington’s army were produced at the Lakeville Furnace. 

Salisbury iron was turned into weapons in time of war and into the structures, 

tools and artifacts necessary for the westward growth of the country. Salisbury iron 

was used at the Springfield Arsenal for the manufacture of muskets and at the 

Whitney arms factory in New Haven for rifles. From the mid 1800’s into the twentieth century, the major product was cast iron railroad wheels. Because of their 

quality, advertised as being the best in the world, the wheels had a broad market 

throughout the country and many were exported to South America and Europe. 

From beginning to end, the Valley’s ironworks were closely related to the development of the United States. The landmark remains are our present and future heritage. 

The Valley’s history as a cultural retreat from the Boston and New York areas 

provides both past and current riches for the country. Since the 1930’s visitors from 

all over have come to hear the music at Tanglewood, Music Mountain and Norfolk, 

see the paintings at the Norman Rockwell Museum, watch serious theater at Stockbridge and musical treats at Sharon. Today’s local authors draw on a long tradition 

going back to the 19th century, when Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne and 

Edith Wharton lived and wrote here. The Upper Housatonic Area,, with its remoteness from but ties to the large cities, occupy a special niche in our national culture. 

The remaining small family farms in the Valley are a reminder of similar farms 

once so common throughout New England. These early farms established the concepts, methods and traditions for those who later moved to the more fertile lands 

to the west. Population increases, commercial growth and land economics have 

eliminated many farms throughout New England, but those of the Valley retain the 

rural heritage. 

Our country is proud to be the ‘‘melting pot’’, with its population drawn from 

many countries and continents. Thanks to the iron industry activity, the Valley is 

a special example of this. Chard Powers Smith, in his classic 1946 book ‘‘The 

Housatonic’’, called his subject the ‘‘Puritan River’’ after the culture of the early settlers. And indeed, many residents trace their families back to those days. But, especially with the coming of the blast furnaces in the 1800’s, arrivals came from all 

over—charcoal makers from France and Spain, miners from Wales and Scotland, 

stone workers from Italy and Switzerland and iron workers from Ireland. African 

Americans came to the Valley, some as free men and some making their progress 

along the underground railroad. Local Native Americans show up on the early payrolls, as they joined in the hard and fiery tasks. All of this has given today’s Valley 

a very special heritage. 

The Valley would not have been very pretty back in the iron era, with the hills 

and valleys denuded of trees for the charcoal making and the forges, furnaces and 

charcoal pits emitting fire and smoke. But all has changed and today’s Litchfield 

Hills and Berkshires are known for their beauty. The Appalachian Trail and many 

other walking trails and country roads provide opportunities for hiking and backpacking, while the many rivers and streams provide excellent fishing. Wildlife is 

abundant, as I watch deer, wild turkeys and the occasional fox cross my front lawn 

in Lakeville. People from around the country come in October for the pleasure of 

watching the red, gold and copper turning of the leaves while sharing a night or 

a meal at one of the many historic country inns. Our citizens and visitors recognize 

that the Valley’s heritage has a very special national interest. 

THE UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY PRESENTS GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE

PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HERITAGE

The world of the Housatonic Valley has not moved at the pace of surrounding 

areas, providing a great opportunity, if we all move expeditiously, for preservation 

26

and development of the special heritage The Valley has one of the largest concentrations of structures on the National Register of Historic Places, but many need technological and funding help if they are to survive. The tristate Iron Heritage Trail 

is an official project of the federal ‘‘Save America’s Treasures’’ program. Our Iron 

Heritage Committee has identified more than a hundred sites of iron era historic 

importance with the potential for either preservation or, at the least, being the site 

of educational historical markers. Many other existing sites and structures symbolize the farms, industry, commerce and homes through the centuries. 

The 1847 Beckley Iron Furnace is an example of what can be accomplished. The 

Furnace ceased operation in 1918 and the surrounding buildings were removed, 

leaving the furnace tower. The State of Connecticut acquired it in 1946, designating 

it as its first, and still only, ‘‘Industrial Monument’’. Receiving only minimum care 

over the next fifty years, the Furnace was ready to collapse by 1996, when several 

of us decided to take action. Realizing that public awareness and interest were vital, 

we organized programs and other events, distributed more than 5,000 copies of an 

Iron Trail brochure, published a 136 book on the iron era heritage, including a detailed tristate heritage trail, and sold more than 100 autographed lithograph prints 

of an A.N. Wyeth painting of the Furnace. Responding to this the State carried out 

a $ 250,000 stabilization program and has acquired an adjacent 1869 structure that 

we have converted into an educational center. We work closely with the State on 

this and will continue to do so in the future. 

But other furnaces remain in all sorts of disrepair, as do the mine sites, forge 

sites and the many charcoal pits found throughout the revived forests. The Sharon 

Historical Society was recently able to restore a 19th century lime kiln, another reminder of the area’s heritage. Other business structures, including landmark railroad depots and 19th century industrial buildings, can be found in the small communities. Many 18th and 19th century homes remain, some the large homes of the 

well to do and others the homes of the workers who came to the Valley. As we enter 

the new century, the Valley provides a great potential for preserving our special 

heritage. 

That heritage extends to our natural heritage, as the old industrial sites have 

been restored to today’s beautiful scenery. But this requires constant maintenance 

and preservation. All of this will benefit the residents as well as the many visitors 

who come to the area. 

BROAD SUPPORT EXISTS FOR THE PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY

A wide range of groups—historical societies, town governments, museums and historical sites, civic clubs and others have expressed strong support for the establishment of a National Heritage Area. Our local State legislators are enthusiastic about 

the potential for celebration and preservation of the heritage. Attachment A lists 

more than two hundred official supporters, including regional and local heritage organizations, local governments, schools and individuals. 

Many of our supporters have gathered for our several heritage events, including 

a Shays Rebellion History Fair and our annual October Weekend of Heritage Walks. 

Last year we, with our participating heritage organizations, offered 46 well attended 

walks celebrating our natural, historical and cultural heritage. 

Our efforts will tie in with the local economy. We have the support of and are 

working with the Area’s Rotary Clubs and Chambers of Commerce, the Northwest 

Connecticut Travel Council and the Berkshire Visitors Bureau. All see this as an 

opportunity to improve our rural economy. 

