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

30–701 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–663

DESIGNATION/REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL

HERITAGE AREAS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 574 S. 2037

S. 1387 S. 2645

S. 1721

JUNE 22, 2006

(

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 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 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BRUCE M. EVANS, 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 BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

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

Allen, Hon. George, U.S. U.S. Senator from Virginia ........................................... 6

Cutler, Charlene Perkins, Executive Director & CEO, Quinebaug-Shetucket 

Heritage Corridor, Inc ......................................................................................... 46

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut ................................ 2

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ........................... 3

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from Connecticut ................................ 5

Murphy, Donald W., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 10

Rice, Daniel M., President and CEO, Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition, Akron, 

OH ......................................................................................................................... 41

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

Sullivan, Dr. W. Michael, Director, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ............................................................................................ 25

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

Velasquez, Ann Marie, Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area ...................... 29

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from Ohio ............................................. 6

Wyatt, Cate Magennis, President, The Journey Through Hallowed Ground 

Partnership ........................................................................................................... 34

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 51

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 59

(1)

DESIGNATION/REAUTHORIZATION OF 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room 

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

OPENING STATEMENT BY HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S.

SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. I call the committee to order. 

Thank you very much. We’re going to vote in about an hour. So 

we can just begin as soon as we possibly can. 

Good afternoon, I want to welcome Deputy Director Don Murphy 

from the National Park Service and our other witnesses to today’s 

subcommittee hearing. 

Our purpose for this hearing is to receive testimony on five Senate bills. 

S. 574, a bill to amend the Quinebaug [kwen-uh-bog] and 

Shetucket [shuh-tuck-it] Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor 

Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and 

modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the Act. 

S. 1387, a bill to provide for an update of the Cultural Heritage 

and Land Management Plan for the John H. Chafee Blackstone 

River Valley National Heritage Corridor, to extend the authority of 

the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, to authorize the undertaking of a special resource study of sites and landscape features within the Corridor, 

and to authorize additional appropriations for the Corridor. 

S. 1721, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain 

national heritage areas, and for other purposes. 

S. 2037, a bill to establish the Sangre [San-gray] de [Day] Cristo 

[Chris-tow] National Heritage Area in the State of Colorado, and 

for other purposes. 

And S. 2645, a bill to establish the Journey Through Hallowed 

Ground National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

All of these bills concern the designation of new national heritage 

areas or the reauthorization of existing heritage areas. I think national heritage area designation has accomplished many good 

2

things, but with 27 in existence and over 20 more proposed for designation, the program needs definition and criteria to remain viable. Heritage areas are not units of the National Park System yet 

they expect annual funding through the national park budget. They 

are created with a limited funding authorization of $10 million for 

a limited time of 15 years yet they return for an extension of both 

money and time. They seem to be looking more and more like park 

units from a fiscal perspective, and that was never the intent. I 

want to encourage the House to pass my bill, S. 243, to give better 

definition to national heritage areas. 

I understand that our witness for S. 574 is prepared to testify 

that her heritage area has found a way to be self sufficient by the 

year 2015 and that the bill should be amended to reflect that. I 

would like to thank Ms. Cutler for developing such a strategy and 

I challenge every other heritage area to improve on that approach 

by becoming self sufficient within the initial authorization period 

of 15 years. 

I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to receiving their testimony. 

Senator Allen, if you’d like to go right ahead, sir. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Dodd, Kennedy, 

Lieberman, and Voinovich follow:]

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

FROM CONNECTICUT

Chairman Thomas, Vice Chairman Alexander, Senator Akaka, and members of 

the Subcommittee, I thank you for holding this hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony in support of the Quinebaug-Shetucket Rivers Valley 

National Heritage Corridor (Corridor) reauthorization. 

The Corridor is one of the last unspoiled river valleys along the coastal, eastern 

United States and is often referred to as the Last Green Valley. Established twelve 

years ago, and expanded to include a few more towns in 1999, the region is known 

for its scenery, vibrant wildlife, recreational opportunities, and more than 100 historic and architecturally significant mills. The Corridor is highly regarded as an advocate for resource protection and is looked to by its 35 small communities and residents as the glue that holds together the regional success stories. Hundreds of volunteers and thousands of hours of service have contributed to the projects and programs of the Corridor each year. 

The excellence of their work has been recognized by state and national awards 

including the 2005 Public Education Award from the American Planning Association 

of the Green Valley Institute. 

What I find very impressive is their record of leveraging non-federal matches to 

the federal investment. In fact, the cumulative ratio is $19 non-federal dollars to 

each federal dollar. In a time of scarce federal resources, I think it is clear that the 

Corridor is a great federal investment. 

Since Senator Lieberman, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry joined with me 

last year in introducing S. 574, a bill to extend the authorization of the Corridor, 

the Corridor itself completed an innovative Sustainability Plan, The Trail to 2015, 

and intends to be self-sufficient of federal funding by 2015. They are the first heritage corridor to embark on such a plan. 

However in the intervening years, it is imperative that the Corridor continue to 

receive federal appropriations to support critical programs while it is developing an 

alternative resource base. 

Therefore, I respectfully request that we amend our bill to extend the QuinebaugShetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Authorization Act of 1994 to extend the period of authorization beyond 2009 to 2015, and to extend the appropriation to reflect an additional $6 million to coincide with the six-year extension. This 

would reflect the Corridor’s timetable to be self-sustaining by 2015. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize and thank Charlene Cutler for the wonderful job she is doing. She is the Executive Director and CEO of Quinebaug-Shetucket 

Heritage Corridor, Inc., the grassroots nonprofit designated as the management enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
3

tity for the Corridor and she will offer testimony at this hearing in support of this 

proposal. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS

I commend Chairman Thomas and Senator Akaka for holding this hearing. Earlier this year, Senators Voinovich, Chafee, Byrd, Grassley, Specter, Kerry, Graham, 

DeWine, Reed, Schumer, Clinton, Rockefeller and I requested the Committee to consider S. 1721, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer my strong support for that 

bill, as well as two others on which the Committee will receive testimony today. 

Senate bills 1721, 1387, and 574 would reauthorize Heritage Areas covering thousands of square miles across 12 states. Among them are the Essex National Heritage Area, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, 

and the Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, which span 56 cities and towns in 

the northeast and south-central regions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

They include some of the nation’s most historic, scenic and culturally significant 

sites, and it’s vital that they be preserved. 

Essex County is uniquely historic. It includes Salem, where the Heritage Area 

Commission is based, which was among the nation’s first colonial settlements dating 

back to the early 17th century. It was home to the great American author Nathaniel 

Hawthorne, and was also the site of the infamous Salem witch trials of 1692. 

The city of Lawrence gave us the 1912 ‘‘Bread & Roses Strike,’’ which was an 

early battlefront in the effort to protect the rights of the nation’s factory workers. 

In Amesbury, the Merrimack River powered some of the nation’s earliest textile 

mills, and John Greenleaf Whittier, the poet and abolitionist, did most of his writing 

here. 

Gloucester is one of the nation’s oldest and greatest fishing ports. 

Essex County has all of this history and much more. Congress recognized its significance when it established the Essex National Heritage Area 10 years ago as part 

of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1996. 

Earlier this month, the Heritage Area celebrated its tenth anniversary, and the 

event was called ‘‘10 years and 100 Milestones.’’ I ask the Committee to include a 

copy of my remarks on that occasion, and I urge the Committee to act on S. 1721, 

so that these unique treasures may be preserved and protected for future generations. 

Both S. 1721 and Sen. Chafee’s bill, S. 1387, would reauthorize the John H. 

Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, which includes 24 cities 

and towns in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

The Blackstone Corridor is a window into the nation’s early industrial period. It 

was here that the nation’s first factory—the Slater Mill—was built in 1790. It was 

a cotton-spinning mill powered by the Blackstone River in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. 

Its success inspired other water-powered mills and led to America’s Industrial Revolution, in which raw materials from the south were shipped to New England to be 

woven into textiles. The process greatly strengthened the nation’s commercial power 

and reduced its dependence on imported goods. 

Today, there are few remnants of our early Industrial period. Many of the old mill 

buildings have been demolished and replaced with modern structures, or put to entirely different uses. That’s why the Blackstone Corridor, which preserves and promotes understanding about mill community-living, is so precious. It offers a glimpse 

at America as a young nation on the way to becoming a world power, and it honors 

the ingenuity and hard work that led us forward. 

In fact, Blackstone was the nation’s second nationally-designated Heritage Area—

established in 1986, two years after the Illinois & Michigan National Heritage Corridor, and it’s been a remarkable success. Last year, the Corridor Commission’s Sustainability Study reported that ‘‘the Commission has directly sponsored or participated in more than 400 projects within the Corridor.’’ The Study also found that, 

‘‘A conservative estimate of [National Park Service] funds indicates a 22-to-1 

match—a public-private investment in excess of $500 million.’’

The reauthorization legislation needs to be enacted before November when the 

Blackstone Corridor Commission expires. 

I also urge the Committee’s support for Senator Dodd’s bill, S. 574, to reauthorize 

the Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, which includes 35 communities in Massachusetts and Connecticut. 

This Corridor, commonly known as ‘‘The Last Green Valley,’’ is among the few remaining areas in the Northeast with thousands of contiguous acres of open space, 

and much of it looks just as it did when the nation was founded. At night, its 1,000 

4

square-mile area of darkness can be seen from the sky or in satellite photos of the 

northeast, surrounded by lights from the metropolitan areas of New York City, 

Worcester, and Boston. 

The Last Green Valley has had remarkable success in moving toward self-suffi- ciency. The Corridor Commission has leveraged $4.8 million from the Heritage Area 

program into more than $89 million from other sources—nearly 19 times the Park 

Service investment. Indeed, I understand that the Commission wishes to amend S. 

574 to reduce this authorization from 2027 to 2015, and I support such a change. 

Again, though, I ask the Committee to do all it can to expedite the enactment of 

the bill. 

I know that some Senators have reservations about the Heritage Areas program 

and the need for reauthorization. I understand those concerns, particularly at a time 

of large annual budget deficits and too few resources for Park Service programs. But 

these are important investments that shouldn’t be cut off. 

The nation’s Heritage Areas promote and preserve national treasures. States and 

localities shouldn’t have to bear the full burden. The Heritage Areas are effective 

in using Park Service funds to leverage private, state and local aid, and the program 

is fundamentally sound. Congress should continue to support them rather than 

allow them to expire prematurely. 

I urge the Committee to approve Senate Bills 1721, 1387, and 574 soon, so that 

these Heritage Areas won’t lose their leveraging power, and can continue to 

strengthen existing partnerships and build new ones to care for these important 

parts of the nation’s history. 

I thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing and for the opportunity to testify in support of these bills, and I look forward to working with the Committee to 

enact these important bills.

[Attachment.] 

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

JUNE 1, 2006

Ten years ago we began a new experiment to see if the federal government could 

partner with local organizations to bring a broad range of communities together—

34 in all—from Lawrence to Peabody and from Saugus to Salisbury—to plan a 

stronger future by promoting our common heritage, preserving our history, and investing in education and cultural awareness. We set out to create new economic opportunities by promoting cultural tourism, which is now one of the principal economic engines of our state. 

It was a novel and relatively untried approach, and many felt it would be difficult 

to bring so many interests together. But its been a remarkable success here in 

Essex County, and you’ve become a model for other communities across the country. 

Few things are more challenging than creating a broad consensus, but the rewards are impressive when all that hard work pays off. And it’s easy to see it’s paying off for the North Shore. 

The ‘‘10 years and 100 milestones ‘‘ presentation you’ve made tonight just begins 

to tell this story. From the transformation of the United Shoe Machinery site into 

the Cummings Center in Beverly to the lighthouse restoration work of the Thatcher 

Island Association, these milestones demonstrate an enduring commitment on the 

part of so many. 

Essex County has been blessed with a remarkable and proud legacy. Its history 

dates from the years of Nathaniel Hawthorne and the earliest days of our democracy, and its beautiful landscape and seascapes rival any in the world. 

For nearly 400 years, the story of Essex County has been the story of America—

from the first European settlement—to the rise of the sea trade—to the industrial 

revolution—and now to the dawning of this new age of global communication. 

The heritage of the area is preserved in its many outstanding cultural and historic organizations that work in partnership with the Heritage Commission. I think 

of the Trustees of Reservations, who’ve protected some of the most historic properties in our state for future generations, such as Appleton Farms in Ipswich, which 

was established in 1638 and remains one of the oldest continually operating farms 

in the United States. 

I think of the Peabody-Essex Museum, which has just undergone a brilliant renovation that will help us tell the story of the China trade and the region’s early economic vitality. 

In Gloucester, there’s the Maritime Heritage Center, the Fishermen’s Wives Memorial, and the historic Schooner Adventure, which has been restored to its early 

glory. Each of them help us understand the magnitude of the past challenges conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
5

fronting our fishing families, and the extraordinary courage it took to master the 

sea. In Amesbury, the restored historic Lowell Boat Shop, the oldest continuously operating such shop in the nation, is a wonderful place to learn more about the skills 

and artistry of boat craft. 

The Saugus Ironworks National Historic Site offers visitors an opportunity to 

learn about the nation’s first integrated ironworks, and provides fascinating information on all of the Heritage Area’s programs. 

One of the most impressive community efforts has been the construction of the 

Friendship. I was privileged to join you all five years ago in Gloucester and in Salem 

for her commissioning ceremony. Building the Friendship was truly a labor of love, 

citizens young and old, business leaders and community leaders—each of whom understood what the Friendship would mean to the area. 

It was not a single voice but a strong chorus that came to Congress for federal 

support, and we were happy to help. I still remember showing Senator Bob Byrd 

the postcards that school children sent in and the beautiful painting they presented 

us. In the end, it was the heartfelt sincerity of the children that helped carry the 

day in Congress, and today the Friendship moored in the picturesque harbor near 

here is a noble flagship that all visitors to Essex County salute. 

I was proud to be a part of that effort, and proud to support the continuing work 

of the Essex National Heritage Area. 

The federal government has provided essential seed money. But it’s the communities and towns across the county who made it happen, leveraging the federal aid 

with at least two or three and sometimes five dollars of private sector investment 

for each dollar of federal funds. 

Our challenge now is to take this public private partnership approach into the 

next ten years with the same sense of purpose, high expectations, and determination. 

The new Leonard Partnership Grants will encourage that kind of leadership, and 

I commend this year’s winners—the Ford School and the Salem Boys and Girls 

Club—for their outreach programs that serve young people and sustain community 

awareness and involvement so well. 

Together, we can achieve even more in the next decade, so that a new generation 

of our citizens from Newburyport to Lynn and Haverhill to Salem will understand 

their precious heritage as residents of one of the nation’s founding colonies and 

know about the successive generations—the ironworkers, the fishermen, the writers, 

authors, the businessmen and public officials, who’ve worked to leave the region better off than the way they’ve found it. 

I congratulate you on all you’ve accomplished—and I pledge my full support as 

you meet the new challenges of the coming decade. 

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

FROM CONNECTICUT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley in northeastern Connecticut and south-central Massachusetts is ‘‘The Last Green Valley’’ in 

the midst of the urban sprawl that covers much of the Boston-to-Washington corridor. This National Heritage Area is half the size of Grand Canyon National Park 

and more than ten times the size of Acadia National Park, the largest national park 

in the northeast. This regionally and nationally important landscape provides wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and important ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, erosion control, and clean water. 

I have supported the efforts of my esteemed colleague from Connecticut, Senator 

Dodd, who has worked tirelessly to ensure funding for this important National Heritage Area, as have my friends from Massachusetts, Senators Kennedy and Kerry. 

Thanks to the excellent management of the nationally-recognized grassroots nonprofit organization, Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor (QSHC), Inc., federal 

appropriations have been leveraged and matched by funds from state, local, and private sources with a cumulative ratio of nineteen dollars to each federal dollar. 

QSHC Inc. has developed ‘‘The Trail to 2015, a Sustainability Plan,’’ which puts The 

Last Green Valley on track to being self sufficient and sustainably managed by 

2015. 

Today I testify in support of amending the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Reauthorization Act of 1994 to extend the period of 

authorization through 2015—six years beyond the 2009 current level—and to maintain the level of authorized funding at one million dollars per year throughout that 

period. That would represent a total authorization increase of six million dollars. 

6

This amendment comports with QSHC Inc.’s management plan and reflects the fact 

that QSHC will not need federal money after 2015. 

With this amendment, we can ensure that The Last Green Valley remains green 

and protected for future generations and for America’s wildlife. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss legislation designating and reauthorizing National Heritage Areas. As you know, I introduced S. 

1721, the National Heritage Area Extension Act, on September 19, 2005. I believe 

this bill is vital to the ongoing protection and promotion of the nation’s cultural, historic and environmental resources. Therefore, I urge the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider and pass this important legislation. 

Heritage areas preserve thousands of unique national resources without restricting land uses or interfering with private property rights. They do so by using federal 

investments to leverage local public and private capital. Last year, more than $100 

million was leveraged in community investments, with nearly half coming from private funding, and the funds were used to improve recreational trails, provide educational programs, and award local heritage project grants. 

S. 1721 would enable this worthwhile federal support for our national treasures 

to continue. The bill authorizes $10 million per year through fiscal year 2027 for 

the National Coal Heritage Area, the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area, the Steel Industry American Heritage Area, 

the Essex National Heritage Area, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, 

America’s Agricultural Partnership, the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. These nine Heritage 

Areas were originally authorized in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 

1996, but they are now near their spending caps and will be unable to continue 

leveraging federal funding without a new authorization. 