We have distributed more than 30,000 copies of the NPS Brochure throughout the 

Area, drawing favorable comment from the readers. Especially important, no one 

has come forward to oppose us, to denigrate or complain about what we are doing. 

Every year more people come to enjoy the pleasures and heritage of this special 

area, people who share the goal of seeing this it will still be there for their children. 

WE ARE ORGANIZED TO FULFILL OUR PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The Tri-Corners History Council was organized in 1995 to work with local groups 

to preserve, develop and celebrate the heritage of northwestern Connecticut, southwestern Massachusetts and the adjoining area of New York, roughly the area at the 

core of the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area. In 1999 the Council 

established the ‘‘Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Assembly’’ as an 

initial step towards becoming designated as a National Heritage Area. An Advisory 

Board was established, with every supporting group authorized to designate a member. 

27

As an outgrowth of the Assembly, UHVNHA was organized in 2000 as a not-forprofit corporation to coordinate with the National Park Service in its Feasibility 

Study and to begin the development as a Heritage Area. Working through a ten 

member Board of Directors and a fifty member Advisory Board, we have sought to 

be all inclusive in participation, activities and planning. We are now setting standards for making heritage grants and will establish a totally non-discriminatory, objective approach to this process. We are also evolving to best carry out the responsibilities of the management entity as described in the Act. 

UHVNHA has a Section 501(c) (3) tax exempt status with the Internal Revenue 

Service. All Board members are volunteers and we anticipate employing a part-time 

Executive Director in the future. 

We currently have five projects already underway:

1. An Iron Heritage Trail, with a comprehensive brochure issued in October, 2004. 

2. A Graduate Level Heritage Course for local teachers. 

3. A regional African-American Heritage Trail 

4. An arts/environmental celebration—Housatonic River Summer 2005

5. Our 4th annual October Weekend of Heritage Walks.

In summary, the Upper Housatonic Valley Heritage Area is an important, well 

defined part of our national heritage, with three centuries of history of a very hard 

working people. We urge you to consider and approve H.R. 4312, the Heritage Area 

Study Act of 2000. We thank the Committee for this opportunity to present our 

story and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

NOTE: Appendix A. ‘‘Official Supporting Entities’’ has been retained in subcommittee files.

Senator THOMAS. Good job. 

Well, thank all of you. And I apologize for us being kind of in 

a sweat to get it done today. 

So, at any rate, thank you, and we’ll call on our next panel: Mr. 

John Cosgrove, the executive director of the Alliance for National 

Heritage Areas, and Mr. Peyton Knight, executive director, American Policy Center, and Washington representative for the American Land Rights Association. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Start right in, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator THOMAS. Start right in, Mr. Cosgrove. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. COSGROVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALLIANCE OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS 

Mr. COSGROVE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my 

name is John Cosgrove, and I am the executive director of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, an organization whose membership includes, among others, the 27 congressionally designated National Heritage Areas. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss National Heritage Areas and their emergent reputation for effectively improving the quality of life in regions across the country today. 

Heritage Areas can be fostered by the philanthropy of an individual or by the collective involvement of foundations, businesses, 

governments in a regional project. Our latest estimate indicates 

that Heritage Areas have sprouted in more than 150 places 

throughout the United States. This position in the preservation industry has become the catalyst for the creation of investment in 

economic development strategies in a number of states through the 

Federally-sponsored initiatives with the National Park Service and 

many other Federal agencies, departments, and partners. 

The evidence of the positive impact of heritage development is 

becoming more and more clear. Just in the year of 2004, over 42.9 

28

million people visited Heritage Areas. Volunteers worked very near 

220,000 hours in Heritage Areas. Heritage Areas awarded 341 

grants, which leveraged over $44 million in additional funds. National Park Service Heritage Partnerships Programs funding leverage 83.6 million in other Federal, State, local, and private dollars. 

That’s a ratio of one to six. 

National Heritage Areas are renowned for their entrepreneurial 

practices in encouraging private-sector development while protecting significant historic and cultural resources. They are recognized more and more for their creativity in fostering regional partnerships that expand economic development and increase tourism 

opportunities in communities all over America. 

National Heritage Areas are effective clearinghouses, where citizens are comfortable in coming together to voice their opinions, to 

rigorously debate or simply to express concerns over very real 

issues facing their regions. Critical issues like regional planning, 

cultural conservation, private-property rights, economic vitality, 

educational excellence, and environmental stewardship are all part 

of regional project deliberations. And the goal is to reach consensus 

and accord. And that is the centerpiece of true heritage development. 

On behalf of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and all of 

our members, I want to thank the committee and all of our partners in the National Park Service and beyond who have diligently 

labored with us to craft a genuine partnership of creativity, openness, and common purpose in improving the quality of life in regions all across the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify before 

the Committee today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cosgrove follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. COSGROVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ALLIANCE OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is John 

W. Cosgrove. I am the Executive Director of the Alliance of National Heritage 

Areas, an organization whose membership includes, among others, the 27 congressionally designated National Heritage Areas. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss National Heritage Areas and 

their emergent reputation for effectively improving the quality of life in regions all 

across the country today. 

For over 20 years, heritage areas have grown from a vague and imprecise concept 

to a genuine and commanding national movement. Heritage areas span a wide spectrum of community-based activities. They can range from a singular endeavor to 

save a group of historic buildings to a wide-ranging and comprehensive approach 

to regional conservation, preservation, tourism and economic revitalization. Heritage 

areas can be made up of a cluster of neighborhoods, or they can be multi jurisdictional, crossing the boundaries of counties, regions and even states. 

Heritage areas can be fostered by the philanthropy of an individual, or by the collective involvement of foundations, businesses and governments in a regional 

project. Our latest estimate indicates that heritage areas have sprouted in more 

than 150 places throughout the U.S. This position in the preservation industry has 

become the catalyst for the creation of investment and economic development strategies in a number of states and through the federally-sponsored initiatives with the 

National Park Service and many other federal agencies and departments. 

In the year 2004:

• Over 42,900,000 people visited heritage areas, and volunteers worked very near 

220,500 hours in heritage areas. 

• Heritage areas formalized relationships with 1,274 partners, and 3,639 informal 

relationships with partners. 

29

• Heritage areas and their partners managed over 550 educational programs and 

over 735,000 people participated in those educational programs. 

• Heritage areas awarded 111 grants to National Register-eligible structures, and 

contributed to 113 enhancements projects. 

• Heritage areas awarded 341 grants which leveraged $ 44,488,296 in additional 

funds. 

• Heritage areas awarded 66 grants for recreation trails, assisting in the creation 

and enhancement of 85 miles of trails and 83 trails projects. 

• NPS Heritage Partnerships Program funding leveraged $83,691,954 in other 

Federal, state, local, and private dollars, a ratio of 1:6. 

HISTORY OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

The development of National Heritage Areas dates to the 1980s, and the history 

of their development is a study of politics at the grass root levels of American society. The first NHAs designated by the Congress were experiments in new conservation efforts that involved local constituencies as the primary stewards for the protection of resources. This new conservation strategy was a clear departure from the Department of Interior, and specifically the National Park Service, from owning and 

operating the historic and natural resources that made up the NHA. In the ensuing 

years Congress created a handful of other NHAs. 

In the mid-1990s, the idea of NHAs as a ‘‘new’’ approach to a comprehensive conservation and community development strategy began to emerge. Pushed in part by 

the emergence of several state heritage programs, local efforts sprouted in many 

states, with the majority found in the eastern United States. Of these, several 

sought congressional designation as NHAs. 

Legislation was proposed to create a group of NHAs, along with a program, to 

exist within the National Park Service. Following several attempts, the programmatic legislation failed. At the eleventh hour of the second session of the 104th 

Congress, the program language was stripped from the National Heritage Area bill, 

and the proposed NHAs were packaged within a larger omnibus parks bill that ultimately passed Congress and was signed into law. Consequently, the lack of successful passage of programmatic legislation reinforced the process under which NHAs 

are currently designated. 

Today, 27 NHAs have been created by the Congress. 

From New England to the deep south, through the mid-west and now advancing 

to the far west—citizens have come together to conserve their heritage, create recreational resources and protect greenways. These very citizens are working to conserve and to interpret their heritage in order to develop a sense of place that works 

to increase the value of their property and to improve the quality of life in their 

neighborhoods and communities. 

Not every National Heritage Area is the same. NHAs are as unique as the resources they work to conserve. Each NHA, does however, share a fundamental philosophy to achieve five specific goals:

• to conserve historic and cultural resources 

• to conserve natural and enhance the development of recreational resources 

• to develop educational and interpretative resources 

• to help stimulate heritage tourism and economic development 

• to establish partnerships to help steward the advancement of the heritage area

According to what the regional citizenry identifies through often exhaustive and 

strategic public engagement, each NHA might prioritize these goals in different 

ways. 

HOW NHAS WORK

National Heritage Areas are special places in America, merging community resources to promote conservation and community and economic development—or heritage development. 

NHAs harness a wide range of community assets and interests—from historic 

preservation, outdoor recreation, museums, performing arts, folk life and crafts, and 

scenic and working landscapes, to grassroots community-building activities—that 

when combined—create a sum greater than its parts. 

NHAs celebrate the special character and culture of places, and have a strong 

sense of place and identity. They are neither urban nor rural and often include communities and sites throughout a region. Typically, NHAs work to protect historic 

and cultural resources while encouraging development for tourism and other economic opportunities. 

30

NHAs illuminate the history and culture of a region so those people within that 

region feel proud of their heritage and so those who visit that region come away 

with a deeper appreciation of that region’s culture and its resources. 

Few government programs can point to such accomplishment and to such broad 

and expanding levels of success as National Heritage Areas. At their very creation, 

hardly anyone would have predicted that NHAs would be as popular as they are 

today. NHAs are often held up as paramount examples of just how government and 

local communities can work effectively together as partners. 

In September of 2004, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation presented the National Park Service and the 

Alliance of National Heritage Areas with the prestigious National Trust-ACHP 

Award for Federal Partnerships in Historic Preservation. 

NPS Director Fran Mainella and ANNA Chairman Augie Carlino received the 

award on stage before an audience of thousands of preservation professionals and 

advocates. The ceremony, broadcast nationally by Home and Garden Television, featured a video presentation highlighting the partners’ activities at the national and 

local levels. Featured in the nomination for this prestigious award were specific examples of the extraordinary partnerships that illustrate the amazing collaboration 

between the National Park Service and heritage areas across the nation. 

NHAs are renowned for their entrepreneurial practices in encouraging private 

sector development while protecting significant historic and cultural resources. They 

are recognized for their creativity in fostering regional partnerships that expand 

economic development and increase tourism opportunities in communities all over 

America. 

At a White House ceremony held on May 3, 2004, two National Heritage Areas 

were honored by President and Mrs. Bush as recipients of the first annual Preserve 

America Presidential Awards. Lackawanna Heritage Valley in northeastern Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Heritage Initiative each received recognition for their 

exemplary heritage tourism efforts. President Bush presented the award certificates 

in the Oval Office of the White House. A public reception in the State Dining Room 

and a program in the East Room followed featuring presentations by Mrs. Laura 

Bush, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and Chairman of the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation John Nau. 

National Heritage Areas are effective clearinghouses where citizens are comfortable in coming together to voice their opinions, rigorously debate, or simply to 

express concerns over real issues facing their regions. Critical issues like regional 

planning, cultural conservation, private property rights, economic vitality, educational excellence, and environmental stewardship are part of regional project deliberations with the goal of reaching consensus and accord as the centerpiece of true 

heritage development action. 

National Heritage Areas are grass roots efforts that—by their very nature—demand inclusive planning by all facets of the community. 

This has been a watershed year for heritage development in our nation and a significant year of growth for the Alliance of National Heritage Areas. We are grateful 

for our strong partnership with the National Park Service and our other valued federal partners, the many state heritage development programs with whom we work, 

private industry, foundations, corporations, and educators who are so generous in 

sharing with us their expertise, guidance, and resources. 

On behalf of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and our members, I want 

to thank the Committee and all of our partners in the National Park Service, who 

have diligently labored with us to craft a genuine partnership of creativity, openness, and common purpose. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee, and I am happy to answer any questions that you have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. And all of your statement will be 

put in the record. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Knight. 

STATEMENT OF J. PEYTON KNIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN POLICY CENTER, AND WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE FOR AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, 

WARRENTON, VA 

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

31

My name is Peyton Knight. I am executive director of the American Policy Center, in Warrenton, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., 

representative for the American Land Rights Association. Both organizations promote the protection of private-property rights, free 

markets, and limited government. 