In addition, the bill authorizes $10 million through fiscal year 2016 for the John 

H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, which was established in 1986, expands the Corridor Commission’s membership, and orders a new 

Corridor Plan. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, which was established 

in 1988, would be ordered to prepare a new strategic plan focused on improving 

local public and private participation. The Mississippi River National Heritage Area 

would be established, including counties bordering the river, and $20 million would 

be authorized to implement its management plan of inventorying, improving, and 

promoting the region’s resources. 

Heritage Areas are proven methods of community preservation and revitalization. 

Their success results from their public-private partnerships, which have evolved in 

two decades of working well with local businesses, community activists, regional officials, county-wide organizations, and state and federal agencies. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing. It is my hope that we can act on this 

important legislation in the near future.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Sure, thank you, Chairman Thomas, and I’m 

pleased to have the opportunity here and I know our committee is 

to hear this subject and this topic at this hearing that is very close 

to my heart. As a history buff, and in fact, as a student in history, 

I feel very, very strongly that it is important to preserve and celebrate and learn from the rich history of our country; many great 

things in our past, some things that aren’t so great. And regardless, people can learn from them. In our Commonwealth of Virginia, we’re particularly proud of the many historical events and 

people who are essential for the foundation and shaping of our 

country, and, in fact, in some areas it’s been so essential and crucial that it’s wonderful to see how it expanded beyond just our continent but also these concepts that grow around the world; the 

ideals of democracy and liberty. 

7

In recognition of this contribution, I’ve introduced this measure 

S. 2645, The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage 

Area Act of 2006. My partner and colleague from Virginia, Senator 

Warren is also a co-sponsor, an original co-sponsor, of this and 

Congressman Frank Wolff who is a passionate, strong, good friend 

and colleague and leader, also has introduced this with many other 

Virginians on the House side. 

This effort is a means of enhancing, not just the ideas, but the 

educational awareness of this very historic ground, which I think, 

when you look at it and see the assets of what has happened there, 

is a very unique region. It is remarkable in this country and it was 

such an important formation of our more perfect union. This legislation is designed to maintain the heritage of what is Route 15 and 

Route 20. It’s a corridor that starts in Albemarle County outside 

of Charlottesville on Route 20, goes north through the Piedmont of 

Virginia on up through Maryland and finally ending at Gettysburg 

and Pennsylvania. This area, Mr. Chairman, includes six presidential homes, 13 locations on the National Historic Landmark 

Register, two world heritage sites, 47 historic districts and the largest number of Civil War battle fields. The region contains intrinsic 

resources including the greatest concentration of rural historic districts in the United States; sites from colonial times, sites from the 

Civil War and, of course, there are four national parks there. 

This effort is not something that has just arisen this year. It’s 

a 10 year joint public-private sector initiative. And I know Cate 

Magennis Wyatt will be testifying here this afternoon, for her work 

with the National Park Service to conserve and promote the historic resources within this region. The designation of this heritage 

area will consist of an outstanding grassroots effort which is comprised of over 150 organizations, nearly every single governing 

board of supervisors, town council, borough council throughout the 

approximate 175 mile corridor. There are some examples of this in 

Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley where there were a lot of battles during the war between the States; different counties, cities 

and communities worked together to have a way of presenting the 

various battles that raged in the 1860’s in the Shenandoah Valley. 

Now this legislation, though, is more than just the Civil War, 

this is, in fact, was even before the Revolutionary War. This legislation will ensure that future generations will be able to trace the 

old Iroquois and Sasequahatic Indian Trading routes. Also to recognize the battles and tragic bloodshed that transpired on many Civil 

War battle fields. They’ll be able to reflect on the formation of our 

American Republic through the homes of Thomas Jefferson, James 

Monroe, and James Madison. 

Our young citizens will learn from journeys and when you have 

a journey it is also a great way to have families take a trip, and 

you can follow where you’re going and tell stories and try to imagine what things were like in the 1700’s or the 1800’s in these areas. 

And I think what young people are going to learn is that leadership 

emanates from personal choices, and our choices are within the 

control of each and every one of us, and so is the leadership; the 

people and the decisions and choices that people made to the challenges they faced in those times. So this Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, I think, is going to enhance 

8

preservation. It’s truly going to enhance education, and moreover, 

heritage tourism, a big part of these communities, and it’s going to 

help, I think, with jobs and historic preservation. 

Finally, this has come up, and it has to do with one of the most 

important rights we have in our free and just society, and that’s 

private ownership of property. The preservations of our country’s 

heritage is important, as are our Constitutionally protected rights, 

including private ownership of property. 

This bill does more than any other heritage bill passed by Congress that I’ve seen to date to include language clearly recognizing 

those property rights. The introduced language provides that nothing in this legislation, in any way, alters State or local land use 

policies or provides no new eminent domain powers whatsoever. So, 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my colleagues to 

pass this legislation during this Congress, it would be great to get 

this done before the 400 anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. 

We’ve heard this before, that Captain John Smith water trail—we 

want to have all America come home to Virginia which is the cradle of American Liberty, and the first permanent English settlement and to do this I think will enhance not just Virginia, this will 

be beneficial for Maryland, for Pennsylvania, but most importantly, 

I think, for the Nation, not just for 2007, but for generations to 

come, and I thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and your consideration of this important legislation. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. Thank you very much, Senator. I welcome Deputy Director Don Murphy from the National Park Service, 

and our other witnesses on today’s hearing. Our purpose is to receive testimony on five Senate bills having to do with national heritage: S. 574, S. 1387, S. 1721, S. 2037, and S. 2645. 

So now let me turn to the Senator from Colorado, and then we’ll 

go to Mr. Murphy. 

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

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas, for 

holding this hearing on these important bills that are before the 

committee. I appreciate your leadership not only on these bills but 

also your leadership concerning our National Park System. The bill 

S. 2037, which is the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area Act, 

will help protect the extraordinary cultural and natural resources 

of the San Luis Valley in Colorado, my native valley. 

I want to welcome today to our hearing, Ann Marie Velasquez, 

who has been the lead organizer of this project in Colorado, and I’d 

also like to welcome a number of people who have traveled a long 

ways from Colorado to be here from Alamosa, Costilla and other 

counties. Your attendance is a testament as to the strength of this 

national heritage area proposal. 

As a native son of the San Luis Valley, I know how hard the peoples of the region have fought to protect their traditions, their language, their art and architecture, and the stories of their ancestors. 

They have fought to protect treasured grasslands, the Great Sand 

Dunes, the waterways and the mountain peaks of the valley. They 

have fought to protect a rural way of life that cherishes family, 

faith and hard work. Sadly, they also paid a price for guarding 

9

their rural way of life. Costilla and Conjeos Counties are two of the 

four poorest counties in the United States of America. Young people often must leave the valley to find the jobs and opportunities 

that they seek elsewhere. What the valley lacks in financial riches, 

it more than makes up for in its natural and cultural treasures. 

Mr. Chairman, the land, traditions, and history of the valley are 

of the San Luis Valley are of such importance to the story and 

identity of America that they deserve national designation and protection. 

Since people first settled in the San Luis Valley over 11,000 

years ago, the cultures, lifestyles and the cosmologies of the valley 

settlers have converged, conflicted and coalesced through the centuries. The region was dubbed ‘‘The Land of the Blue Sky People,’’ 

in honor of the Utes, the oldest continuous residents of which is 

now Colorado. It is the home of Mount Blanca, the sacred mountain that, according to folklore, marks the eastern boundary of the 

Navajo world. Seventeenth century Spanish which is still spoken 

by about 35 percent of the population of the region testifies to the 

strong influence of this—of the original New Mexican settlers into 

the southern part of Colorado. And the Narrow Gauge railroads the 

Rio Grande Railroad recall America’s era of westward expansion. 

The valley’s natural wonders are many and the designation of 

the national heritage area would, in fact, be a significant statement 

about the importance of the heritage of this peaceful area. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and for allowing the presentation to be made on this proposed heritage area. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Akaka. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing on S. 2037, the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area Act, which 

would help protect the extraordinary cultural and natural resources of the San Luis 

Valley in Colorado. 

I want to welcome Ann Marie Velasquez, who has been the lead organizer of this 

project in Colorado. And I would like to welcome the large group of county commissioners and community leaders from Conejos, Alamosa, and Costilla counties who 

have traveled so far to join us here today. Your attendance is a testament to the 

strength of this National Heritage Area proposal. 

As a native son of the San Luis Valley, I know how hard the peoples of the region 

have fought to protect their traditions, their language, their art and architecture, 

and the stories of their ancestors. They have fought to protect treasured ranchlands, 

sand dunes, waterways, and mountain peaks. And they have fought to protect a 

rural way of life that cherishes family, faith, and hard work. 

Sadly, they have also paid a price for guarding their rural way of life. Costilla 

and Conejos Counties are two of the four poorest counties in America. Young people 

often must leave the Valley to find the jobs and opportunities they seek. 

What the Valley lacks in financial riches it more than makes up for in its natural 

and cultural treasures. Mr. Chairman, the land, traditions, and history of the San 

Luis Valley are of such importance to the story and identity of America that they 

deserve national designation and protection. 

Since people first settled in the San Luis Valley over 11,000 years ago, the cultures, lifestyles, and cosmologies of the Valley’s settlers have converged, conflicted, 

and coalesced through the centuries. The region was dubbed ‘‘The Land of the Blue 

Sky People’’ in honor of the Utes, the oldest continuous residents of what is now 

Colorado. It is the home of Mount Blanca, the sacred mountain that, according to 

folklore, marks the eastern boundary of the Navajo world. Seventeenth century 

Spanish, still spoken by about 35% of the population of the Sangre de Cristo region, 

testifies to the strong influence of Hispano settlers, while the narrow gauge rails 

of the Rio Grande Railroad recall America’s era of westward expansion. 

10

The San Luis Valley’s natural wonders attract visitors from around the world. 

The Valley is home to three National Wildlife Refuges, fifteen State Wildlife Refuges, a National Forest, two National Forest Wilderness Areas, and the Great Sand 

Dunes National Park and Preserve. Anyone who hikes the area’s peaks, watches its 

wildlife, or rides on its ranches will tell you that this region is a crown jewel of the 

American landscape. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the concept of a National Heritage Area can be, in 

places like the San Luis Valley, an excellent way for the federal government to support local, consensus-based approaches to land management. I also agree with you 

that we need a coherent system for designating and managing these heritage areas. 

For this reason, I wrote this bill as if your bill, S. 243, which creates standards 

for National Heritage Area designations, were law. The Sangre de Cristo National 

Heritage Area Act includes strong protections for private property, is based on a 

sound study of the national significance of the area, gives firm guidance to the management entity, and provides clear direction for how the federal government may 

support the project. 

The Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area Act also fulfills the criteria that the 

Park Service has established for determining whether a project is worthy of designation, and I look forward to hearing more about this in Mr. Murphy’s testimony. 

I particularly want to note the leadership that the local community has shown 

over the past four years in building support for the project, studying the region’s 

resources, and assembling a plan for protecting these resources demonstrates that 

this will be a permanent, successful, and self-sufficient project. The list of local governments, organizations, state agencies, and individuals supporting this project is 

remarkable, as Ms. Velasquez will attest. 

Mr. Chairman, for generations the peoples of the San Luis Valley have worked 

hard to be good stewards of their land and water and to preserve their culture and 

rural way of life. They are looking for our help now to protect a place that is central 

to Colorado’s peoples, emblematic of the Western landscape, and at the core of the 

American experience. 

I hope we can honor the contributions of the San Luis Valley to our Nation’s heritage by designating the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Murphy, would you care to comment, please? 

STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Allen, Senator 

Salazar. I’m Donald Murphy, Deputy Director of the National Park 

Service, and I would like to open my statement by saying my official testimony is in the record, and I hope you’ll except my official 

testimony that has been placed in the record. 

Senator THOMAS. It will be in the record. 

Mr. MURPHY. A recent National Park System Advisory Board report, entitled ‘‘Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas,’’ recognized the important role of national heritage areas and expanding conservation, stewardship and identifying and preserving significant historic resources. The report also recognized that national 

heritage areas need a legislative foundation that frames and supports this approach. So the national heritage area program legislation sponsored here in the Senate, by Chairman Thomas, S. 243 

that passed the Senate last year and is supported by the Department would provide that framework, and that’s very important to 

the National Park Service for the future management of these heritage areas. 

I’ll take each bill in turn and present the Department’s positions 

on those bills. 

First, S. 574 that would extend the termination date for Federal 

funding to the Quinebaug and Shetucket River Valley National 

11

Heritage Corridor from September 2009 to September 2027, and increase the ceiling on appropriations from $10 million to $20 million. The Department does not support enactment of this bill, since 

extending the Federal financial commitment to this heritage area 

is not in keeping with the program legislation framework that I 

just referred to. Under its existing organization the area will continue to receive annual Federal funding for 3 more years. And we 

would recommend that the area begin to evaluate on how it will 

sustain its efforts to protect resources when Federal funding ends 

in 2009. 

Now, turning to the S. 1387 that would reauthorize the John H. 

Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission for a period of 10 years. It would provide an update of the 

management plan, authorize a special resource study, authorize additional appropriations for the corridor for operations and development, and increase the membership of the commission. The Department is not able to support the enactment of S. 1387 as presently 

drafted, but would support a 5-year reauthorization of the commission with an authorization of one million dollars per year. The Department opposes the authorization of $10 million in additional development funds. However, we do support, enthusiastically, this 

special resource study. The Department also recommends that the 

bill be amended to include an update of the management plan that 

would require identifying a successor, non-Federal management entity for the corridor comprised of a board with broad, regional representation. The updated plan should also provide the schedule and 

manner in which the transition of the management of the corridor 

will occur by the end of the five-year reauthorization period. 

And finally, the plan should provide information on how the heritage corridor will be financially self-sufficient as its work continues during the 5-year reauthorization period. 

Now turning to S. 1721, the National Heritage Area Extension 

Act, which has four titles. And, based on the complexity and the 

varied nature of these titles, the Department would like to present 

our position on each of the titles separately. 

Title I would extend the authority for nine national heritage 

areas to receive Federal funds for an additional 15 years. It would 

increase the authorization ceiling from $10 million to $20 million 

per area, and would make several amendments to the authorizing 

legislation for three of these areas. 

Although the Department supports the proposed minor amendments to the three heritage areas, we do not support reauthorizing 

Federal assistance to all nine heritage areas for an additional 15 

years or increasing their authorization ceilings. 

In title II, it would reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage 

Trail Route, which is an affiliated area of the National Park System, and is not a national heritage area. It will eliminate the $4 

million appropriation ceiling and will require the completion of a 

strategic plan by the Secretary. The Department supports this title, 

if amended to increase the authorization ceiling to $8 million instead of eliminating it altogether, to extend the reauthorization 

date of the trail route until May 2009. And to require that this 

strategic plan be done in partnership with the State. 

12

Title III would reauthorize the John H. Chafee Blackstone River 

Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission for a period of 20 

years, provide an update of the management plan, authorize additional appropriations for operations and development, and increase 

the membership of the commission. The Department does not support this title as currently drafted, but would support reauthorizing 

the commission for a 5-year period, and updating the management 

plan to identify a successor, non-Federal management entity for 

the corridor, comprised of a board with a broad, regional representation. We also recommend that a new subsection be added that requires a special resources study to be completed. And the Department would oppose authorizing $10 million in development funds. 

Finally, title IV, would designate the Mississippi River National Heritage Area across ten States and authorize appropriations of $2 

million a year, not to exceed $20 million overall. The Department 

isn’t able to support enactment of this title and would recommend 

that the title be amended to authorize an updated study instead. 

Turning to S. 2037, to establish the Sangre de Cristo National 

Heritage Area of Colorado. The bill would establish that the Sangre 

de Cristo National Heritage Area to recognize the outstanding and 

nationally significant, natural, cultural and scenic recreational resources found within the San Luis Valley of Colorado. 

While a feasibility study has determined that the area is appropriate for designation, the Department recommends that the committee defer action on S. 2037 until program legislation is enacted, 

that establishes guidelines for process of designation with national 

heritage areas. 

I want to hasten to add that we thought the feasibility study was 

an excellent feasibility study, that it met all of the criteria and this 

area’s clearly recognized by the National Park Service as being superior in nature. We simply feel that it’s important to have the program management legislation implemented before establishing any 

new heritage areas. 

With S. 2037 we recommend that the bill be amended to remove 

paragraph 5(d)(2), which would require 100% Federal funding prior 

to completion of the management plan and to change the termination authority in section 10 to expire 15 years after enactment. 

These amendments would make S. 2037 consistent with other 

similar national heritage area establishment bills. 

Now turning to S. 2645, Designation of A Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. S. 2645 would establish ‘‘A 

Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area’’ across 

175 miles along Route 15 and part of Route 20. We recognize that 

this is an extremely significant route. I live not far from that route 

in Spotlvania County right in the middle of wilderness battlefield. 

I often travel to Almerow County because I teach at the Federal 

Executive Institute. 

My family owns property not far from there that’s been in our 

family for nearly 100 years, and I’ll be going there this weekend 

with my great-cousin, as a matter of fact, and have great affection 

for that area. However, in its current form the Department does 

not support enactment of this bill at this time. Before a national 

heritage area is designated by Congress, a comprehensive feasibility study is required that evaluates an area using a criteria deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
13

veloped by the Department and Congress. And although a study 

undertaken by ‘‘A Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership’’ 

is a very good beginning step in looking at the resources in the region, it doesn’t fully address the required criteria for the designation of national heritage areas. 