I also have the distinct pleasure of being the only witness appearing today who is not asking you for any money. And that is 

important, because, at last check, the Federal debt is approaching 

$8 trillion. But extreme fiscal irresponsibility aside, National Heritage Areas embody a more sinister characteristic. Though billed by 

those who hope to cash in at Federal trough as nothing more than 

innocuous designations bestowed upon local communities for the 

purposes of national recognition and tourism seed money, Heritage 

Areas are actually Federal land-use mandates foisted upon local 

communities. Quite simply, Heritage Areas have boundaries, and 

those boundaries have consequences for the property owners unfortunate enough to reside within them. 

Incredibly, proponents argue that Heritage Areas do not influence local zoning or land-use planning. Yet, by definition, this is 

precisely what they do. In each of the three Heritage Area bills before us today, the management entity specifically directed to restore, preserve, and manage anything and everything that is naturally, culturally, historically, and recreationally significant to the 

Heritage Area. This sweeping mandate ensures that virtually every 

square inch of land within the boundaries is subject to the scrutiny 

of the Park Service and their managing partners. 

The late Representative Gerald Solomon of New York strongly 

warned his colleagues against Heritage Area schemes several years 

ago. In a letter to his colleagues, he wrote, ‘‘I urge you to defend 

property rights and strongly oppose the American Heritage Area 

Participation Program. The environmentalists advocating this bill 

have Federal land-use control as their primary objective.’’ And the 

rest of his letter is included in my written testimony. 

Little has changed in the years since Congressman Solomon 

warned his colleagues about the imprudence and danger of a National Heritage Areas Program. The advocates of this program still 

have Federal land-use control as their primary objective. Heritage 

Areas still waste tax dollars that would better be spent on a Park 

Service maintenance backlog that now numbers in the billions of 

dollars. And the Secretary of the Interior still has the ultimate say 

over the management and land-use plans of each Heritage Area, 

these present bills included. Clearly, National Heritage Areas are 

nothing less than Federal land-use policy. 

Representative Bob Smith, years ago, also penned a letter to 

Congressman Richard Pombo warning him about the inherent dangers of National Heritage Areas, calling them ‘‘a significant threat 

to property rights.’’ And, again, the rest of that letter is in my testimony. 

In reality, National Heritage Areas are nothing more than land 

targeted by the National Park Service for future natural parks, historic sites, landmarks, and land acquisition. This is evidenced 

today by S. 323, which intends to make the French Colonial Heritage Area in Missouri a permanent unit of the Park Service and a 

national historic site. 

32

The Rivers of Steel area in Pennsylvania has existed almost exclusively as a Park Service lobby outwardly campaigning for Federal land-acquisition authority and national park status. In fact, 

just yesterday, Arlen Specter, introduced legislation that would create that 38-acre national historic site within the Rivers of Steel 

Heritage Area. 

Federal Government owns almost one-third of America’s total 

land mass. National Park Service is assigned to caring for much of 

this property. At present, the Park Service is running a multi-billion-dollar deferred-maintenance backlog. If it can’t handle its current responsibility, how on earth does it make sense to give it 

more? 

A very wise man once observed, ‘‘The Federal Government continues to acquire greater amounts of land throughout the nation. 

In almost every State, officials are saying it is time to address existing public-lands needs before we swell the size of the Federal 

Government. It’s time for Congress to promote the rights of private-property owners and instill some common sense into Federal 

land acquisitions.’’

These words were spoken only last Friday by our good Chairman 

Thomas, upon the introduction of his No Net Loss of Private Lands 

Act. And, if I may say so, it’s a brilliant bill, rooted in sound principle. 

Proponents of Heritage Areas also claim they are locally driven 

projects, but nothing could be further from the truth. Landowners 

within the boundaries of proposed Heritage Areas are left in the 

dark throughout the entire process. Why? Because each and every 

Heritage Area bill refuses to include simply written notification to 

property owners. Seemingly, the Park Service and their management partners are not too eager to share all the good news with 

the local citizenry. If these National Heritage Areas were truly 

driven by local enthusiasm, we wouldn’t even be here today. Instead, local enthusiasm would have attracted and generated local 

funding to create local heritage areas. Such locally supported heritage areas are plentiful across the Nation. Instead, the National 

Heritage Areas depend on Federal tax dollars because they lack 

local interest, something that lack throughout their entire infinite 

lives. 

Proponents claim Heritage Areas are merely seed grants, and 

that, sooner or later, they will attain self-sufficiency and no longer 

need Federal funding, yet National Heritage Areas almost never 

meet their funding sunset triggers. Once created, they are permanent units of the National Park Service and always dependent on 

increased Federal funds. Indeed, National Heritage Areas are the 

40-year-old child still living in mommy and daddy’s basement. 

Some day, they swear, they’ll grow up and move out on their own. 

Yet that day never comes. 

In fact, there’s a bill before this very Congress, H.R. 888, that 

would extend the Federal life of nine existing Heritage Areas until 

the year 2027, and double their funding. It certainly appears that 

Junior has no plans to leave the basement. 

In conclusion, National Heritage Areas are a worse idea now 

than they were 10 years ago. Experience shows they not only become a——

33

Senator THOMAS. Can you sum here now? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yeah. 

Senator THOMAS. I’ve got to leave. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. 

The real beneficiaries of National Heritage Areas are conservation groups, preservation societies, land trusts, and the National 

Park Service, organizations that are in constant pursuit of Federal 

dollars, land acquisition, and restrictions of private-property rights. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. PEYTON KNIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN POL- ICY CENTER, AND WASHINGTON D.C. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AMERICAN LAND

RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, ON S. 175

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. My name is Peyton Knight. I am executive director of 

the American Policy Center in Warrenton, Virginia. The Center is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the principles of private property rights, 

free markets, and limited government. In addition, I am the Washington, D.C. representative for the American Land Rights Association (ALRA). ALRA promotes the 

protection of property rights and the wise use of our nation’s resources. I have the 

distinct pleasure of being the only witness appearing today who is not asking you 

for any money. 

And that is important, because at last check, the federal debt is approaching eight 

trillion dollars. Extreme fiscal irresponsibility aside, National Heritage Areas 

(NHAs) embody a more sinister characteristic. Though billed by those who hope to 

cash-in at the federal trough as nothing more than innocuous designations bestowed 

upon local communities for the purposes of national recognition and tourism-seed 

money, Heritage Areas are actually federal land use mandates foisted upon local 

communities. Quite simply: Heritage Areas have boundaries, and those boundaries 

have consequences for property owners unfortunate enough to reside within them. 

Funding and technical assistance for NHAs is administered through the National 

Park Service (NPS), a federal agency with a long history of hostility toward private 

landowners. The recipient of these funds and NPS direction is a management entity, 

which typically consists of strictly ideological special interest groups and local government officials. This public/private ‘‘partnership’’ then imposes its narrow vision 

of land use planning on unsuspecting landowners within a Heritage Area’s boundaries. The result is a top-down, federal approach to zoning that is not responsive 

to the local citizenry. 

Incredibly, proponents argue that National Heritage Areas do not influence local 

zoning or land use planning. Yet by definition this is precisely what they do. In each 

of the three Heritage Area bills before us today (S. 175, S. 322, and S. 429), the 

management entity is specifically directed to restore, preserve, and manage anything and everything that is naturally, culturally, historically, and recreationally 

significant to the Heritage Area. This sweeping mandate ensures that virtually 

every square inch of land within the boundaries is subject to the scrutiny of Park 

Service bureaucrats and their managing partners. 

The late Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) strongly warned his colleagues 

against the Heritage Area scheme. In a letter dated September 19, 1994, Solomon 

wrote:

I urge you to defend property rights and strongly oppose the American 

Heritage Area Participation Program... The environmentalists advocating this bill have FEDERAL LAND USE CONTROL as their primary objective. 

The bill wastes tax dollars that could be more appropriately spent on 

maintaining our national parks... Property rights defenders have legitimate concerns about the provision in the bill requiring localities to obtain 

approval by the Secretary of Interior for land use plans . . . 

WHY SPEND $35 MILLION ON NON-FEDERAL HERITAGE AREAS 

WHEN OUR NATIONAL PARKS DESPERATELY NEED FUNDS FOR 

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR? 

Again, I ask you to defend property rights and oppose this bill. 

(The emphasis is Rep. Solomon’s—not mine.)

Little has changed in the ten years since Congressman Solomon warned his colleagues about the imprudence and danger of National Heritage Areas. The advoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:50 May 25, 2005 Jkt 021241 PO 10927 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21332.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
34

cates of this program still have federal land use control as their primary objective. 

Heritage Areas still waste tax dollars that would be better spent on a Park Service 

maintenance backlog that now numbers in the billions of dollars. And the Secretary 

of Interior still has the ultimate say over the management and land use plans of 

each Heritage Area, these present bills included. Clearly, National Heritage Areas 

are nothing less than federal land use policy. 

Also on September 19, 1994, Rep. Bob Smith (R-OR) penned a letter to fellow 

Congressman Richard Pombo, warning him about the inherent dangers of National 

Heritage Areas:

Dear Richard, 

On Tuesday, the House will consider legislation that I consider to be the 

most significant threat to private property rights I have seen during my 

twelve years in Congress. 

This legislation... will threaten private property by authorizing a 

broad new program of federal land use controls, extending from coast to 

coast. There are nearly 100 Heritage Areas currently under consideration 

and it’s likely that your constituents will be impacted by these incredible 

restrictions on private property. 

This program is based on the existing Columbia Gorge Scenic Area in Oregon and Washington. The management plan for the Gorge regulates nearly 

every detail of private property use, including the color landowners can 

paint their homes and the species of trees they can plant in their own yard. 

Your constituents, like mine, will be outraged at this gross abuse of government over-regulation if this bill is enacted. Believe me, you do not want to 

be part of a town hall meeting after masses of your constituents learn the 

federal government has the final say over what they can do on their own 

property.

In reality, National Heritage Areas are nothing more than land targeted by NPS 

for future national parks, historic sites, landmarks, and land acquisition. This is evidenced today by S. 323, which intends to make the French Colonial Heritage Area 

in Missouri a permanent unit of the Park Service and a National Historic Site. The 

Rivers of Steel Heritage Area in Pennsylvania has existed almost exclusively as a 

NPS lobby—outwardly campaigning for federal land acquisition authority and national park status. 

The federal government owns almost one-third of America’s total land mass. The 

National Park Service is assigned to caring for much of this property. At present, 

the Park Service is running a multi-billion-dollar deferred maintenance backlog. It 

can’t handle its current responsibility. How on Earth does it make sense to give it 

more? A wise man once observed:

The federal government continues to acquire greater amounts of land 

throughout the nation. In almost every state, officials are saying it is time 

to address existing public lands’ needs before we swell the size of the federal government . . . 

It’s time for Congress to protect the rights of private property owners and 

instill some common sense into federal land acquisitions.

These words were spoken only last Friday by our good Chairman Thomas upon 

the introduction of his ‘‘No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act’’ (S. 591). If I may say 

so, it is a brilliant bill rooted in sound principle. 

Proponents of NHAs also claim that they are ‘‘locally driven’’ projects. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. Landowners within the boundaries of proposed Heritage Areas are left in the dark throughout the entire process. Why? Because each 

and every Heritage Area bill refuses to include simple written notification to property owners. Seemingly the Park Service and their management ‘‘partners’’ are not 

too eager to share all the good news with the local citizenry. 

If these National Heritage Areas were truly driven by local enthusiasm we 

wouldn’t even be here today. Instead, local enthusiasm would have attracted and 

generated local funding to create local Heritage Areas. Such locally supported Heritage Areas are plentiful across the nation. Instead, National Heritage Areas depend 

on federal tax dollars because they lack local interest—something they lack throughout their entire infinite lives. Proponents claim NHAs are merely seed grants, and 

that sooner or later, they will attain self-sufficiency and no longer need federal funding. Yet National Heritage Areas almost never meet their funding sunset triggers. 

Once created, they are permanent units of the National Park Service and always 

dependent on increased federal funds. Indeed, National Heritage Areas are the 40-

year-old ‘‘child’’ still living in mommy and daddy’s basement. Someday, they swear, 

they’ll grow up and move out on their own. Yet that day never comes. 

35

In fact, there is a bill before this very Congress (H.R. 888) that would extend the 

federal life of nine existing National Heritage Areas until the year 2027, and double 

their funding! It certainly appears that Junior has no plans to leave the basement. 

Life on the dole suits him fine. 