I am happy to report, however, that we have been meeting on a 

regular basis with the sponsors of this legislation. Our National 

Park Service staff just recently met with Cate, again, this week, 

and we have a follow-up meeting after this hearing to make sure 

the group understands the criteria that we believe have not been 

met yet. And so they can continue to work with us, to make sure 

that the study meets the National Park Service criteria. 

Additionally, if the bill moves forward, the Department would 

recommend that two provisions be removed from the bill; one requiring the compact, and one that authorizes Federal funds for 

land acquisition. So we’re fully prepared to provide advice to the 

partnership to assist in completing the feasibility study that meets 

our professional standards, and provides Congress with the necessary information and assessment upon which to base its decisions 

regarding the designation in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I’ll be happy to take 

questions. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Murphy follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 574

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 574, a bill to amend the 

Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994. 

The Department does not support enactment of this bill. 

The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor, also 

known as The Last Green Valley, was authorized in 1994 and comprised 25 communities in northeastern Connecticut. It began receiving federal funding in 1996 and 

in its first four years of operation, it received $200,000 per year. It became the first 

national heritage area to be managed by a non-profit organization, the QuinebaugShetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc. Its first plan, Vision to Reality: A Management 

Plan, was completed in 1997. 

In 1999, the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor 

(QSHC) was expanded to include 10 additional communities in its watershed in 

Connecticut and Massachusetts, making it the second bi-state national heritage 

area in the country. At the same time, its original seven-year authorization was extended through 2009 and a new ceiling of $10,000,000 was authorized with an annual amount not-to-exceed $1,000,000, in keeping with other similar national heritage areas. At that time, Vision 2010: A Plan for the Next Ten Years was completed, 

along with the Interpretive Initiative for the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley 

National Heritage Corridor. With the additional federal investment and larger regional focus, many successful programs were initiated. Appropriations from FY 1996 

through FY 2006 have totaled $5,581,000. 

S. 574 would increase the ceiling on appropriations to the QSHC from $10,000,000 

to $20,000,000 and extend the termination date of the Secretary of the Interior’s financial commitment from September 30, 2009 to September 30, 2027 which is inconsistent with the national heritage area program legislation passed by the Senate 

last year and supported by the Administration. 

With regard to that legislation, a recent National Park System Advisory Board 

report Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas recognized that national heritage areas need a legislative foundation that frames and supports the important role 

of national heritage areas in expanding conservation stewardship and in identifying 

and preserving significant historic resources. The national heritage area program 

legislation (S. 243) that passed the Senate last year and is supported by the DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
14

ment would provide such a framework. The program legislation authorizes the Secretary to provide financial assistance to national heritage areas for a period not to 

exceed 15 years after an area is designated by Congress. Local coordinating entities 

that prepare and implement the management plan for the national heritage area 

could receive up to $1 million per year, not to exceed $10 million over the 15-year 

period. Prior to the end of the 15-year period, an evaluation and report would be 

required on the accomplishments, sustainability, and recommendations for the future of each national heritage area. Extending the federal financial commitment to 

this heritage area is not in keeping with this framework. 

During the 12 years since designated by Congress, the QSHC has accomplished 

many partnership-oriented projects related to resource protection and interpretation 

within the watershed as outlined in the management plan. Under its existing authorization, the area will continue to receive annual federal funding for three more 

years. As is stated in the program legislation, we would recommend that the area 

begin to evaluate how it will sustain its efforts to protect resources when federal 

funding ends in 2009. 

The Green Valley Institute (GVI) is a partnership among the QSHC, the University of Connecticut’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the cooperative extension system of the University of Massachusetts. Its programs are made 

possible through active partnerships with many additional organizations and communities, and the active involvement of QSHC’s Natural Resources and Agriculture 

Committee. GVI programs specifically target three local audiences: private landowners; municipal leaders and land use commissioners; and contractors, realtors 

and others who convert open space to other uses. Now in its fifth year, the work 

of GVI has been positively recognized with eight state and national awards. 

GVI was created to help document, plan for and protect the priceless land-based 

resources of the region. Its goals are to improve the knowledge base from which land 

use and natural resources decisions are made, and to build local capacity to protect 

and manage natural resources as the region grows. 

The nearly 1,100-square miles of The Last Green Valley provide a challenge to 

cohesive and engaging regional interpretation of natural and historical resources. 

Over the past several years, QSHC has developed a number of interpretive strategies to educate residents and visitors alike, while providing an entertaining base 

from which to generate tourism. For example, Last Green Valley Ventures is a program that (1) circulates people and information throughout the region; (2) provides 

adequate visitor services, orientation to The Last Green Valley and interpretation 

of the many regional themes; (3) assures quality, consistency and hospitality; and 

(4) collects important statistical data to inform future marketing and programming. 

The program combines current assets of The Last Green Valley, the compendium 

of existing research and support brochures, the complimenting businesses offering 

unique experiences, and partners from public and private sectors into one cohesive 

product. 

Last Green Valley Ventures also dovetails with an on-line educational resources 

guide, Valley Quest, used by regional educators, parents and youth group leaders 

to educate and inspire the future stewards of the QSHC. 

Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc, who manages the heritage corridor 

and implements the management plan, has distributed $1.6 million in historic preservation and partnership program grants to municipal governments and non-profits 

for nearly 200 projects, resulting in the leveraging of $7 million overall. The grants 

have built local capacity, revitalized downtown areas, supported trail design and enhancements, improved water quality, supported economic development and tourism, 

just to name a few. 

Local support for the QSHC is evident by the lengthy list of partners in their annual reports that includes entities from all geographic areas and mission areas. 

QSHC’s large grassroots organization consistently has more than 100 people involved in active working committees each month. Each of the 35 towns in the region 

has signed a voluntary and nonbinding community compact in which the local governments accepted the goals and objectives of the Quinebaug-Shetucket management plan and formalized the towns’ commitment to balance conservation and 

growth in their collective vision for the watershed. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee 

members might have. 

S. 1387

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1387, a bill that would 

15

reauthorize the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor 

Commission for a period of 10 years, provide for an update of corridor planning documents, authorize a Special Resource Study, authorize additional appropriations for 

the corridor for operations and development, and increase the membership of the 

commission. The Department is unable to support enactment of S. 1387 as presently 

drafted, but would support a limited reauthorization of the commission. The Department opposes the authorization of $10 million in additional development funds. 

The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, which 

has been in existence for 20 years, is considered among the leading national heritage efforts in the nation. The commission that has managed the corridor’s programs 

and projects has made exceptional strides in the preservation and protection of a 

myriad of resources and in interpreting the rich stories of the ‘‘Birthplace of the 

American Industrial Revolution’’—the Blackstone River Valley of Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island. 

It was in the Blackstone River Valley at Pawtucket that Samuel Slater, a British 

immigrant, in concert with Moses Brown developed the first successful textile manufacturing mill that triggered our own industrial revolution, one that continues 

today. Indeed, the Blackstone River Valley itself became a major center of manufacturing in the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, largely due 

to the recognition of the corridor by Congress, and the important work of the commission, the region has seen a rebirth through intelligent and adaptive reuse of previous mills and manufacturing facilities. As residents came to fully understand the 

nation-changing history of their region, the stories of its people, and its untapped 

community and economic potential through historic preservation, pride of place and 

appreciation of shared heritage soon followed. 

National heritage areas and historic preservation efforts throughout the country 

have benefited from the leadership and best practices for which Blackstone is wellknown. The commission has and continues to enjoy exceptional support among state 

and local governments, businesses, private organizations, and the general public of 

the region. 

The National Park Service (NPS) has had a unique relationship with the commission and its innovative and productive work since the corridor was established in 

November 1986. Consistent with section 4 of the authorizing legislation, the NPS 

has provided staff to the commission and conducts ranger-led interpretive programs 

in the corridor. Congress, recognizing this special relationship, has consistently authorized funding for projects in the corridor in the Line Item Construction portion 

of the NPS budget. The executive director of the commission, a NPS employee, also 

serves as Superintendent of the Roger Williams National Memorial, a small unit of 

the National Park System in Providence, Rhode Island. 

S. 1387, besides providing for reauthorization of the commission, authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a Special Resource Study to determine whether 

areas in the corridor meet the criteria for congressional designation as a unit of the 

National Park System. We believe the conduct of such a study is timely and appropriate. It would permit the Secretary to make recommendations to Congress including the future role that NPS may play in the preservation and protection of additional corridor resources. 

The National Park System Advisory Board in its recent report entitled Charting 

a Future for National Heritage Areas recognized the important role of national heritage areas in expanding conservation stewardship and in identifying and preserving 

significant historic resources. The report also recognized that national heritage 

areas need a legislative foundation that establishes a clear process for designation, 

administration, and evaluation. The national heritage area program legislation (S. 

243) that passed the Senate last year and is supported by the Department also outlined the steps to be followed for success as a national heritage area. Both the Advisory Board report and the proposed legislative framework recommended that prior 

to consideration for reauthorization, an individual national heritage area should be 

the subject of a study to determine any future and appropriate level of NPS involvement including, but not limited to, future federal funding. Blackstone is the first 

heritage area to have followed this process. A study prepared in 2005 by the NPS 

Conservation Study Institute entitled, Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future 

concluded that there is a clear need to sustain an effective coordinating framework 

for the corridor and an on-going relationship with the NPS. 

The Department believes that S. 1387, if amended, can provide the basis whereby 

the important work of the commission may continue while providing an opportunity 

for the NPS and the commission to explore viable alternatives for the future management of heritage resources in the region. This can be accomplished while maintaining the cooperative working relationship that has been the hallmark of our joint 

16

efforts to preserve, protect, and enhance the nationally significant and important resources of the Blackstone River Valley. 

The Department recommends that the bill be amended in section 2(d) to only reauthorize the commission for a five-year period, and that the update of the management plan in section 2(c) include a requirement that the plan identify a successor 

non-Federal management entity for the corridor, comprised of a board with broad 

regional representation. The updated plan should also provide the schedule and 

manner in which the transition of the management of the corridor will occur from 

the present federal commission to a new management entity by the end of the fiveyear reauthorization period. Finally, the plan should provide information on how the 

heritage corridor will be financially self-sufficient as its work continues beyond the 

five-year reauthorization period. 

The Department would further recommend that the Special Resource Study authorized in section 2(e) be submitted to the Committee on Resources in the House 

of Representatives and Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate 

no later than 90 days after it is completed instead of the proposed 30-day requirement in order to permit full consideration by the Secretary to make an informed 

recommendation to Congress. Finally, the Department would recommend that section 2(f) be amended to strike the authorization for $10 million in development 

funds in order to be consistent with the appropriation levels of other national heritage areas. 

The Department believes that these amendments will permit the John H. Chafee 

Blackstone National Heritage Corridor Commission to continue its significant contributions to the region while providing the necessary time for transition to a nonfederal, locally supported management entity to carry on the commission’s valuable 

work into the future. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I am prepared to answer any 

questions that you or other members of the committee might have at this time. 

S. 1721

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1721, the National Heritage Area Extension Act of 2005. 

The bill has four titles. Title I would extend the authority for nine national heritage areas to receive federal funds for an additional 15 years. It would increase the 

authorization ceiling from $10 million to $20 million per area, and would make several amendments to the authorizing legislation for three of these areas. Title II 

would reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, eliminate the $4,000,000 

appropriations ceiling, and require that the Secretary undertake a strategic plan to 

increase opportunities for participation by the public in the trail route. Title III 

would reauthorize the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 

Corridor Commission for an additional 20 years, update the management plan, provide for additional commission members to be appointed, authorize an additional 

$10 million for the commission, and authorize $10 million in development funds to 

the heritage corridor. Title IV would designate the Mississippi River National Heritage Area across 10 states. 

Based on the complexity and varied nature of each of these titles, the Department 

would like to present our position on each title separately. 

TITLE I—EXTENSIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO OMNIBUS PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996

Title I would extend the authorization for nine national heritage areas, authorized 

in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, from September 

30, 2012 to September 30, 2027, and would increase their current appropriations 

ceiling of $10 million to $20 million. It also would make several minor amendments 

to the authorizing legislation for the National Coal Heritage Area, the South Carolina Heritage Area, and the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Corridor. Although the 

Department supports the proposed minor amendments to the three heritage areas, 

we do not support reauthorizing federal assistance to all nine heritage areas for an 

additional 15 years or increasing their authorization ceilings. 

A recent National Park System Advisory Board report Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas recognized the important role of national heritage areas in expanding conservation stewardship and in identifying and preserving significant historic resources. The report also recognized that national heritage areas need a legislative foundation that frames and supports this approach. The national heritage 

area program legislation (S. 243) that passed the Senate last year and is supported 

by the Department would provide such a framework. 

17

The program legislation authorizes the Secretary to provide financial assistance 

to national heritage areas for a period not to exceed 15 years after an area is designated by Congress. Local coordinating entities that prepare and implement the 

management plan for the national heritage area could receive up to $1 million per 

year, not to exceed $10 million over the 15-year period. Prior to the end of the 15-

year period, an evaluation and report would be required on the accomplishments, 

sustainability, and recommendations for the future of each national heritage area. 

Extending the federal financial commitment to the heritage areas in S. 1721 is not 

in keeping with this framework. Therefore, the Department does not support section 

101(a) of S. 1721. 

TITLE II—REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NEW JERSEY COASTAL

HERITAGE TRAIL ROUTE

Title II would reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, eliminate 

the $4,000,000 appropriations ceiling, and require the completion of a strategic plan 

by the Secretary. The Department supports Title II of S. 1721 with three amendments. 

In 1988, the Secretary was authorized to designate a vehicular tour route in coastal New Jersey and to prepare an inventory of sites along the route. An interpretive 

program was also mandated to provide for public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of important fish and wildlife habitats, geologic and geographical landforms, cultural resources, and migration routes in coastal New Jersey. 

The Secretary was authorized to provide technical assistance, prepare and distribute 

information, and erect signs along the route. The trail links national wildlife refuges, national parklands, National Historic Landmarks, and National Register sites 

with important historic communities, state parks, natural areas, and other resources to tell the story of New Jersey’s role in shaping U.S. history and in providing internationally important habitats for bird and other migrations. 

The trail, an affiliated area of the National Park System, is a partnership among 

the National Park Service; the State of New Jersey through its Department of Environmental Protection, Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, and Pinelands 

Commission; and many local government and private non-profit partners. Through 

interpretation of five themes (Maritime History, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migration, Relaxation & Inspiration, and Historic Settlements), the trail brings attention 

to important natural and cultural resources along coastal New Jersey. The trail 

demonstrates the potential of public/private partnerships that allow the National 

Park Service to meet its core mission of natural and cultural resource preservation 

along with interpretation and public education in a cost-efficient manner through 

technical assistance while reducing operational responsibilities. 

Reauthorization of the trail would enable the National Park Service to complete 

implementation of the trail plan, as supported by the public and our partners. Without additional time and funding, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route will 

be left incomplete. Implementation of the plan is also critical in building a base of 

sustainable partners and developing a strategy for the long-term management of the 

trail. Additionally, commitments to trail partners would go unfulfilled, and many 

additional natural and cultural resources would not receive the partnership assistance leveraged by the trail. 

The strategic plan authorized in S. 1721 would be an important tool to help the 

trail develop a long-term management strategy that includes creating a self-sustaining funding mechanism that does not depend indefinitely on operational funding 

from the National Park Service. To this end, we would recommend that the title be 

amended to increase the authorization ceiling by an additional $4 million only instead of eliminating the ceiling altogether. We also would recommend an amendment to require this strategic plan to be done in partnership with the State. Also, 

because the reauthorization extension proposed in section 201 of S. 1721 has already 

passed (May 2006), we would recommend that section 6(c) of Public Law 100-515 

be amended to change ‘‘12’’ to ‘‘15’’ thus extending the reauthorization date until 

May 2009. 

TITLE III—JOHN H. CHAFEE BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

Title III would reauthorize the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National 

Heritage Corridor Commission for an additional 20 years, authorize an additional 

$10 million over 20 years to support the commission, expand the commission from 

19 to 25 members, require an update of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan, and authorize $10 million over 10 years in development funds for the 

heritage corridor. The Department does not support Title III of S. 1721 as currently 

18

drafted, which is not in keeping with the framework of the heritage area program 

legislation supported by the Department. 

Designated 20 years ago as only the second national heritage area in the country, 

the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor celebrates 

the ‘‘Birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution’’—the Blackstone River Valley 

of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The commission that has managed the corridor’s programs and projects has made exceptional strides in the preservation and 

protection of a myriad of resources and in interpreting the rich stories of the Industrial Revolution in our nation. 

It was in the Blackstone River Valley at Pawtucket that Samuel Slater, a British 

immigrant, in concert with Moses Brown developed the first successful textile manufacturing mill that triggered our own industrial revolution, one that continues 

today. Indeed, the Blackstone River Valley itself became a major center of manufacturing in the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, largely due 

to the recognition of the corridor by Congress, and the important work of the commission, the region has seen a rebirth through intelligent and adaptive reuse of previous mills and manufacturing facilities. As residents came to fully understand the 

nation-changing history of their region, the stories of its people, and its untapped 

community and economic potential through historic preservation, pride of place and 

appreciation of shared heritage soon followed. 