In conclusion, National Heritage Areas are a worse idea now than they were ten 

years ago. Experience shows that they not only become federal funding albatrosses, 

but also public/private conglomerates that quash property rights and local economies through restrictive federal zoning practices. The real beneficiaries of National 

Heritage Areas are conservation groups, preservation societies, land trusts, and the 

National Park Service—essentially, organizations that are in constant pursuit of 

federal dollars, land acquisition, and restrictions on property rights. 

True private property ownership lies in one’s ability to do with his property as 

he wishes. Zoning and land use policies are local decisions to be made by locally 

elected officials who are directly accountable to the citizens they represent. National 

Heritage Areas corrupt this inherently local procedure by adding federal dollars, 

federal oversight, and federal mandates to the mix. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify on this very important issue. I would 

be happy to answer any questions that of the subcommittee may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Again, I apologize for having to hurry things up, but, you hear, 

the bell’s ringing. 

So, thank you all for being here, and we will move forward with 

these bills as soon as we can. 

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

Washington, DC, March 15, 2005. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of Land 

Management to questions submitted following the February 8, 2005, oversight hearing before the Subcommittee Public Lands and Forests on the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

JANE M. LYDER, 

Legislative Counsel. 

[Enclosure.] 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS HEARING

Question 1. List all BLM-approved Title II projects that involve(d) the sale of merchantable material.

Project Name BLM District Year of Approval 

Implement in 

Fiscal Year 

Southern Flame Density Management.Salem ............ 2002 & 2003 2006 or 2007

Thomas Creek LSR Young Stand 

Management.

Salem ............ 2003 & 2004 2005 or 2006

Thomas Creek LSR Variable Density Thinning.Salem ............ 2002 & 2003 2005 or 2006

Matchbox .......................................... Lakeview ....... 2003 .............. 2004

Boaz Forest Health & Small Diameter Utilization Medford.2002 .............. 2003.

Beck Road White Oak Release ....... Salem ............ 2002* ............ 2003 or 2004

Galesville LSR Enhance./Small 

Dia. Removal.

Medford ........ 2002 & 2003 2004

Upper Umpqua Forest Habitat Improvement.Roseburg ...... 2003 .............. 2004

Smith River Stream Habitat Improvement.Roseburg ....... 2003 .............. 2004

Shivley Creek LSR Habitat Improvement.Roseburg ...... 2003 .............. 2004 or 2005

Penny Stew (aka Scattered Apples) Medford ........ 2004 .............. 2005

Nestucca Jane Creek Restoration .. Salem ............ 2004 .............. 2005 or 2006 

* The project was not recommended by the RAC for Phase II (Implementation) 

38

Question 2. Which of the projects referred to above utilized separate contracts for 

the harvesting or collection of the merchantable material, and for the sale of such 

material? 

Answer. Matchbox, Galesville LSR Enhancement, and Smith River Stream Habitat Improvement (in bold) were selected as BLM Title II—Pilot Projects where separate contracts were utilized to harvest and sell the merchantable material. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. National Heritage Areas are not units of the National Park System, 

but the purpose of your bill, S. 323, is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial 

Heritage Area as a unit. Is your intent to seek designation as a National Heritage 

Area or some other classification such as a park, historic site, or landmark? 

Answer. The intent of S. 323 is to consider the suitability and feasibility of designating the properties described within the text of the bill as a national historic site. 

The confusion regarding its designation as a National Heritage Area seems to be 

a result of a working title used locally for the collective properties under discussion. 

The use of the phrase ‘‘French colonial heritage area’’ in the text of the bill should 

not constitute a reference to a National Heritage Area. 

Question 2. What do you consider the National importance of the proposed French 

Colonial National Heritage Area? 

Answer. The colonial history of a vast central portion of our country traces its 

roots to the 18th century French settlements that developed throughout the midMississippi River valley. The cultural identity forged in this region during the colonial era is a fascinating, but largely unrecognized facet of our national identity. This 

vibrant French culture left its mark in many ways still evident today in numerous 

historic places throughout the mid-west. 

The historic village of Ste. Genevieve preserves a remarkable number of buildings 

from this French colonial culture. These resources, including the vertical-log, 

poteaux-en-terre structures identified in S. 323, constitute an unparalleled, architectural history of this colonial era. 

Question 3. If a more structured set of criteria were in place for National Heritage 

Areas, would this have assisted you in pursuing designation of the French Colonial 

National Heritage Area? 

Answer. While the original intent of S. 323 seeks designation as a national historic site, further information and criteria regarding National Heritage Areas would 

be a welcome addition to the efforts to seek solutions to preserve and interpret these 

remarkable, national treasures. 

(39)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY L. JOHNSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CONNECTICUT

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AND PARKS BILLS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on S. 429, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the state of Connecticut and the commonwealth of Massachusetts. I 

have introduced identical legislation in the House and wish to focus on the substantial impact a heritage area designation will have on my constituents and the region. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley is a singular geographical and cultural region that 

has made significant national contributions through its literacy, artistic, musical, 

and architectural achievements, its iron, paper, and electrical equipment industries 

and its scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts. The heritage 

area has broad support throughout the region, from historic and civic organizations, 

local businesses and governments, and our state government. It also has inspired 

the development of a local organization that has already begun hosting hiking 

events and historic visits. 

Congress established criteria in our 2000 legislation that clarifies that designation 

requires a cultural, natural and historical heritage of national significance, must 

have broad public support and a qualified entity to manage the Area. The Park 

Service agreed that the Upper Housatonic Valley meets the Department’s ten interim 

criteria for designation of a national heritage area and cite us as the best example 

of how to go about becoming a National Heritage Area. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area would extend from 

Lanesboro, Massachusetts 60 miles South to Kent, Connecticut. This region of New 

England was home to the nation’s first industrial iron sites from the 1730’s to the 

1920’s. The first blast furnace was built in 1762 by Ethan Allen and supplied the 

iron for the cannons that helped George Washington’s army to make other weapons 

for soldiers of the Revolutionary army. While most of the furnaces, mine sites and 

charcoal pits have been lost to development and time, the few that remain are in 

need of refurbishment. The Beckley Furnace in Canaan, Connecticut was designated 

an official project by the Millennium Committee to Save America’s Treasures and 

now has been well restored. 

The Valley’s history as a cultural retreat from the Boston and New York areas 

provides both past and current riches for the country. Since the 1930’s visitors from 

all over have come to hear the music at Tanglewood, Music Mountain and Norfolk, 

see the paintings at the Norman Rockwell Museum, watch serious theater at Stockbridge and musical treats at Sharon. Today’s local authors draw on a long tradition 

going back to the 19th century, when Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne and 

Edith Wharton lived and wrote here. The Upper Housatonic Area, with its remoteness from, but ties to large cities, occupy a special niche in our national culture. 

The Housatonic Valley is also rich with environmental and recreational treasures. 

The Housatonic River, just below Falls Village, Connecticut, is one of the prized flyfishing centers in the Northeast and is enjoyed by fisherman from not only Connecticut and Massachusetts but the entire eastern seaboard. Olympic rowers have 

trained in this river as children have learned to swim, boat and fish and value its 

ecosystem. 

Through this broad, flexible and locally led initiative, the states of Connecticut 

and Massachusetts will be able to make real progress in protecting the river and 

its heritage and in guiding regional economic development. Rather than depending 

on the federal bureaucracy, states will be able to facilitate locally led, and truly voluntary programs that will help protect the river for future generations and 

strengthen the economies of these small towns by developing regional tourist attraction. 

40

This legislation has broad bipartisan support, I would like to thank the Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee for bringing it forward and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. 

CENTRAL MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND ANTHROPOLOGY, 

Warrensburg, MO, March 9, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: I am writing to endorse Senate Bill 323 ‘‘French Colonial 

Heritage National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’ authorizing a National Park 

Service study concerning the feasibility of designating the Amoureux-BequetteRibault site in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, as a National Historic Site. Obviously the 

number of valuable historic properties in the United States deserving of consideration for this elevated status far exceeds what current resources available to the 

NPS can support, but notwithstanding current fiscal constraints, I am confident 

that a judicious assessment of this particular site will sustain the case for making 

it an exception and adding it to the elite list of National Historic Sites. 

While in the popular imagination New Orleans’ historic French quarter embodies 

America’s French colonial roots, the tiny town of Ste. Genevieve, Missouri boasts 

structures older and more representative of that tradition than any of the Crescent 

City’s extant buildings. Several years ago in his acclaimed documentary series on 

America, Alistair Cooke made that very point in an episode introducing France’s 

historical contributions to American development. Ste. Genevieve, while thirty some 

years younger than New Orleans, had the good fortune to escape the ravages of fire 

and economic development that destroyed the Louisiana city’s oldest buildings. A 

scattering of in tact French colonial structures dating to the late eighteenth century, 

make Missouri’s quaint Mississippi River town a bona fide national treasure. The 

Amoureux and Bequette Ribault dwellings under consideration in this legislation 

are two of only five known poteaux-en-terre or post-in-ground houses remaining in 

North America. The third of those rare architectural specimens also stands nearby 

in Ste. Genevieve, along with numerous other exemplary structures representative 

of French Creole building techniques in the Mississippi Valley. 

Given their location on their original site, overlooking ‘‘Le Grand Champ’’ (the big 

field where early inhabitants owned land for agricultural purposes), with its still 

unimpeded view of the Mississippi, the Amoureux and Bequette-Ribault dwellings 

afford visitors an opportunity to relate to the earliest days of settlement in the Mississippi Valley in a way that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the entire 

United States. Five decades ago pioneering architectural historian Charles Peterson, 

who inaugurated the Doric American Building Survey for the NPS, That called attention to the importance of these valuable historic structures, and the wisdom of 

his judgment remains no less true today. I urge the members of your committee to 

give favorable consideration to this piece of legislation. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM E. FOLEY, 

Professor Emeritus of History. 

STATE OF MISSOURI, 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Jefferson City, MO, March 10, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: As Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, I am writing to express my support for Senate Bill 323, ‘French Colonial 

Heritage National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’. Our department believes that 

the historic resources described in the bill merit further study by the National Park 

Service. Such a study would provide a national perspective to the unique cultural 

and architectural history of Ste. Genevieve. 

Missouri’s state park system has operated a state historic site in Ste. Genevieve 

since 1970, and has provided the public with an outstanding opportunity to experience the French cultural history of a region settled in the mid 18th century. We 

have expanded our state historic site to include a number of significant buildings, 

41

broadening our interpretive and preservation goals for the site. We have discovered 

that the richness and significance of the resources in Ste. Genevieve demand an 

even larger viewpoint than we are able to provide. We are confident the National 

Park Service study will discover that the important resources in Ste. Genevieve deserve the nation’s devotion to their preservation and interpretation. 

Please contact me at 573/751-4732 or P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 

65102, if you require further information. Thank you for your consideration of this 

matter. 

Sincerely, 

DOYLE CHILDERS, 

Director. 

UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY HERITAGE AREA, INC., 

Salisbury, CT, April 22, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 429—Designation of Upper Housatonic Valley

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: As we continue to evolve as regional heritage area we 

are happy to respond to the four questions in your April 4 letter. During the past 

week we met with fifty members of the Tri-States Chamber of Commerce, receiving 

unanimous support, and with a recently retired industrial executive who is the new 

Chairman of our major regional charitable foundation. It is we who thank you for 

the opportunity to appear at the hearing and submit this additional information. 

1. Potential Impact on Private Property Owners:

a. With a total population of 109,000 and numerous second home owners, our area 

has an estimated 50,000 private property owners. 

b. During the ten years we have been working on this project no one has expressed concerns about the potential loss of property rights nor, indeed, registered 

any sort of adverse concern. After the March 15 hearing I did hear from a gentleman who had read the adverse testimony of Mr. J. Peyton Knight and asked how 

it applied to us. The gentleman, who did not indicate where he lives, expressed a 

strong antipathy for the National Park Service and governmental activity in general. After I described our basic structure he responded positively, noting that our 

effort will preserve the ‘‘cultural and asthetic (sic) texture of your community’’ and 

provide a benefit to those ‘‘lucky enough to live there’’. His sign-off was ‘‘Good luck 

and keep me posted’’. 

c. Our powers as a National Heritage Area would provide very little opportunity 

to affect private property rights, other than, by increasing awareness of our heritage, increasing their value. We ourselves will not own property and have no powers 

to acquire property rights by force. We will only be working with willing organizations and individuals, who to date include everyone in the area that we have heard 

from. We plan to continue a very transparent mode of operation, as in recent years 

we have had more than a hundred public meetings and presentations. Our grants 

program will similarly be unbiased and transparent. 

d. No property owners have asked to be excluded from our proposed National Heritage Area. One property owner just outside the area has asked to be included at 

some point and we are working with him on several events, including hosting one 

of our annual heritage walks.