The Department would recommend that Title III, section 303 be amended to only 

reauthorize the commission for a five-year period, and that the update of the management plan in section 302 include a requirement that the plan identify a successor non-Federal management entity for the corridor, comprised of a board with 

broad regional representation. The updated plan should also provide the schedule 

and manner in which the transition of the management of the corridor will occur 

from the present federal commission to a new management entity by the end of the 

five-year reauthorization period. Finally, the plan should provide information on 

how the heritage corridor will be financially self-sufficient as its work continues beyond the five-year reauthorization period. 

The Department would also recommend that a new subsection be added that requires a Special Resources Study to be completed to determine whether any areas 

within the corridor meet the criteria for congressional designation as a unit of the 

National Park System. We believe the conduct of such a study is timely and appropriate. It would permit the Secretary to make recommendations to Congress including the future role that National Park Service may play in the preservation and protection of corridor resources. And finally, the Department would recommend that 

section 304 be amended to strike the authorization for $10 million in development 

funds in order to be consistent with the appropriations levels of other national heritage areas. 

TITLE IV—MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Title IV would designate the Mississippi River National Heritage Area consisting 

of all counties and parishes that border the Mississippi River, it would designate 

a non-profit organization, the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium, as 

the management entity, it would require the development of a management plan for 

the heritage area, and authorize appropriations of $2 million a year not to exceed 

$20 million overall. The Department does not support enactment of this title, and 

would recommend that the title be amended to authorize an updated study instead. 

The Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission was established by Congress in 

1990 to study and determine the feasibility of designating the river corridor as a 

national heritage area. The study was completed in 1995 and recommended a national heritage area designation although a number of private residents were vocally 

against this effort based on concerns of federal control in local issues. Because this 

study was completed over 10 years ago before the criteria contained in our heritage 

area program legislation was developed, there are several key criteria that have not 

been evaluated including the extent of grassroots civic engagement, a boundary map 

for the heritage area, environmental compliance, a business plan, and financial commitments from partners. In addition, the management entity designated in this title 

was not one of the three groups evaluated in the 1995 study. Also, this title would 

authorize the heritage area to receive double the normal amount of appropriations 

for other current national heritage areas and there is no sunset provision for this 

funding. 

The Mississippi River story is one that spans many centuries, cultures, lifeways 

and economies. It continues to draw people to its banks, waterways and communities. A National Park Service unit now exists in the Minnesota region of the Mississippi River, offering a knowledgeable perspective based on their experience within 

19

a small section of the river as an active partner. We recommend the Mississippi 

River feasibility study now in existence be updated to address current public, compliance, and management needs based on the current heritage area criteria and 

guidelines. 

CONCLUSION

Over the past 20 years, the process for designating national heritage areas has 

evolved from its early stages where Congress was establishing these on an area-byarea basis with no standardized criteria, study requirements or guidelines, to a 

much more uniform process that still ensures each area retains its unique characteristics, resources, themes, and partnership structure. The National Park System 

Advisory Board’s report and the national heritage area program legislation (S. 243) 

that passed the Senate last year and is supported by the Department, would provide 

a framework that establishes a national heritage area system, and sets criteria and 

guidelines for studies and designations to enable all parties to do a better job of 

evaluating and designating the national heritage areas of the future. Reauthorizing 

existing heritage areas for 15 or more years without the benefit of an assessment 

of the accomplishments and needs for sustainability, or supporting new designations 

that are not based upon the completion of comprehensive feasibility studies that 

adequately address our criteria, does not help the national heritage area program 

to succeed and thrive. 

According to the Advisory Board report, national heritage areas are an important 

direction in conservation and historic preservation and are founded on consensusbased planning, local commitments, and a network of long-term partnerships. As the 

individual areas approach the termination of their funding authorization, they need 

to plan for future options to sustain the partnerships and program beyond reauthorizing the area for an additional fifteen years of funding. Through advance planning, 

new partnerships can be forged that sustain the heritage area approach and honor 

the legislative commitment of financial support. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee 

members might have. 

S. 2037

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. 

2037, a bill to establish the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area in the State 

of Colorado. 

While a feasibility study has determined that the area is appropriate for designation, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 2037 until program legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for designation of national heritage areas. The National Park System Advisory Board in its recent report 

entitled, Charting a Future for Heritage Areas recognized the important role of National Heritage Areas in expanding conservation stewardship and in identifying and 

preserving significant historic resources. The report also recognized that National 

Heritage Areas need a legislative foundation that establishes a clear process for designation, administration, and evaluation. Last year, the Senate passed national heritage area program legislation that is supported by the Department. The Administration is working on a similar legislative proposal this year, and we look forward 

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

S. 2037 would establish the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area (NHA) to 

recognize the outstanding and nationally significant natural, cultural, scenic and 

recreational resources found within the San Luis Valley of Colorado. 

S. 2037 contains safeguards to protect private property, including a prohibition on 

the use of federal funds to acquire real property. The bill proposes no new restrictions with regard to public use and access to private property. 

S. 2037 designates the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area Board of Directors as the management entity and outlines their duties. The Board represents a 

broad spectrum of the valley’s residents, organizations, and agencies that were involved in the planning for the NHA. The bill also authorizes the development of a 

management plan within three years of enactment and authorizes the use of federal 

funds to develop and implement that plan. If the plan is not submitted within three 

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. 

20

Exceeding 7,700 feet in elevation, the San Luis Valley is flanked by the Sangre 

de Cristo and San Juan Mountains and the geology and climatology within the valley have contributed to the formation of America’s tallest Sand Dunes, part of Great 

Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. 

The Rio Grande, the second largest river in North America, has its headwaters 

within the proposed NHA and twists its way through the San Luis Valley on a 

1,900-mile journey, offering outstanding scenic and recreational opportunities, including trout fishing, rafting, and tubing. The availability of water in this largely 

arid and alpine environment tends to concentrate the abundant wildlife in highly 

visible and public preserves creating exceptional wildlife and bird watching opportunities. 

The area’s rich natural resources include one National Park, three National Wildlife Refuges, one National Forest, two National Forest Wilderness Areas, six Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 15 State Wildlife Areas. The cultural resources associated with the proposed national heritage are equally impressive. The abundant natural resources of 

the San Luis Valley may have been inhabited by native peoples including the Ute, 

Navajo, Apache, Tiwa, Tewa, Comanche, Kiowa, and Arapaho for more than 12,000 

years. 

More recently, the San Luis Valley served as a crossroads for European exploration and settlement. Spanish explorers and Franciscan priests first entered the 

valley in 1776 in an attempt to strengthen Spain’s weak hold on her remote empire. 

Captain Zebulon Montgomery Pike camped in the shadows of the Sangre de Cristo 

Range along the banks of the Conejos River and was captured by Spanish soldiers, 

arrested for trespassing on Spanish soil, and escorted to Mexico for questioning. His 

campsite is commemorated as a National Historic Landmark along with 22 other 

properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Extensive Mexican land grants triggered the initial settlement of the area as families from northern New Mexico found enough water to support their sheep and 

water their crops. The proposed NHA contains the oldest continuously occupied 

town in Colorado, (San Luis), the oldest parish (Our Lady of Guadalupe), the oldest 

church (San Acacio), and the first water right (San Luis People’s Ditch). 

The Hispanic cultural traditions associated with this first wave of European settlement can still be found in this isolated and predominately agricultural region of 

Colorado where a version of 17th century Spanish is still spoken by about 35% of 

the population. 

The feasibility of recognizing the area’s impressive cultural and natural resources 

as a national heritage area was the subject of a study produced in 2005 by two 

grassroots organizations, the Los Amigos Caminos Antiguos Scenic and Historic 

Byway, in conjunction with the Sangre de Cristo NHA Steering Committee. 

The feasibility study was largely based upon the results of a symposium held in 

the fall of 2002 where scientists, historians, and anthropologists from interested colleges as well as local ranchers, community leaders, and tribal elders presented papers on the history, natural resources and local culture of the San Luis Valley. The 

feasibility study identified four interpretive themes for the NHA and addressed the 

ten interim criteria that the National Park Service has developed for designation 

of national heritage areas. The study concluded that the area’s cultural and natural 

resources met those criteria. 

All local governments within the proposed area have passed resolutions in support 

of the establishment of the proposed NHA. Moreover, State and federal land managers within the proposed NHA have expressed a willingness to work with the management entity in accomplishing their congressionally authorized conservation and 

education responsibilities. 

At such time as S. 2037 moves forward, we recommend that the bill be amended 

to remove paragraph 5(d)(2) which would require 100 percent federal funding prior 

to completion of the management plan and to change the termination authority in 

Section 10 to expire 15 years after enactment. In addition, we would like to work 

with the Subcommittee to ensure that the management planning process is coordinated with the affected federal land management entities. These amendments would 

make S. 2037 consistent with other, similar, national heritage area establishment 

bills. 

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

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

S. 2645

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2645, a bill to establish 

21

the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. The Department 

does not support enactment of this bill at this time. 

Before a national heritage area is designated by Congress, a comprehensive feasibility study should be completed that evaluates an area using criteria developed by 

the Department and Congress. Although the study undertaken by the Journey 

Though Hallowed Ground Partnership is a good beginning step in looking at the resources in the region, it does not fully address the required criteria for designation 

of national heritage areas. We believe the bill should not be enacted until an adequate feasibility study is completed that yields the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposed national heritage area meets the criteria for designation. 

We also believe that individual bills proposing to designate new national heritage 

areas should be deferred until program legislation is enacted by Congress. 

The proposed Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area would 

span a region of approximately 175 miles along Route 15 and part of Route 20, from 

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania through Maryland and West Virginia to Charlottesville, 

Virginia. The region is rich in historic and natural resources including the homes 

of Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Dwight David 

Eisenhower, and includes significant Revolutionary and Civil War sites. Revolutionary War sites include Willow Grove, the temporary headquarters of Generals 

Wayne and Muhlenberg, Point of Fork Arsenal, Castle Hill, home of colonial leader 

Dr. Thomas Walker, and the Hessian Barracks, used as a prison for British soldiers. 

Civil War sites include the battlefields of Gettysburg, Monocacy, Antietam, Brandy 

Station, and Manassas, among others. The region is also crossed by numerous historic trails and byways relating to the Civil War and other scenic resources. All told, 

there are an estimated 7,000 buildings in the area listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, 13 National Historic Landmarks, and 2 World Heritage Sites. 

S. 2645 would establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage 

Area and designate the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership (Partnership) as the local management entity. The Partnership is a nonprofit corporation 

that has conducted a significant number of public meetings, an important requirement for evaluating local support for the designation of a national heritage area. 

The bill prescribes the duties of the management entity, provides for the Secretary 

and the Partnership to enter into a compact, requires the development of a management plan by the Partnership to be approved by the Secretary, and includes a 15-

year authorization for up to $1 million dollars per year not to exceed a total of $10 

million. 

Both Congress and the Department have long agreed that a national heritage 

area designation should be predicated on the completion of a feasibility study that 

adequately addresses criteria to determine that a proposed national heritage area 

will enjoy not only public support, but other equally important factors that are necessary for the future success of the area, such as the financial capability to carry 

out the management plan. 

The Department has had the opportunity to review a feasibility study undertaken 

by the Partnership. We find that the study, while a good first step, fails to address 

many of the criteria and does not permit an informed decision regarding the feasibility of designating this proposed national heritage area. The report does not adequately address proposed heritage area themes, does not contain any information 

regarding integrity of resources, nor does it provide an in-depth analysis of management alternatives for the region’s resources. The study does not provide any information regarding financial planning and capability, potential sources of matching 

funds, or specific local commitments to ensure the viability of the programs and activities normally associated with heritage areas. Of concern, too, is the absence of 

any defined boundary within which federal funding would be targeted. 

In addition, the Department has several concerns with some of the language contained in S. 2645. First, section 4 of the bill calls for the Secretary and the Partnership to enter into a compact to delineate the boundaries of the heritage area, discuss 

heritage area goals and objectives, and explain the proposed approach to conservation and interpretation. Although compacts were found in many of the older national heritage areas designated, over the past 10 years they have been replaced by 

a requirement to complete a feasibility study that includes this information. We 

strongly believe that these tasks are key components of a feasibility study and must 

precede designation. 

Second, we note that section 5(a)(2)(D) provides that funds authorized under the 

legislation to the management entity may be used to acquire lands and interests in 

land, while section 5(e) prohibits the use of such funds for acquisition of real property or any interest therein. We recommend that section 5(a)(2)(D) be removed from 

the bill, since it is inconsistent with past heritage area statutes, which prohibit the 

use of federal funds authorized for heritage areas to be used for land acquisition. 

22

The Department has consistently taken the position that proposed national heritage areas follow the proven path of those achieving designation in recent years. A 

recent National Park System Advisory Board report Charting a Future for National 

Heritage Areas recognized the important role of national heritage areas in expanding conservation stewardship and in identifying and preserving significant historic 

resources. The report also recognized that national heritage areas need a legislative 

foundation that sets specific criteria for designation demonstrated by the completion 

of an adequate feasibility study. The national heritage area program legislation (S. 

243) that passed the Senate last year and is supported by the Department outlined 

the steps followed for success as a national heritage area. That path is always 

charted by the completion of a comprehensive feasibility study that provides the Department and Congress with an evaluation of the financial, programmatic, and tangible community support and commitment capabilities of the local management entity. Without information regarding those key ingredients, we are unable to support 

this bill. We are, however, fully prepared to provide advice to the Partnership to 

assist it in completing a national heritage area feasibility study that meets our professional standards and provides Congress with the necessary information and assessment upon which to base its decision regarding designation in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I am prepared to answer any 

questions that you or other members of the committee might have at this time.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. Since you gentlemen 

have bills here of particular interests, if you have questions, you 

can go first, and if we could make it rather short, I’d appreciate 

it. 

Senator Allen : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy, you have 

an enviable job, I admire the fact that you have to come here and 

testify against every single bill on the docket. That’s okay. It’s getting closer than, of course, the last one. I think the one in Colorado 

will pass the most muster, but ours seem to do alright. 

I actually appreciate the work you’re doing. It’s not an easy job 

that you have, you have to stick to standards and principles, and 

I think that some of the recommendations that you have made in 

the scrutiny of our legislation are very good. There may be some 

inconsistencies, and I appreciate that. Everything can be improved, 

that’s been the nature of our country and certainly with legislation 

here. 

I’m also pleased to hear that you recognize the important work 

that’s been done by the private sector, this partnership, because 

not every one of these studies needs to be a congressional study, 

we ought to encourage, I think, as a government, the private sector 

to take initiative on their own, rather than waiting around for the 

Government or Congress to command agencies to do the work. I’m 

also encouraged to hear that you are working with Cate Magennus 

Wyatt and others involved in this effort. 

Do you, in your opinion, and I do want to make this quite clear, 

I don’t want to have a bill bypassing something that would not 

meet the criteria. But, in your opinion, your professional opinion, 

if amendments are made, which are reasonable, others and certain 

things better defined, do you believe that this area would qualify 

for a national heritage area? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. I did take the time to read all of the material 

and the documentation in as much of the report as I could for this 

meeting, and in my, you know, professional judgment, and based 

upon other heritage areas that I’ve seen, it certainly would qualify 

once it’s gone through the proper processes and we’ve seen a feasibility study that meets the criteria. But on the face of it, on the 

surface, with, of course, not having the benefit of having it comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
23

pleted, a completed feasibility study, it certainly appears that it 

does. 

Senator ALLEN. Now, would you contemplate that this could be 

resolved say, in a matter of months, or would you think some of 

the criteria that need to be met are going to take a longer period 

of time to satisfy the criteria of your service? 

Mr. Murphy. A lot of the timing, you know, depends upon not 

only the kind of criteria that still has to be met, it’s also getting 

a consultant on board, and when they can start work and that sort 

of thing. Some of those variables we don’t have control over, of 

course. But we will be meeting subsequent to this hearing with the 

sponsors, and with Cate, to determine exactly what the timing will 

be. I don’t expect that it’ll be more within months. I certainly don’t 

expect it to take longer than that. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, and I thank you for 

your service, your diligence, adherence to the law and also willingness to work with all of us to achieve this goal, and I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This doesn’t happen to me very often, here in the U.S. Senate, 

Mr. Chairman, but there is a wonderful Republican in the audience 

who’s a county commissioner in my native county of the San Luis 

Valley, who’s family and my family have shared the same water 

and the same water rights out of a ditch that has an appropriation 

date of May 15, 1857. His name is Commissioner Bagwell and his 

family and my family go back for several generations, and I would 

just like to point out that he is in Washington today testifying on 

behalf of this bill. 

Senator THOMAS. Welcome. He’s a Republican you say? 

Senator SALAZAR. We have some wonderful Republicans in the 

valley. 

Senator THOMAS. You’re welcome. Glad to have you here. 

Mr. BAGWELL. Same water; we’ve known each other after all 

these years enough to give each other diseases. 

Senator THOMAS. We ought to have more of that here in Washington. 

Senator SALAZAR. And just a comment, Mr. Murphy, and that is 

I very much appreciate the Park Service and your description of 

the proposal of the Sangre de Cristo Heritage Area. And I appreciate the fact that you have found the proposal to be superior and 

that it does, in fact, meet the criteria that you have for the designation for these areas. Sir, it is my hope that we will work to 

make sure that the proposal does in fact, match-up the requirements of S. 243 sponsored by Senator Thomas so that we can move 

forward with that designation national heritage area. I appreciate 

your testimony. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, I have some questions. I almost left 

myself out here. Very briefly, because we want to get on with our 

other folks, but since designating these, I think it was in 1985, how 

many have evolved to the point where they no longer need Federal 

funds to operate? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, only one national heritage area, the Illinois 

and Michigan Canal Corridor, has passed its authorization for FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
24

eral funding. It is now managed by a local non-profit organization. 