2. The National Park Service study found four major heritage themes of national 

importance—our culture as home to writers, artists and musicians, our reclaimed 

natural beauty, our heritage as a cradle of industry and our contribution to the development of the nation’s democracy—as well as several additional themes to be developed. We have already issued a brochure on the 1734-1923 iron industry that 

supplied cannons and arms for the Continental and American armed forces as well 

as peacetime artifacts and equipment for the country’s growth, including high quality railroad wheels that enabled the Union Pacific to cross the Rocky Mountains. 

We are researching and developing materials on the region’s distinct African-American heritage, a detailed modem look at an aspect of our national heritage. 

3. We support the Committee’s desire for a generic bill setting forth procedures 

and criteria for being designated as a National Heritage Area and note that those 

set forth in S. 243 essentially embody, in many cases word-for-word, those included 

in our 2000 legislation directing a study of the area. The National Heritage Area 

concept is a winner on all sides—more bang-for-the-buck for the Federal government 

42

and the enrichment of the lives of the area’s citizens. But, as we have learned, its 

success rests on having a heritage of national significance, broad public support and 

a management entity able to do its share. These should properly be the focus of an 

unbiased study before any designation is considered. We consider ourselves a test 

case for the workability of the proposed procedures and criteria. 

4. Our mission is to enrich the lives of our citizens and visitors, coordinate and 

assist the many local heritage activities and the local economy and see that future 

generations will experience the very special heritage of the area. We hope than this 

will provide an incentive for more jobs and for youths to remain in the area to take 

those jobs. 

We have already found a role in coordinating local heritage activities, finding that 

the area’s whole is substantially greater than the individual parts. We are an area 

of many small communities, so this is especially important. 

We plan to continue to evolve in our operations so that we will be ready, at the 

end of the ten year sunset period to continue on our own. Federal designation and 

support is a necessary key to getting into the mainstream, our efforts will lead to 

a long term role once we are there. 

Sincerely, 

RONALD D. JONES, 

Chairman. 

THE FOUNDATION FOR RESTORATION OF STE. GENEVIEVE, 

Ste. Genevieve, MO, March 9, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: I am writing this letter in support of Senate Bill 323. 

The Foundation for Restoration of Ste. Genevieve is a community based historic 

preservation organization. Part of our mission is to ‘perpetuate and cherish the 

memory and spirit of the men and women who achieved the early settlements of 

the Mississippi River and established Ste. Genevieve’ Our members have personal 

interests in the history of the area and a passion for the preservation of this history. 

We would like to ask you to support the bill that will authorize the study that 

will lead to the inclusion of Ste. Genevieve in the National Park System on the 

French Colonial Heritage National Historic Site Selection list for 2005. Thank you 

for your consideration in this matter. 

Cordially, 

MICKEY KOETTING, 

President. 

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, 

CENTER FOR REGIONAL HISTORY, 

Cape Girardeau, MO, March 9, 2005. 

Mr. JIM BAKER, 

Historic Site Administrator, Felix Valle State Historic Site, Ste. Genevieve, MO 

DEAR MR. BAKER: I write in support of the development and designation of a 

French Colonial Heritage Area in the Ste. Genevieve region of Missouri. Senator 

Talent’s bill, S. 323, is designed to establish the ‘‘French Colonial Heritage National 

Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’ as a unit of the National Park System. 

This project will do much to enhance the understanding and interpretation of 

American history. The identified area has wide regional recognition, but is deserving 

of greater national attention. This act will establish the basis for a national appeal. 

It can, and should, develop into a major tourism attraction in the Mississippi Valley, 

promoting the economic growth of Ste. Genevieve, southeast Missouri, and all of 

Missouri. Such an attraction would further enhance many of the hidden but rich 

historic resources of the region, providing more opportunities for all of us to do a 

better job of teaching history to our young people. 

The Ste. Genevieve area is a historic ‘‘gold mine.’’ There are so many historic dimensions to the community and region. In this small riverfront community one can 

study prehistoric Native Americans; the early history of the Mississippi River and 

Valley; the great levee and river control system of the Mississippi; the early French 

explorers; John J. Audubon; the Bois Brule Levee District; the world of the colonial 

French; American and French architectural history; lead mining; salt mining; lime 

mining; the French landscape patterns; early American fur trapping; the American 

43

frontier; and early American economic development. These topics, as well as others, 

can be studied and interpreted within the immediate vicinity of this small community. What a rich and diverse history exists here. 

But, it is the heritage of the French colonial period that is the most vital historic 

dimension of this area. This specific designation will call attention to the unique 

vertical log French homes in Ste. Genevieve, the beautiful historic downtown of Ste. 

Genevieve, the French long-lots along the Mississippi, and other historic French 

structures. There is no other community like this in the United States, The maintenance of these vital properties is difficult for a small community to maintain. Incorporation into the National Park Service will provide assurance of the historic preservation of one of the most historic communities in the Mississippi Valley. Incorporation into the National Park Service will provide assurance of the historic preservation of THE most important French Colonial Heritage Areas of North America. 

Without this I fear eventual compromise and loss. 

Thank you for your consideration of this important project. 

Dr. Frank Nickell, 

DIRECTOR, 

Center for Regional History. 

CITY OF STE. GENEVIEVE, 

Ste. Genevieve, MO, March 10, 2005. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: As Mayor of the City of Ste. Genevieve, I am writing to 

express my encouragement for Senate Bill 323, the ‘‘French Colonial Heritage National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’. On behalf of the City of Ste. Genevieve, I 

believe that the historic resources described in the bill merit further study by the 

National Park Service and such a study would provide a national perspective to the 

unique cultural and architectural history of Ste. Genevieve. 

The City of Ste. Genevieve is very dedicated to Historic Preservation in the area 

with the great historical significance our City enjoys, I am asking for your support 

of this bill. Authorization of this bill will lead to the addition of Ste. Genevieve in 

the National Park System on the French Colonial Heritage National Historic Site 

Selection list for 2005. This addition would allow the preservation of these remarkable significant homes. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD GREMINGER, 

Mayor.

Æ