However, a bill has been submitted to authorize additional funding 

for this area, It’s H.R. 938 and it has passed the House and a similar bill which is S. 203 has passed the Senate during the 109th 

Congress. In addition, the caush la puldra River Corridor’s Authority to receive Federal funding has expired even though they have 

not reached their authorization ceiling. So that’s the current status 

but none has really gotten to the——

Senator THOMAS. How many are there? How many heritage 

areas, do you remember offhand? 

Mr. MURPHY. There are 27. 

Senator THOMAS. Twenty-seven? 

Mr. MURPHY. Twenty-seven. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. And I don’t want anyone to misunderstand, all of us are for heritage areas, but they were not designed 

to be a part of the Park Service, to be sustained and managed and 

funded by it. The Park Service helps them get initiated until they 

became self-sustaining and that’s what we’re kind of talking about. 

Was it originally the notion that they would be perpetually funded 

do you believe? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, in the mid 1980’s, when they were forced to 

establish, the National Parks really had no model to look at for 

their management so to kind of give a comprehensive answer to Illinois, Michigan, the Blackstone River Valley and the Delaware, 

Lehigh, canal corridor were all authorized for only a 5-year period 

with legislative provisions for 5-year extensions. As a 10 year exploration neared, the National Park Service then recognized that 

more time was needed to complete the management plans of the 

corridors and supported an additional 10-year reauthorization. But 

more recently, the national heritage areas were authorized using a 

standard funding framework, as you know, from the $10 million for 

15 years. So the answer is, you know, is really no, we really didn’t 

anticipate that these would go on forever, and the National Park 

Service would support that in perpetuity. 

Senator THOMAS. You mentioned the Blackstone River areas, I 

understand there’s 14 or 15 Federal employees there now. How 

many positions are funded by the Park Service? 

Mr. MURPHY. All 14 are funded by the National Park Service. 

That was what the original authorization was for that area was for. 

So when that particular heritage area was authorized, it authorized the National Park Service to manage that in the 14 positions 

authorized. 

Senator THOMAS. Appears to be funded and managed pretty 

much by the Park Service. Do you think it can become a unit of 

the Park Service? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, as I said in my testimony I think there may 

be areas that are within the heritage area that could qualify for 

designation as national parks, but that would come out as a result 

of the feasibility study. 

Senator THOMAS. I understand. Well, I thank you very much and 

I appreciate your work, and as I said I don’t want anyone to think 

for a moment that we don’t all think national heritage areas are 

not very important and they are. But they are basically to be develVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
25

oped and operated more locally so one would hope that might be 

the case. 

Well, thank you, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. We’ll ask the other folks to come forward, 

please, for our second panel. 

On the second panel we have Dr. Michael Sullivan, director of 

the Rhode Island Department of Environment Management, Ms. 

Ann Marie Velasquez, chairman of the Sangre de Cristo National 

Heritage Area in Colorado: and Cate Wyatt, president of Journey 

Through Hallowed Grounds, in Virginia; Mr. Dan Rice, president 

and chief executive officer of the Ohio & Erie Area Canalway Coalition, and Charlene Cutler executive director, and chief executive officer of the Quinebaug-Shetucket area in Connecticut. 

Why don’t we take them in the order that they were called on. 

So Dr. Sullivan, if would you begin, sir? By the way, if you could 

hold your statements down to the 5 minutes, and, if you have further things, they will be put in the record with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF DR. W. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, 

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. It’s a 

pleasure and honor to be here and offer not only my support but 

the support of Donald Carcieri, Governor of the State of Rhode Island. The bill would reauthorize the John H. Chafee Blackstone 

River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission for an additional 10 years, but also authorizes, as you know, the appropriations of operationally development funding for the corridor and for 

a special resource for the study to examine the potential long term 

responsibilities of the service, and the preservation, interpretation 

and immigration so that the commission can ultimately, I think, 

achieve what the chair has referred to. 

While, we would respectively disagree with the Service’s recommendations to change the legislation, the Blackstone is the only 

heritage area to have been evaluated against and fully meet the 

same criteria for national significance that the Park Service now 

applies to units of the Park System. 

The Blackstone is widely recognized as the birthplace of the 

American Industrial Revolution. This is where Samuel Slater in 

1793 harnessed the river and caused it to become known as the 

hardest working river in America. It changed the human ecology 

and the natural ecology of the region bringing thousands of people 

from farms; brought two segments of my family to the region, and 

has created a living legacy for all of us. This 46-mile river, which 

starts in western Massachusetts and comes all the way to Providence, fed the world and had impact on the world. The valley became a model for the industrialization of New England, and beyond. It shaped the history of the American free enterprise, labor, 

immigration, and environment. It has worked hard, and it deserves 

the recognition. 

There is no better place, Mr. Chairman, to learn about this critical part of American history, than the Blackstone River Valley in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

26

The commission and the Park Service has been doing an exemplary job in forming and working through dozens of partnerships 

that tell thousands of visitors and valley residents the history. 

They have helped the people of a once-vibrant region, achieve once 

again a sense of place and a sense of pride in the past, and have 

taught thousands of other Americans and visitors about this region. 

Historic mills and mill worker’s houses have been rehabilitated and 

preserved. The natural landscape has been preserved. My department has had significant and extensive involvement in farms, 

fields, and once polluted areas are becoming recreational assets 

again. Migratory fish are returning to the basins and dams that retarded flow to drive this engine. 

Against this background, the environmental education, the heritage, and tourism programs are flourishing. All 24 cities and towns 

of two States have endorsed this program and have been designated by the White House as Preserve America communities. 

We are grateful for the significant Federal contribution to this 

success story. And let me suggest, the partners have been working 

hard since 1986 and the Federal investment has been matched 22 

times over, to the extent of well over $500 million to date. 

The corridor has partnered with 75 different organizations and 

an array of individuals to accomplish 365 different projects, and 

the great work of the commission along with the Park Service has 

been more than matched by the growing legions of volunteers. In 

this past year alone, there were in excess of 30,000 hours donated 

to the commission. We think the Blackstone has been a leader and 

a model for national heritage areas. It is important, I think, to underscore that a unique aggregation of mostly significant historical 

and natural resources being preserved in this region. 

Mr. Chairman, so successful have been these efforts, and the 

commission’s activities have been endorsed, again, by both Governor Carcieri and by 24 different municipalities and thousands of 

individuals. 

I have with us today, and we will leave them with you for the 

record, you know, voluminous documents from citizens, from communities and others showing the high regard for the commission 

and its work. 

An obvious question is, why would this record of progress in 20 

years of commitment, should we have another 10 year authorization of the commission? Well, first, is the commission. And the first 

reason I would offer for this is the work is not yet done. If the commission were to cease to exist and disappear, there’s no existing 

management entity across these two States in 24 regions that 

would serve so well in motivating all the communities. The sustainability of this noble experiment, I feel, would come at an end at a 

critical time where the natural resources are truly beginning to 

move and continue to eco-develop. 

And the second reason goes to the heart of the mission, that 

John H. Chafee defined here. His vision set ambitious goals for the 

corridor. I had the good fortune of being on the river on several occasions with him. Few appreciated the magnitude of the challenges, but I think he did. In retrospect, it should not be surprising 

that it’s taken just 20 years to undo much of what took 200 years 

to achieve. 

27

The agenda for the next decade is detailed in the management 

plan called for in this bill defines, what I would call, legacy tasks. 

The first of these would be to develop the——

Senator THOMAS. Can you wind up, please sir, we’re going to 

have to move along. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Yes, yes. The fourth of the major tourism areas, 

the second would be the completion of the Blackstone Valley Bikeway. In the fourth, really, is the major clean-up, the river. Governor Carcieri will talk about this being fishable, swimmable and 

playable in 2015. 

This special resource study is also going to provide and meet all 

of the actions of S. 243, and I would submit that. It would meet 

all the goals, and it would empower you with information you need. 

That concludes my testimony and when appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I’d be happy to entertain any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sullivan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. W. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to 

offer my strong support for S. 1387. This bill would reauthorize the John H. Chafee 

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission for an additional 

ten years. 

It would also authorize appropriations of operational and development funding for 

the Corridor, and enable us to carry out a Special Resource Study to examine the 

potential of long-term responsibilities by NPS in the preservation, interpretation 

and integration of some of the Blackstone Valley’s nationally significant resources, 

such as the Slater Mill Historic Site. 

Blackstone is the only heritage area to have been evaluated against and fully 

meet the same criteria for national significance that the NPS applies to units of the 

National Park System. 

Blackstone is widely recognized as the Birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. It was in the Blackstone Valley for the first time in America that the power 

of water was successfully harnessed for the industrial production of cotton yarn by 

Samuel Slater in 1793. Soon the Blackstone became known as the ‘‘hardest working 

river’’ on the continent. Dozens of mill villages sprouted along its banks, drawing 

thousands of workers from the surrounding New England countryside, Canada, and 

soon from distant lands as well. This 46-mile river, and the Blackstone Canal which 

paralleled it, connected Worcester, MA to Providence, RI, carrying agricultural 

produce, raw materials, and finished goods to the world. The Blackstone Valley became the model for the industrialization of New England and beyond. Its influence 

shaped the history of American free enterprise, labor, immigration and ethnicity, 

and management of the environment. It has worked hard and created a connectedness and linkage for the region. 

Mr. Chairman, there is no better place to learn about this critical part of America’s history than the Blackstone River Valley of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

And for nearly twenty years the Blackstone Corridor Commission and the National 

Park Service have been doing an exemplary job, working through dozens of partnerships to tell thousands of visitors and valley residents about that history. They have 

helped the people of a once-vibrant region that sunk into depression regain their 

self-confidence and a sense of pride in their past. The rapid decline allowed things 

to be somewhat frozen in time. Historic mills and mill workers’ houses have been 

preserved and rehabilitated for new residences and businesses. Farmscapes, wetlands, forest habitat and open spaces have been protected or restored. Brownfields 

and once-polluted waterways are becoming recreational assets. Migratory fish are 

again finding their way upstream to their ancient spawning areas. Against this 

background, environmental education and heritage tourism programs are flourishing. Uniquely among heritage areas, all 24 cities and towns in the Blackstone 

Corridor have been designated by the White House as Preserve America communities. 

While we are grateful for the significant federal contribution to this success story, 

Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that Blackstone’s partners have more than done their 

job as well. Since 1986, the federal investment has been matched some 22 times 

28

over by state, local, and private dollars—well over $500 million to date. The Corridor has partnered with more than 75 governmental agencies, not-for-profits, chambers of commerce, volunteer organizations, and individuals to accomplish some 365 

projects within the Corridor. And the great work of the Corridor Commission’s staff 

of NPS professionals has been more than matched by growing legions of volunteers. 

In 2005 alone, these volunteers contributed over 30,000 hours to Corridor projects 

and programs! No wonder the NPS has long considered Blackstone to be the leader 

and model for national heritage areas nationwide. 

It is important to underscore, too, that a unique aggregation of nationally significant historical and natural resources are being preserved and interpreted for the 

benefit of the American people without the costs of federal ownership and direct 

management, and without threats to private property rights or state and local regulatory powers. 

Mr. Chairman, so successful have the corridor commission’s activities been that 

its reauthorization is enthusiastically endorsed by the governors of its two states, 

the governing bodies of all 24 of its cities and towns, and by hundreds of its citizens. 

I offer for the committee’s review this volumeous documents containing resolutions 

and letters of support testifying to the high regard in which the commission and 

NPS are held by Valley residents. 

I want now to address the obvious question: Why, with this record of progress and 

achievement for nearly twenty years—why should Congress reauthorize the commission for another ten years? Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons why this should 

happen. First, the commission has served as an extremely effective management entity for a region composed of twenty-four cities and towns in two states. Though 

there may be other management models, I do not believe any could have served so 

well to create an effective forum for bringing so many disparate entities together 

around a shared agenda. 

Were the commission cease to exist and disappear in November, there is no existing management entity in the Valley, across the States, and municipalities with the 

stature, breadth, and depth to take its place. The sustainability of this noble experiment would thus be seriously threatened without the continuation of the federal role 

in this partnership. 

The second reason for extending the commission goes to the heart of the Corridor’s mission, and our commitment to realize the vision of its namesake and 

founding father, the late Senator John H. Chafee. 

That vision set ambitious goals for the Corridor. As we come to the end of our 

second ten-year management plan, we must conclude that, despite enormous successes, we have not finished the job. 

Few appreciated the magnitude of the challenges faced when the commission 

started its work in 1988. Yet in retrospect it should not be surprising that it has 

taken only two decades to significantly reverse two hundred years of attitudes and 

activities that lead to the ecological degradation and a half century of economic decline. 

An action agenda for the next decade will be defined in detail in the management 

plan called for in this bill. But we can clearly see at least three major ‘‘legacy’’ tasks 

ahead of us: 

The first of these tasks is in the area of heritage education and tourism development. With federal seed money and technical assistance, the commission’s partners 

have built and now operate three of four planned ‘‘gateway’’ visitor centers to the 

Blackstone Valley, but we must see the last and most ambitious of these completed: 

the Northern Gateway Visitor Center in Worcester. In this project the commission 

has played and must continue to play the critical role of conceptual planner, 

convenor, and negotiator to assure coordination among multiple federal, state, local, 

and non-profit partners. 

The second major task is the completion of the 46-mile Blackstone Bikeway, perhaps the most significant joint recreational amenity in the states of Massachusetts 

and Rhode Island. The Rhode Island segment in nearing completion. Much has been 

done, but the magnitude of this project will require a continued federal-state partnership effort for the better part of the next decade. 

The third major task is to complete the cleanup of the Blackstone River and protect its watershed. The commission and its partners have launched the ‘‘FishableSwimmable Blackstone by 2015’’ campaign. Governor Carcareri and I will continue 

to speak about FISHABLE, SWIMABLE, PLAYABLE and SUSTAINABLE. . . . 

Narragansett Bay but as the names suggests, no one is underestimating the scope 

and scale of the challenge we face. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a special word in support of this bill’s provision 

for a Special Resource Study. No other heritage area has enjoyed the benefits of 

such an extensive relationship with NPS as has the Blackstone. From the start, 

29

NPS has provided critical staff to the commission. The commission’s Executive Director also serves as Superintendent of Roger Williams National Memorial, an NPS 

unit in Providence. NPS rangers have led interpretive programs and trained volunteers and docents throughout the Corridor. They have been the seeding agent of interest by local communities. The Special Resource Study would examine this unique 

relationship and permit the Secretary of the Interior to make recommendation to 

Congress about the future role NPS might play in preserving and interpreting Corridor resources. 

I do not come before this committee without having done our homework. Prior to 

seeking reauthorization, the commission asked the NPS’s Conservation Study Institute to conduct an independent evaluation of the commission’s record and look at 

options for sustaining the Corridor’s future. Such a study would be required by the 

national heritage area program legislation, S. 243, that passed the Senate last year. 

It is also called for by the National Park System Advisory Board in its recently 

adopted report entitled Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas. I are proud 

to say that Blackstone is the first heritage area to follow this process. I would like 

to submit for the committee’s review copies of the Blackstone study, entitled Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future. I believe that S. 1387, if enacted, would secure that future for the Blackstone Valley and its people. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I am prepared to answer any 

questions that you or other members of the committee may have at this time.

Senator Thomas. All right. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Velasquez. 

STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE VELASQUEZ, SANGRE DE CRISTO 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA 

Ms. VELASQUEZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

I’m Ann Marie Velasquez, and I’m here to testify in support of the 

Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area. I am the chairman for 

the emerging board of directors and management entity named in 

S. 2037. I’d like to thank you for asking me to testify at this hearing. The bill to designate the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage 

Area is of high importance to this three-county region that lies 

within the great San Luis Valley of Colorado. 

This is evidenced by the number of people who have traveled 

with me to Washington just to be present at this hearing. The emphasis that I’d like to place on my testimony today, is that of local 

and regional support for designation of the area as a national heritage area. 

Since the beginning, we have sought the support of the residents, 

organizations, and governments, starting with a public meeting in 

each county in 2002 for the process of building a steering committee. Today’s several of the original steering committee members 

are still actively involved and have traveled to Washington to be 

present at this hearing. The steering committee has been responsible for most of the work that has been done so far on the national 

heritage area designation effort, and in the creation of the feasibility study. 

For the past 51⁄2 years, we and others, have had numerous public 

meetings and have encouraged individuals to become involved on 

the committee or in other ways. 

Individuals from our committee have presented at various meetings and of other non-profits, special interest groups, civic groups, 

local governments and tourism boards. Resolutions have been received supporting the national heritage area from the counties and 

communities lying within the proposed region. Numerous letters of 

support have been obtained from businesses, nonprofit organizations, regional economic development entities and individuals. 

30

Our State Senator and State Representative have also shown 

their support for the project throughout our efforts. The greatest 

contributions that have impacted our goal of designation have been 

the overwhelming personal work effort of professional volunteers. 

As I mentioned, countless hours of research have been contributed. That research had its roots in a collaborative scholarly symposium that our steering committee presented in November 2002. 

Partnerships with Adam’s State College and others were formed 

to present the full day of multi-venue symposium on history, heritage, culture and natural resources that make up the proposed region. Over 30 percent is donated to research to the national heritage area effort. The final feasibility study was researched and authored almost entirely by local historians, authors, scholars, business people and residents of the proposed region. 

This once again shows the overwhelming support for this designation from multitude of people within the valley and around the 

State of Colorado. 

Within the planning process, friendships with our local public 

land agencies and organizations have been our main focus. And a 

close working relationship has been established with the Nation’s 

newest national park, the Great Sands National Park and Preserve. 

The recognition of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area’s 

three-county region as an important component in America’s history is long overdue. 

From the cultural treasure chest of living history to the abundance of unique natural resources and recreational experiences, 

this region sits is a diamond among gems. 

In conclusion, the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is 

worthy of national designation. This may be one of the few remaining places in our great country with the integrity worthy of national acclaim. But the forces of change which diminish these qualities in other parts of Colorado and the Nation are quickly—are rapidly approaching here as well. 

I urge you to act quickly to stem the flow of irreparable change 

and enact legislation establishing the Sangre de Cristo National 

Heritage Area. Thank you, and I would entertain any questions 

that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Velasquez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE VELASQUEZ, SANGRE DE CRISTO

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ann Marie Velasquez and 

I am testifying in support of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area 

(SDCNHA). I am interim Chairman for the emerging Board of Directors of the proposed National Heritage Area, the management entity named in bill S. 2037. I am 

also the Executive Director for Los Caminos Antiguos Scenic and Historic Byway, 

Secretary/Treasurer for the Conejos County Tourism Board and former Secretary/

Treasurer of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area Steering Committee. I 

hold advisory committee positions at the State level for several heritage tourism 

projects including the Colorado Tourism Office’s Heritage Tourism Strategic Plan. 

I’d like to thank you for asking me to testify at this hearing. The bill to designate 

the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is one of high importance to the three 

county region which lies within the great San Luis Valley of Colorado. This is evidenced by the number of people who have traveled with me to Washington just to 

be present for this hearing. 

31

The San Luis Valley is located in the south-central region of the State of Colorado 

surrounded by the Sangre de Cristo Range and northern Culebra Range of the 

Rocky Mountains to the East and the San Juan Range, which forms the Continental 

Divide, to the West. At 122 miles long and 74 miles wide, the San Luis Valley is 

Colorado’s largest mountain park and has been labeled ‘‘the highest, largest, mountain desert in North America’’. The proposed designation area is comprised of 

Costilla, Conejos and Alamosa counties in addition to the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Baca National Wildlife Refuge and Monte Vista National 

Wildlife Refuge; all lying within the southeastern part of the San Luis Valley. 

With 11,000 years of documented human habitation, the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is a crossroads of the centuries. Here a unique blend of Native 

American, Hispano and Anglo settlement is reflected in the diversity of the people, 

art and traditions. The geographic isolation of the alpine valley and the people’s enduring tie to the land have given rise to a rich cultural heritage and ensured its 

preservation. The area’s fertile cultural landscape is complemented by remarkable 

natural resources, including the mighty Rio Grande, majestic Rocky Mountain 

peaks, Great Sand Dunes National Park, National Wildlife Refuges, and the high 

mountain desert, all of which lend the Sangre de Cristo National Area an unparalleled beauty that offers a sense of retreat and a powerful source of inspiration for 

visitors. 

For a century and a half the region has cultivated a rich heritage that is a living 

testament to the generations gone before us. Everyday life is endowed with traditions, both conscious and subconscious, that have been passed from father to son, 

mother to daughter and neighbor to neighbor. New neighbors learn traditional ways 

and over time, find themselves embracing these traditions either out of need or out 

of respect. This is a land that is essentially true to its roots. 

The history of the proposed area is marked by the dynamic encounter of three 

major cultures during a time when the nation’s boundaries and flags were in a state 

of constant change. First Nations, or Native Americans, Indo-Hispanos and AngloEuropean vied for the land. They held divergent views of the land and its resources. 

The Utes, who claim 11,000 years of ancestry and occupation, like other First Nations had a unique and spiritual relationship with the land. They could never think 

in terms of owning it. That would have gone against all that they believed. The land 

was a friend, a provider, and a partner to all of nature. It fed and sheltered. It cared 

for the people and gave them everything they ever needed. 

Hispanos claimed territory for the motherland and God. Theirs was a communal 

self-sustaining system, which required the cooperation of everyone. Villages were 

born with extended families, building adobe: structures which were connected and 

surrounding a town square called a plaza. Farming and ranching depended on the 

acequia system of irrigation which functions well only when everyone is a participant. Land ownership was for the good of the family, the community and the 

Church. 

When Anglo/Europeans began to populate the land, they brought with them a system of deeds, surveys, titles, taxation and barbed wire to delineate and define. Mining, building railroads and big ranching were the goals. For the Anglo/Europeans, 

the land was not so much perceived as a place of sustenance, but seen more as a 

source of resources to be used and extracted. 

The U.S. military presence came in 1852 just one year after the first Hispano settlement in the region. Fort Massachusetts, built then, proved to be inadequate so 

the army replaced it with Fort Garland in 1858. Fort Garland remained as a fort 

for 25 years. Its mission was to protect settlers against hostile Indians. Hostilities 

were present among the three groups, but major battles never occurred. 

The distinguishing elements that set this region apart from others are the multitude of natural resources and incredible recreational choices that integrate with 

the distinctive cultural landscape. Early settlers found precious water in abundance 

and fertile soil in which to raise crops and graze livestock. Vast forests provided 

wildlife for food, wood for lumber, plants for medicines and forage for livestock. 

The designation area contains habitats and wildlife that are characteristic of the 

San Luis Valley, yet unique to Colorado and the West. A natural marvel, the Great 

Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, lies to the north end of the designation 

area. The dunes, the tallest in North America, developed as a result of winds blowing across the valley. 

Despite the title of ‘‘desert’’, the San Luis Valley boasts one of the West’s most 

prized natural resources—WATER. Two separate aquifers underlie the valley and 

both contain large quantities of water. Water from mountain drainages and ground 

water moving toward the valley filtrates down and recharges the aquifer. The range 

of wetland types in the designation area, each with varying degrees of water permanence, supports a diversity of plant and animal species, some of which are very rare 

32

such as the slender spiderflower. The SDCNHA provides a comprehensive sampling 

of the valley’s intricate system of wetlands that is fed by watershed runoff, creeks, 

ditches, ground water and artesian wells. 

The amount of federally protected land within the proposed National Heritage 

Area attests to the natural resources within the southern portion of the San Luis 

Valley. The State of Colorado and the Nature Conservancy also protect substantial 

land holdings in the proposed area. These protected lands include a National Park 

and Preserve, three National Wildlife Refuges, a National Forest, two National Wilderness Areas, a proposed National Natural Landmark (Rio Grande), Bureau of 

Land Management lands, 15 State Wildlife Areas, a State Park and the 97,000 acre 

Nature Conservancy Medano-Zapata Ranch. 

Plant species, wildlife and birds are abundant throughout the SDCNHA. A number of plant communities and bird and animal species found in this area have been 

recognized by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program as globally significant. 

Rankings of these particular plants, birds and animals put them in the category of 

vulnerable to extinction. For this reason, protected lands serve as last bastions in 

preserving species. 

Other wildlife in the area boasts large populations such as deer, elk, Rocky Mountain sheep, and pronghorn. More common forbearers such as beaver are found 

throughout the region. 

Exceptional recreational opportunities abound in the Sangre de Cristo area. There 

are hundreds of square miles of public lands, thousands of acres of wildlife rich wetlands, marshes, and water bodies and two designated wildernesses that provide for 

highly diverse recreation experiences. While experiencing this unparalleled scenic 

beauty one can find solitude, absorb clean crisp air, gaze upon some of the clearest 

of night skies and bask in a climate that is dominated by sunlight. 

Nature based tourism includes recreational pursuits such as dune skiing, 

snowshoeing, snowmobiling, camping, biking, bird watching/wildlife viewing, crosscountry skiing, hiking, mountaineering, star gazing, fishing and hunting. Both the 

Sangre de Cristo Wilderness and the San Juan, Wilderness areas provide excellent 

recreation opportunities for visitors seeking more remote backcountry hiking, camping, and mountain and ice climbing experiences. 

The Rio Grande and the diversity of ecosystems and life zones and the intricate 

system of wetlands that span the area, make wildlife viewing phenomenal. The valley is situated on a major flyway and sees a large number of species as great waves 

of birds pass through on annual migration. With further enhanced partnerships and 

interpretive tourist information, several of these areas could be organized into wildlife driving tours. Bird watching guides and tours have the potential to increase visitor traffic tremendously throughout the area. 

Cultural based tourism can be experienced through the architecture, development 

patterns, art, food, lodging and cultural events. Los Caminos Antiguos, the Ancient 

Roads, is a 129 mile stretch of Colorado highway that links many of the key resources in the proposed SDCNHA. The Byway provides visitors with panoramic 

views, a strong sense of the past and opportunities to experience the rich culture 

and traditions of the local people. Along this route one can see and feel the authenticity of the cultural landscape. Visitors can experience numerous historic Hispano 

communities such as San Luis, the oldest town in Colorado, listed as a National 

Historic District, with its plaza, vega, adobe structures, mission churches, local artifacts, authentic restaurants, cultural museum and B&Bs. On the same trip, visitors 

can see historic Mormon villages that illustrate the tightly gridded streets and clustered homes of the early settlers and pass through the numerous railroad towns 

that sprung up during the late 1800s. One of the larger railroad towns is Antonito 

where the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad, listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places, is located. This historic railroad has vintage steam-powered locomotives and wooden passenger cars that wind through spectacular scenery as it 

travels through the San Juan Mountains on route to Chama, New Mexico. Fort Garland, the once stronghold of protection for the settlers of the region, is now a fine 

museum offering interpretation of everyday life. Its one time commander, Kit Carson, and the regiment of buffalo soldiers who served at the fort are highlighted with 

interpretation, artifacts and special displays. Reenactment camps and living history 

events bring bygone times back to life. Many more recreation opportunities exist but 

are far too many for this testimony to list. 

Isolation within these valley walls has been the impetus that has kept the culture 

intact and the natural resources from being completely exploited. An archaic dialect 

of 17th Century Spanish is still spoken by about 35% of the population, showing 

remnants of centuries past. 

In this high mountain valley, isolation has worked to our advantage and to our 

disadvantage. Although our heritage and culture have been well preserved, the popVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
33

ulation has remained relatively low. The exodus of our youth to more prosperous 

areas has left its mark on the ability of families to keep generations-held land. Our 

financial resources and tax base has not kept pace with urban areas or even with 

other rural communities. The counties of Conejos and Costilla are two of the poorest 

in the country. The struggling economies of these counties, as well as their sister 

county, Alamosa, are in desperate need of economic enhancement. Unemployment 

averages within these counties is high and per capita income, when compared to the 

Colorado State average, is low at 45-65%. As we search for ways to sustain our 

agrarian lifestyle, a National Heritage Area designation would compliment existing 

efforts of attracting heritage travelers through tourism. Heritage tourism and historic preservation are proven economic stimulators and a perfect fit for rural communities. Along with tourism, heritage education to include the traditional arts, language and local history would benefit tremendously from the national designation. 

I would like to include in this testimony the process of bringing this dream of National Heritage Area designation from beginning to present day and of the overwhelming support that exists for the designation. 

Los Caminos Antiguos Scenic and Historic Byway is one of the 24 Colorado scenic 

byways and traverses three of the southernmost counties of the San Luis Valley and 

is a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. During the research the Byway conducted 

while preparing interpretive material for publication, the board of directors realized 

that there was a significant, important, and integrated story within the region that 

had not been told, nor had it been celebrated. The Byway holds a stake in the cultural and historical preservation of the area. It’s not unusual for a byway, either 

a State Scenic Byway or National Scenic Byway, to lie within a National Heritage 

Area. 

A consensus of the Board of Directors instructed byway planners to include the 

formation of a National Heritage Area in the Strategic Plan for the Byway. Beginning with three public meetings, one in each of Alamosa, Conejos and Costilla counties, the Byway assessed interest, attendance and the willingness of individuals to 

help move the project forward. 

Attendance and interest from these meetings encouraged us to organize interested 

parties to work on the designation. A volunteer steering committee was nominated 

and formed. Today, several of the original steering committee members from 2002 

are still actively involved and have traveled to Washington to be present at this 

hearing. The steering committee has been responsible for the majority of the work 

that has been done thus far on the Heritage Area designation effort and in the creation of the feasibility study. 

From those first meetings, we’ve met regularly over the past five and a half years 

to plan, organize and take forward the concept. We’ve held several other public 

meetings and have encouraged individuals to become involved either on the committee or in other ways. Individuals from our committee have presented at various 

monthly and quarterly meetings of other non-profits, special interest groups, civic 

groups, local governments and tourism boards. We have met with the County Commissioners of all three counties periodically to update them on the progress of the 

designation process. Countless hours have been spent in research and building public support for the project. 

Resolutions supporting the National Heritage Area designation from all three 

Boards of County Commissioners have been received, as well as supportive resolutions from communities lying within the proposed region. Numerous letters of support have been obtained from local and regional governments, businesses, non-profit 

organizations, regional economic development entities and individuals. Our State 

Senator, Lewis Entz, and our State Representative, Rafael Gallegos have also shown 

their support for the project throughout our efforts and have given letters committing their support. 

Financially, Los Caminos Antiguos has supported the efforts, and through their 

non-profit status, individuals have been able to make cash contributions. The greatest contributions that have impacted our goal of designation have been the overwhelming personal work of our professional volunteers. As I mentioned, countless 

hours of research have been contributed. That research had its roots in a collaborative scholarly symposium that our steering committee presented in November of 

2002. Partnerships with Adams State College, Trinidad State Junior College, Adams 

State College Title V Office, Jalisco Inc. (a private business) and Los Caminos 

Antiguos were formed to present the full day, multi-venue symposium on the history, heritage, culture and natural resources that make up the proposed region. 

Over 31 presenters donated their time, travel costs and research to the National 

Heritage Area effort. Scholarly papers were presented at the symposium and then 

given to the steering committee to be used in the authoring of the feasibility study. 

Cultural groups donated performances during the lunch that was provided with 

34

funding from our partners. People from the San Luis Valley and other regions of 

Colorado and the state of New Mexico came to hear the presentations that were 

made in lectures and on panels. 

The feasibility study was researched and authored almost entirely by local historians, authors, scholars, business people and residents of the proposed region. This 

once again shows the overwhelming support for this designation from a multitude 

of people within the valley and around the state of Colorado. A well known landscape architecture firm Shapins Associates, specializing in heritage planning and research, contributed significantly to the completion and production of the final study. 

Within the planning process, partnerships with our local public land agencies and 

organizations have been a main focus. Our partners include the Rio Grande National Forest, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the three National Wildlife Refuges within the NHA boundaries. All of 

these agencies have been contributors to the research and writing of the feasibility 

study. A close working relationship has been established with the nation’s newest 

National Park, the Great Sand Dunes. State agencies such as the Division of Wildlife and Colorado State Parks have all offered technical assistance along the way. 

Since the completion of the feasibility study, the group has sought to further Heritage Tourism by participating with other organizations to advance visitor readiness 

and increase the profile of the region. Preservation projects to protect some historic 

treasures include placing the original circa 1880s Antonito Train Depot on both the 

State and National Registers of Historic Places. Restoration work on the depot is 

being planned with a new coalition of partners and an interpretive center is under 

consideration. 

The recognition of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area’s three county region as an important component in America’s history is long overdue. From the cultural treasure chest of living history to the abundance of unique natural resources 

and recreational experiences, this region sits as a diamond among gems. 

In conclusion, the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is worthy of national 

designation and has met the criteria of the National Park Service. This may be one 

of the few remaining places in our great country with the integrity worthy of national acclaim, but the forces of change which diminished these qualities in other 

parts of Colorado and the nation are rapidly approaching here as well. I urge you 

to act quickly to stem the flow of irreparable change and enact legislation establishing the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area. Thank you for the opportunity 

to address the committee and I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Wyatt. 

STATEMENT OF CATE MAGENNIS WYATT, PRESIDENT, THE 

JOURNEY THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND PARTNERSHIP 

Ms. WYATT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator and 

with great appreciation to Senator Allen for his support of this very 

important legislation and his wonderful opening remarks. My name 

is Cate Megennis Wyatt, and I am president of The Journey 

Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, which is an initiative that 

began in 1996 and has worked over the last 10 years closely with 

the National Park Service, building a very strong coalition of now 

over 150 partners. 

This region from Gettysburg, as so eloquently described by Senator Allen, following the old Carolina Road, down to Monticello, 

hold more American history than any other swath of land in the 

country. It has been described by renowned Yale University historian, Stephen Woodward, as—and I quote, ‘‘This part of the country 

has soaked up more blood, sweat and tears of American history 

than any other part of the country. It has bred more founding fathers, it has inspired more hopes and ideals, and witnessed more 

triumphs, failures, victories, and lost causes than any other place 

in the country.’’

35

The history of the heritage sites is long, it is included in the written testimony, and it includes over a million acres of land already 

on the National Register of Historical Places. Fourteen National 

Historical Landmarks, eight presidential homes, but much, much 

more important than the bricks and the mortar, are the men and 

the women, who contributed through individual acts of leadership 

and combined acts of courage to create these United States. 

In June 1755, on the onset of the French and Indian War, Major 

General Edward Braddock led troops across this region of Virginia 

to attack a French Fort in what is now Cumberland, Maryland. 

Had those battles gone differently and had not those young soldiers 

gave their lives, we might very well be speaking French at the moment. 

Twenty years later a collection of British citizens by the names 

of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, risked their lives and their livelihoods to wage war against their own sovereign nation, and now 

in retrospect, we recognize audaciously sought to create a grand 

dream called democracy. 

In 1859, it was John Brown who led his men across the very 

same region as he planned and executed his attack on Harper’s 

Ferry in the name of Freedom for All. 

And a mere 80 years after the revolution, this very land absorbed 

more loss of blood, dreams and lives, with more Civil War battles 

were fought on it than any other region in the country. More lives 

were lost on this land than in the history of the country as young 

men laid everything they had on the line. And brave women like 

Clara Barton, administered as best they could. Among others who 

risked everything were the slaves who ran in hopes of finding freedom and the Quaker towns and abolitionists who honored and harbored them while they were on their way. 

I could go on and on, and if this sounds like a history lesson, it 

is, and it’s a lesson we want to bring to every American and every 

visitor. We ask that you support this legislation as we intend to 

bring alive the history of our Nation, so that we may honor those 

who made it their home; others their grave, and by each deliberate 

contribution contributed towards creating these United States. 

We would offer that on the merits of history alone the national 

heritage area designation is appropriate, but on the merits of the 

strength of the partnership, it is equally on solid footing. This is 

an amazingly strong grassroots operation, as Senator Allen indicated, with over 150 partners. These partners have allowed us to 

raise over $1.7 million in private funds, which are already sustaining and supporting this initiative as well as the cost of the feasibility study, which we understand is of a different model perhaps 

than the National Park Service would prefer. We are thrilled with 

the partnership we have with the National Park Service the efforts 

that have already been undertaken in this cooperative effort to ensure that our feasibility study, indeed, is as good as it possibly can 

be. 

We have already hired our consultant to begin this work and 

have had two meetings and will be moving immediately following 

this testimony to our third meeting with the Park Service so we 

will ensure that we will make every effort to meet the criteria set 

36

1 Attachment A (retained in subcommittee files) is a map of the Heritage Area. This area includes: Adams County (PA); Frederick County (MD); Jefferson County (WV); Loudoun County 

(VA); Prince William County (VA); Fauquier County (VA); Culpeper County (VA); Orange County (VA); Madison County (VA); Louisa County (VA); Charlottesville/Albemarle County (VA) and 

Fluvanna County (VA). 

by the Park Service to ensure that this legislation meets their 

standards. 

We also recognize as important as our heritage is so, too, is the 

constitutionally-protected private property rights, and S. 2645 is 

among the most stringent when it comes to protecting citizens’ private property. We believe the Virginia hallowed ground is most 

qualified and worthy of national heritage area designation. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to 

testify, and we certainly welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wyatt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CATE MAGENNIS WYATT, PRESIDENT, THE JOURNEY

THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Akaka, and Members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Cate Magennis Wyatt. I am the President of The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership and I appreciate the invitation to present testimony on 

behalf of Senate Bill 2645, the ‘‘Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act of 2006.’’ I have served in government, as the Secretary of Commerce 

and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the private sector as a developer 

and in the non-profit sector as a trustee on numerous Boards. 

The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership is a 10 year old grassroots 

organization with over 150 Partners, which has worked with the National Park 

Service over this period to raise national awareness of, interpretive educational programs for, and civic engagement in, the unparalleled history within the region that 

generally follows the Old Carolina Road (Rt. 15/231) from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 

through Frederick, Maryland, ending at Monticello in Albemarle County in Virginia. 

This area includes land in ten counties and four states.1

I. SENATE BILL 2645

Senate Bill 2645 would establish the area within the proposed boundary as the 

Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area (hereinafter, ‘‘Heritage 

Area’’). This region has been described by renowned Yale University historian C. 

Vann Woodard as follows:

‘‘This part of the country has soaked up more of the blood, sweat, and 

tears of American history than any other part of the country. It has bred 

more founding fathers, inspired more soaring hopes and ideals and witnessed more triumphs, failures, victories, and lost causes than any other 

place in the country.’’

And, by author and noted Revolutionary War authority Richard Ketchum, as:

‘‘If any land in America deserves to be called Hallowed Ground, it is this 

red clay soil on which so much of this nation’s past is preserved.’’

Inhabited hundreds of years ago by the Iroquois and Susquehanna Native Americans, this region was traveled by European trappers and frontiersmen who ventured 

to the wilderness to find a means to create a living. Young surveyor George Washington laid the plans for the town of Culpeper, never envisioning that it would later 

be engulfed by the largest Calvary battle of the Civil War, the battle of Brandy Station. 

In June 1755, the onset of the French and Indian War, Major General Edward 

Braddock led troops from Virginia across this region to attack the French fort in 

what is now Cumberland, Maryland. Had those battles gone differently, had not the 

young soldiers gave of their lives, we very well might be speaking French. 

Twenty years later, a collection of British citizens, by the names of Jefferson, 

Madison, and Monroe, risked their lives and their livelihoods to wage a war against 

their own sovereign nation and, in retrospect, audaciously sought to create a grand 

dream called democracy. As we read through their journals and have the benefit of 

their thoughts, they did not always agree on how to create this country, nor on what 

37

2 Attachment B (retained in subcommittee files) is an inventory of historic resources within 

the proposed Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. 3 Attachment C (retained in subcommittee files) lists the Advisory Council members for the 

Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership. 

this notion, ‘‘Democracy’’, should look like in law. As they traveled between their 

homes and to Philadelphia, the natural resources along the Journey served to inspire them. Jefferson wrote in his journal, as he observed the confluence of the Potomac, that it invites you ‘‘as it were, from the riot and tumult roaring around, to 

pass through the breach and participate in the calm below’’ (Thomas Jefferson, 

Notes of the State of Virginia). 

During the Revolutionary War, this corridor served as headquarters to Generals 

Wayne, Lafayette, and Muhlenberg, each of whom exhibited bravery and leadership 

in the face of daunting odds. In 1859, John Brown led his men through the region 

as he planned and executed his attack on Harper’s Ferry in the name of freedom 

for all. 

A mere 80 years after the Revolution, this very land absorbed the loss of blood, 

dreams and lives with more Civil War battles waged on it than any other region 

in the country. There were more lives lost on this land than in the history of this 

country as young men laid everything they had on the line and brave women like 

Clara Barton administered as best they could. Among others who risked everything, 

were the slaves who ran in the hopes of finding freedom and the Quaker towns and 

abolitionist who harbored them along their way. 

During the War of 1812, as Washington was burning, Dolly Madison sent a fearless team to secretly steal away the documents of democracy to private homes in 

this region for safe keeping. 

This is the land that gave respite to Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, 

Kennedy and Eisenhower and where General George Marshall found solace in the 

only home he ever owned, as he said, ‘‘after 41 years of wandering’’—a home where 

he could pen The Marshall Plan, which exported the ideals of Democracy to Europe. 

A listing of the great variety of historic resources within the proposed Journey 

Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area is attached to this testimony.2

It was through these hills and along this corridor that they all led by example 

and left their indelible mark on the creation of America. Some made it their home, 

others their grave, and by each deliberate contribution, they created these United 

States. 

In his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, Lincoln spoke to the nation 

when he said:

‘‘We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place 

for those who here gave their lives that (this) nation might live. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we 

can not hallow—this ground The brave men, living and dead, who struggled 

here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.’’

Senators, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership is here today to ensure that not only do we not detract, but that we work diligently to extract the lessons in leadership and celebrate the landscape that has inspired generations to fight 

for the evocative ideals of democracy. 

National designation for the Heritage Area, as further explained below, will bring 

numerous benefits to the region and help ensure that our children and grandchildren are able to walk in the footprints of those who gave their lives to give us 

this nation. 

B. The Role of the Partnership as Management Entity within the Heritage Area 

S. 2645 designates the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, an organization based in Waterford, Virginia, as the management entity for the Heritage 

Area and outlines the Partnership’s duties and authorities in Section 5 of the bill. 

The Partnership is bi-partisan, public-private initiative that works collaboratively 

with heritage sites, elected officials, business leaders, educators, landowners, preservationists, and destination marketing organizations to celebrate the cultural heritage in this region. 

Considerable thought was given to the creation of this Partnership. First, an Advisory Council was created which includes: the Presidents of Monticello, the Civil 

War Preservation Trust, the Eisenhower Institute, the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, and Protect Historic America, among others. Early counsel was sought 

from the National Heritage Area Program Director and the President of the Alliance 

of National Heritage Areas.3

38

4 Attachment C lists the Board of Trustees for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership. 5See www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/journey. 

6See Attachment D (retained in subcommittee files) is a list of Community Workshops and 

Partners meetings held to date. 7See Attachment E (retained in subcommittee files). 

Next, a Board of Trustees was convened and includes professionals in the fields 

of heritage conservation, interpretation, tourism, and representatives from the business sector. This Board takes seriously its responsibilities. It has raised significant 

private funds to execute its 2005-2007 management plan with time-specific performance schedules and cost benefit analysis for funds expended.4

Section 5(b) of the bill authorizes the development of a Heritage Area management plan by the Partnership and authorizes the use of federal funds to develop 

and implement that plan within the Heritage Area. It is with assurance that I commend to you the current management entity which has demonstrated fiscal responsibility and best management practices. The Partnership is well-equipped to serve 

as the managing entity for the Heritage Area and to oversee the implementation 

of the management plan. The Partnership has been working with the National Park 

Service for nearly ten years to advance the Heritage Area concept for this region, 

as demonstrated by the National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary which 

was placed online by the National Park Service in 2000.5

Over the past ten years, the Partnership has worked diligently to build a strong 

network of local, regional and national partners to develop a common vision for the 

conservation and enhancement of the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and natural characteristics of the region. Over 100 community briefings have been given, 

in addition to twenty full-day or two-day workshops held within the four (4) states 

each of which convened stakeholders from the community. A list of numerous Community Workshops and Partners meetings held to date is attached to this testimony.6 In addition, a list of the Partners and affiliated supporters of the Heritage 

Area effort is attached to this testimony.7

The Partnership has developed a committee structure with the establishment of 

the several standing committees, including Economic Development and Education 

Subcommittees. As a result, the Partnership has created a highly successful education outreach program to reach students and teachers within the region as well 

as across the nation, and is creating a heritage tourism program that will provide 

economic development opportunities, through regional branding and cooperative 

marketing, in communities throughout the Heritage Area. Finally, the Partnership 

has been working with local, state and national officials to create a National Scenic 

Byway to supplement the Heritage Area designation that will help sustain and 

strengthen the economy, heritage and quality of life in the region. Heritage area 

designation will ensure that the Partnership and its collective members can continue their active work as the official management entity for the Heritage Area. 

C. Specific Benefits of Heritage Area Designation for the Region 

The Partnership and its members are seeking designation of the Journey Through 

Hallowed Ground as a national heritage area because it will provide operational 

funding and National Park Service support for the Partnership and its members to 

work collaboratively with business leaders, heritage sites, elected officials, preservationists, destination marketing organizations, citizens, and a variety of communitybased organizations to create interpretation programs and to promote the history 

and tourism opportunities within the Heritage Area. To date, all operational funds 

for The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership have been provided through 

private philanthropic donations, which will continue as the initiative moves forward. 

Importantly, the region will also benefit from national recognition due to the association it confers with the National Park Service through the use of the NPS arrowhead symbol as a branding strategy, a symbol so familiar to most travelers. Local 

economies benefit by the increased heritage tourism, and the Heritage Area has the 

support of 15 Main Street Communities and historic downtowns in four states. 

Although tourism is the first, second or third largest industry in each region within The Journey Through Hallowed Ground, the Partnership’s research found that 

visitation to heritage sites has been dramatically declining over the past five years. 

Further research identified perhaps the root cause of this decline—the heritage 

tourist demographic profile is that of a highly educated, two-income earning family 

with little time to plan itineraries. Accordingly, the Partnership has designed and 

launched the Where America HappenedTM marketing campaign. 

Each element of this campaign makes it easy for citizens and visitors alike to plan 

multi-faceted trips along heritage themes or geographic destination. These efforts 

39

8 Attachment F (retained in subcommittee files) includes copies of major print press coverage 

of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. 9 Attachment G (retained in subcommittee files) to this Testimony includes copies of the resolutions of support passed by local governmental bodies within the proposed Heritage Area. 

have included: publishing a Journey Through Hallowed Ground guidebook, designing a website which educates and facilitates heritage visitation, the creation of visitor maps and brochures, working to create a National Trust for Historic Preservation Study Tour and the development of audio touring CDs. In addition, the Partnership has implemented a targeted, concentrated media outreach plan which has 

resulted in over 100 local and national articles including features in Smithsonian, 

National Geographic and Preservation magazines as well as PBS television and National Public Radio stories. A sample of these articles is attached to this testimony.8

Allow me to emphasize, however, one very important distinction between marketing the region and the intended results. Clearly, by design, our marketing efforts 

provide economic benefits to, and support for, our heritage sites, national parks, 

Main Street Communities and working landscape industry. However, our directive 

and intended result, as we launched and pursue our Where America HappenedTM

campaign, is to bring civic education alive for children and adults alike. This Partnership feels that The Journey Through Hallowed Ground is a trip every American 

must take in their lifetime. 

Accordingly, we also seek to work with the National Park Service to create interpretive programs on leadership. Such programs will allow visitors to walk in the 

footsteps of those who created this nation and fought to ensure democracy prevailed. 

Only by visiting can one begin to comprehend the enormity of the contributions 

made by normal citizens and statesmen alike. Only by experiencing this Journey 

can we hope to instill the invaluable lessons of individual acts of leadership under 

peril which combined to create the values of America—values and lessons which 

must be shared with generations to come. By combining historic preservation and 

civic education with sound environmental stewardship, the Partnership aims to help 

inspire every citizen and visitor alike. 

Finally, Heritage Area designation also has more intangible benefits, such as 

functioning as a federal ‘‘seal of approval’’ that acknowledges the depth of historic 

assets and importance of a region to our American cultural heritage on a national 

scale. It is an honor for a region to achieve this congressionally-designated status 

and propels citizens and communities to greater appreciation and understanding, 

and spurs voluntary conservation practices. Increased pride of a community and region in its history and traditions increases residents’ interest and involvement in 

retaining and interpreting the landscape for future generations. Preserving the integrity of the cultural landscape and local stories means that future generations will 

be able to understand their relationship to the land and have a sense of ‘‘place’’ although they may not be from the area originally. In sum, designation would provide 

increased opportunity for collaboration, marketing, resource protection, education, 

interpretation, recreation, heritage celebration, civic involvement and quality of life. 

D. Community Support 

Community support for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area 

reaches back to 1992 to the origins of the Partnership, when national and local organizations joined together with local citizens to raise awareness of the importance of 

the history of the region in response to a proposal to build a theme park in the area. 

Support for the Partnership has come from ordinary citizens and landowners, local 

businesses, heritage sites, educators, government agencies, and elected bodies such 

as town councils, counties, historians and other academics, regional planning districts state general assembly, and nonprofit conservation and preservation organizations. 

For example, over the past several years, in preparation of seeking the National 

Heritage Area designation, the Partnership has sought to formalize this support 

through obtaining official resolutions in favor of the National Heritage Area designation and the efforts of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground from fifty-eight 

(58) elected bodies.9 In each case, these resolutions were considered after public 

presentations and thoughtful debate. S. 2645 would further this community involvement by allowing all federal, state and local groups to participate actively in the 

development and implementation of the management plan and allow sites within 

the area to benefit from grants to be administered by the National Park Service and 

offered through the Partnership. 

In addition, many residents, business interests and nonprofit organizations within 

the proposed area have been involved in the planning for the Heritage Area and 

have demonstrated their support through letters of support. For example, thirty 

40

10See Attachment F (retained in subcommittee files). 11See Attachment G (retained in subcommittee files). 12See GAO Report 04-593T, ‘‘National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed’’ 

(March 30, 2004) (Methodology section) (‘‘To determine the extent to which, if at all, private 

property rights have been affected by these areas, we discussed this issue with the national coordinator, regional officials, the Executive Director of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas 

. . . the executive directors of the 23 heritage areas that were established at the time of our 

work, and representatives of several private property rights advocacy groups and individuals, 

including the American Land Rights Association, the American Policy Center, the Center for 

Private Conservation, the Heritage Foundation, the National Wilderness Institute, and the Private Property Foundation of America. In each of these discussions, we asked the individuals if 

they were aware of any cases in which a heritage area had positively or negatively affected an 

individual’s property rights or restricted its use. None of these individuals were able to provide 

such an example.’’) 13 Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, Congressional Research Service, Resources, 

Sciences and Industry Division, ‘‘Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues’’ 

(updated March 9, 2006), at pg. 3. 

preservation, conservation and recreation organizations, fourteen heritage sites, 

nine government agencies, thirty-four businesses, twenty educators and education 

institutions, and over two hundred and fifty private citizens have written in support 

of the Heritage Area. The Heritage Area effort has also generated a high level of 

public interest, having been written about it over ninety newspaper articles, fifteen 

of which were on the front page, and including editorials of support from Vermont 

to Fredericksburg, Virginia.10 The Heritage Area also has a high level of voter support, as indicated in a voter survey taken in 2005 regarding the Journey Through 

Hallowed Ground initiative.11

As stated, the Partnership already has a very strong foundation of community 

support and commitment through the involvement and support of more than 150 

public and private, foundation, community, and citizen partners already actively involved in heritage activities in the region. Designation would ensure that this level 

of collaboration and support is increased and sustained. 

II. PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTIONS

Celebrating American heritage is important, and so are constitutionally-protected 

private property rights. Sections 9 and 10 of S. 2645 are devoted to private property 

protection assurances. Section 9 requires that owners of private property be notified 

in writing if the property will be included in the management plan and provide written consent. Section 9 also allows a property owner to withdraw from being included 

within the boundary of the Heritage Area by submitting a written request. 

Section 10 provides that nothing in the bill would require any property owner to 

provide governmental or public access to their property, or modifies any federal, 

state or local law dealing with public access or use of private property or any land 

use regulation. In addition, Section 10 provides that nothing in the bill creates any 

liability of any property owners with respect to persons injured on such property. 

Section 10 provides, further, that nothing in the bill requires a private property 

owner located within the boundaries of the Heritage Area to participate or be associated with the Heritage Area. 

In Section 5(a), the bill authorizes the Partnership to acquire land through gift, 

devise or by purchase from a willing seller, and also provides assurance that ‘‘no 

lands or interests in lands may be acquired by condemnation.’’ In Section 5(e), the 

legislation states that the Partnership ‘‘may not use Federal funds received under 

this Act to acquire real property or interest in real property.’’ In sum, S. 2645 contains some of the most stringent private property rights protections of any heritage 

bill yet passed by Congress. Even private property advocates have acknowledged 

that the bill’s language is not objectionable from a private property protection standpoint. 

Furthermore, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report from 2004 determined 

that there is no evidence that heritage areas impact private property rights, after 

extensive interviews with private property rights groups.12 Zoning and land use 

policies remain local decisions made by locally elected officials who are directly accountable to citizens they represent. There are no federal mandates in this bill. Heritage areas are ‘‘non-federally owned, managed by local people with many partners 

and NPS advice, funded from many sources, and intended to promote local economic 

development as well as protect natural and cultural heritage resources and values.’’ 13

41

14 As stated in a Press Conference regarding the Journey Through Hallowed Ground at the 

National Press Club on May 11, 1994.

III. CONCLUSION

Heritage areas are founded on the concept that the best way to preserve important historic and cultural landscapes is through voluntary partnerships and community participation, allowing property to remain in state, local or private ownership 

but unifying the area through shared efforts at promotion, preservation, and interpretation. It is essential for Congress to continue to recognize the desire of citizens 

and communities to obtain national recognition for areas with national importance, 

allowing citizens to promote and further a sense of pride of place on a national and 

international scale. 

We understand that National Park Service seeks enactment of program legislation 

as contained in S. 243 passed by the Senate last year that would establish statutory 

guidelines and a more uniform process for designation of national heritage areas. 

We also understand that the increasing demand on National Park Service resources 

should dictate that only those sites that are most qualified should be designated by 

Congress as a heritage area. We strongly believe that the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area meets the criterion for designation set forth 

in S. 243, and is an example of a site most worthy of national heritage area designation. We look forward to continuing our close collaboration with National Park Service to provide all the necessary assurances that the Journey Through Hallowed 

Ground National Heritage Area Act of 2006 is consistent with their desire for supporting only the most highly qualified heritage area programs. 

Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on this important legislation. I look forward to answering any questions 

you or your colleagues may have. 

***

‘‘This is the ground of our Founding Fathers. These are landscapes that speak volumes—small towns, churches, fields, mountains, creeks and rivers with names 

such as Bull Run and Rappahannock. They are the real thing, and what shame 

we will bring on ourselves if we destroy them.’’ 14

—David McCullough, a Pulitzer Prize winner and one of the narrators for 

the PBS ‘‘Civil War’’ series

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rice. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. RICE, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

OHIO & ERIE CANALWAY COALITION, AKRON, OH 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee; my name is Dan Rice. I’m president and chief executive officer of the Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition, a regional non-profit 

organization working on the Ohio River canalway in northeastern 

Ohio. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today to offer testimony in support of S. 1721. I am here 

also today to testify as a general witness on behalf of the eight 

other national heritage areas included within S. 1721. 

While I will be providing some limited information about the 

work of some of the national heritage areas, I respectfully request 

the subcommittee keep the record open so that those national heritage areas can submit testimony themselves. The Ohio & Erie 

Canalway is a national treasure, that sovereign can meet national, 

historical and recreation resources along the Ohio-Erie canal of 

northeast Ohio. 

Working in partnership with our private, local, State, and national partners, we are developing a 101 mile multi-use recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
42

reational trail conserving hundreds of acres of natural areas, cultivating new stewards with over 160,000 hours on area projects, preserving historic structures and stimulating over $270 million of 

community and economic development. 

For every one dollar federally-received funding, Mr. Chairman, we are leveraging over $12.00 of private, local and State investment. All of these accomplishments would not even be possible if 

it were not for the legislation and designation as a national heritage area. 

With the development of our management plan, we have obtained the investment, commitment and support of all our partners, including the National Park Service, for this 20-year plan. 

For the first 3 years of our designation, we completed our resource inventories and developed a management plan. From 2000 

and 2006, we established the identity for the canalway and worked 

on the three main linkages of the Topia Trail, scenic highway and 

scenic river. 

Through the hard word and dedication of our over 90 plus partners, I am proud to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we are ahead of 

schedule and poised to move into the second phase of the development of the Ohio River canalway. 

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, we are at very critical crossroads 

in the development of our project as well as the eight other national heritage areas. If our Federal partners withdraw from the 

partnership and their commitment to the management plans, the 

private, State and local partners may take the same approach and 

withdraw their commitment and support. Once this occurs, the 

public/private partnership is dissolved, the foundation for the regional resource conservation strategy is destroyed, and the previous 

investment of private, local and state and other partners may be 

at risk. 

Reauthorization of the Ohio & Erie River Canalway and the 

eight other national heritage areas allows us to complete our management plans, fulfill our commitments to the local communities 

and develop the necessary funding diversification and self-sustaining strategies. 

In essence, Mr. Chairman, reauthorization enables the national 

heritage areas identified in S. 1721 to move towards sustainability, 

and a decreased dependence on the National Park Service for long 

term funding. 

Although the Ohio & Erie Canalway is not scheduled to address 

the issue of funding diversification and sustainability until 2012, 

this year, the net of 2006 we have already begun the view of our 

processes and our partners and all our funding at the local level. 

It is our intention, over the next 3 years to develop a funding diversification sustainability strategy so that we can be prepared in 

2012 to implement that policy. 

As you see, these are results of effective planning. As you know, 

Mr. Chairman, we support very strongly your general area heritage 

program administration bill, S. 243. 

However, with a grandfather clause to include the existing national heritage areas, we support the account of doing a study 3 

years to the sustaining of funding. But unfortunately we do not 

have the luxury of that time right now. 

43

And so we would ask, respectfully, that we be able to make an 

adjustment in the pending legislation. 

To be quite honest with you, I’m disappointed in the National 

Park Service testimony that was just received here. It truly sends 

a mixed message. The reference to the National Park Service Advisory Committee report regarding having a framework and structure for national heritage areas, at the same time, that very report, 

Mr. Chairman, says that there was a need to include national heritage areas within the system of the National Park Service, as well 

as a long term commitment to national heritage areas, and we feel 

that does send a mixed message. 

As I move to my conclusion, Mr. Chairman, now more than ever, 

we need to maintain our partnership with the National Park Service and renew our shared commitment to the nine national heritage 

areas listed in S. 1721. 

I believe that national heritage areas are an innovative approach 

to resource conservation and truly represent the future of the National Park Service of the 21st century. Most importantly, national 

heritage areas expand the reach of the National Park Service and 

allows the service to effect the lives of ordinary citizens in extraordinary ways, without the burden and responsibility of long term 

maintenance and ownership. Working together, Mr. Chairman, we 

have the opportunity to create legacies for future generations. I 

want to thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward 

to answering any questions you may have, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rice follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. RICE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, OHIO & ERIE CANALWAY COALITION, AKRON, OH 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Daniel 

M. Rice. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ohio & Erie 

Canalway Coalition, a regional private non-profit organization working on the development of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway from Cleveland to New 

Philadelphia, Ohio in northeast Ohio. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

the Committee today to offer testimony in support of S. 1721, a bill to amend the 

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the reauthorization for certain National Heritage Areas. 

I am here today also to testify as a general witness on behalf of the eight other 

National Heritage Areas included within S. 1721. These National Heritage Areas, 

the class of 1996, were all authorized together in the Omnibus Parks and Public 

Lands Management Act of 1996. These National Heritage Areas have charted new 

territory in the way the federal government works to conserve America’s great heritage. These nine National Heritage Areas have proven that the National Park Service conservation strategy can be a partnership that involves state, local and private 

partners with each party’s investment hinged to support the others. These nine National Heritage Areas have been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office 

and have successfully demonstrated that National Heritage Areas promote the National Park Service ethic of resource conservation, and cultivate stewardship for our 

national resources without impacting private property rights. While I will be providing some limited information about the work of some of the National Heritage 

Areas, I respectfully request that the Subcommittee keep the record open so that 

those National Heritage Areas can submit testimony themselves. 

Within S. 1721 are eight other National Heritage Areas, including Augusta Canal 

National Heritage Area (Georgia), Coal National Heritage Area (West Virginia), 

Essex National Heritage Area (Massachusetts), Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area New York), Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area (Pennsylvania), Silos 

and Smokestacks National Heritage Area (Iowa), South Carolina National Heritage 

Corridor (South Carolina), and Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area (Tennessee). Over the past ten years, I have had the privilege and benefit of working 

with each of these Heritage Areas and experienced the unique heritage and resources of the eight other National Heritage Areas. Collectively, these nine National 

44

Heritage Areas are successfully promoting resource conservation, celebrating cultural traditions and stimulating community and economic development. 

The Ohio & Erie Canalway is a regional and national treasure that celebrates the 

unique natural, historical and recreational resources along the Ohio & Erie Canal 

from Cleveland to New Philadelphia in northeast Ohio. Working in partnership with 

our private, local, state and national partners, we are developing a 101-mile multiuse recreational trail, conserving hundreds of acres of natural areas, preserving historic structures and stimulating over $270,000,000 of community and economic development activity. For every $1 of federal seed funding, we are leveraging over $12 

of private, local, and state investment. 

As one of the 27 Congressionally-designated National Heritage Areas, the Ohio & 

Erie Canalway is a successful example of the national heritage area concept of the 

conservation and interpretation of nationally significant resources through local 

management and investment. Some examples of our resource conservation accomplishments include:

• Development of 73 miles of the multi-use recreational Towpath Trail from 

Cleveland to New Philadelphia, Ohio. To date, over $53,000,000 of private, local, 

state and federal resources have been invested in this regional greenway. Over 

3 million users utilized the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail in 2005. 

• Implementation of four county trail and green space plans with over 400 miles 

of connecting trails and 1,000 acres of green space. 

• The relocation of the world headquarters of Advanced Elastomers Systems from 

St. Louis, Missouri to Akron, Ohio, along the banks of the Ohio & Erie Canal. 

Local developer Paul Tell invested $25 million dollars in the former BFGoodrich 

building and generated over 300 new jobs in downtown Akron. 

• Over 160,000 volunteer hours on National Heritage Area related programs and 

projects, and over 250,000 participants in educational programs. 

• Preservation and restoration of historic canal resources including, the Mustill 

House and Store, Henniger House, Zoar Hotel, Zoar Town Hall, Jackson Township School and the Richard Howe House. 

• Local developer Frank Sinito invested over $13 million dollars in the mixed-use 

development, Thornburg Station, along the banks of the Ohio & Erie Canal and 

Towpath Trail in Independence, Ohio in Cuyahoga County. Through a combination of upscale restaurants, offices and shops, Thornburg Station has generated 

over 50 jobs and is a destination Trailhead along the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail. 

• Designation of the Canalway Ohio Scenic Byway as a State and National Scenic 

Byway. 

• Extending the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad from the Cuyahoga Valley National Park to the City of Akron and the City of Canton. 

• Creation of a Communications Plan, including a comprehensive Interpretation 

Plan, Signage Plan and Marketing Plan. In April 2006, we introduced the first 

Visitors Guide for the Ohio & Erie Canalway, in partnership with our Convention & Visitors Bureaus. 

• Provided technical assistance and planning support for the four main Canalway 

Center Visitors facilities. The first of our facilities, the Stark County Canalway 

Learning Center is scheduled to open in 2007.

Through the development of public/private partnerships, we are exporting the National Park Service ethic of resource conservation to thousands of citizens, cultivating stewardship and investment of the unique resources and most importantly, 

creating a legacy for future generations. 

All of these accomplishments would not have been possible without the designation, as a National Heritage Area, by Congress in 1996. 

The National Heritage Area designation provides an organized regional structure 

and forum for the promotion of resource conservation, interpretation and development of the natural, historical and recreational resources along the Ohio & Erie 

Canalway. With the development of the Corridor Management Plan, we obtained 

the investment, commitment and support of all of our private, local, state and federal partners for the Ohio & Erie Canalway. All of our private, local, state and federal partners, including the National Park Service, endorsed the Corridor Management Plan and committed their resources to the completion of the 20-year plan. 

For the first three years of our designation, we completed our resource inventories 

and developed the Corridor Management Plan. From 2000 to 2006, we established 

the identity for the Ohio & Erie Canalway and worked on the three main regional 

linkages of the Towpath Trail, Scenic Byway and the Scenic Railroad. Through the 

hard work and dedication of our over 90-plus partners, I am proud to tell you that 

45

we are ahead of schedule and are poised to move into the second phase of the development of the Ohio & Erie Canalway. 

According the Corridor Management Plan, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, over the next six years, we will work on the following items:

• Complete the key regional linkages, including the Towpath Trail, Scenic Byway 

and Scenic Railroad. • Expand the connecting trail network. • Market the entire Ohio & Erie Canalway and its journeys. • Assist the Canalway Center project partners to complete construction. • Continue coordination with the National Park Service for program involvement. • Develop Corridor-wide programs and mechanisms for their continued operations.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, we are at a very critical crossroads in the development of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway, as well as the other eight 

National Heritage Areas and that is why we are requesting reauthorization of these 

nationally significant projects. Just as much of the past accomplishments of the nine 

National Heritage Areas have been due to the participation and involvement of the 

National Park Service, much of our future success depends on the continued partnership and participation of the National Park Service. As the Corridor Management Plan for the Ohio & Erie Canalway states, ‘‘Alliances and regional coalitions 

are critical to the long-term success of the National Heritage Corridor as well as 

to the accomplishment of short-term projects.’’

Over the past ten years, the other eight Heritage Areas have experienced similar 

success in the promotion of resource conservation and development. 

From FY 1997 through FY 2006, the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area in western Pennsylvania has received $8,645,000 in National Park Service funding 

through this authorization. This funding, which Rivers of Steel is required to match, 

has raised more than $45,000,000 through the National Heritage Area to match the 

National Park Service funding, with an additional $35,000,000 being leveraged with 

the partner organizations or local governments in the seven county National Heritage Area. This investment has resulted in more than 200 heritage development 

projects that are either ongoing or have been completed in the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area. 

Since 1996, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor has successfully completed over 100 large-scale projects, and is currently working on over 40 more, while 

also providing programming and major marketing efforts. The South Carolina National Heritage Corridor serves as a catalyst and an incubator for heritage tourism 

development across the state of South Carolina. The efforts within the Heritage 

Area led to the development of numerous statewide initiatives, including the South 

Carolina Farmer’s Association and the South Carolina Artisans Consortium; and 

placed an emphasis on protecting and celebrating the diversity of cultures in South 

Carolina such as the influence of Native Americans, African and Caribbean heritage. 

The Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in Georgia preserves promotes and 

celebrates the region’s rich history, heritage, culture and natural resources relating 

to the Augusta Canal for the benefit of current and future generations. Since designation in 1996, some of the major projects completed include, construction of a 

nine-mile multi-use trail along the Augusta Canal, construction of an award-winning Interpretive Center in an abandoned textile mill, and renovation of the 1875 

gatehouse, locks, four historic buildings and the canal head gates. 

I know without reauthorization of the Ohio & Erie Canalway, we will be unable 

to fulfill the commitments and obligations outlined in the Corridor Management 

Plan, and it could undermine the successful public/private partnership strategy at 

the local level. I trust that without reauthorization, the other eight Heritage Areas 

contained within S. 1721, will not be able to fulfill their Management Plans and responsibilities. 

If our federal partners abandon the partnership and their commitment to the 

Management Plans, the private, local and state partners may take the same approach and withdraw their commitment and support. Once this occurs, the public/

private partnership is dissolved, the foundation for the regional resource conservation strategy is destroyed and the previous investment of private, local, state and 

other partners will be at risk. Continued federal investment is necessary to maintain the momentum and provide critical seed funding to important components of 

the Management Plans. 

All of the National Heritage Areas included in S. 1721 were established with 10-

year Management Plans to guide the work of the National Heritage Areas for the 

next 10 years. This was not meant to be a limitation on the life of the National HerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
46

itage Area, only a limitation on the timeframe of the plan. At the end, or near the 

conclusion of the Management Plan, the National Heritage Areas were charged with 

the responsibility to chart out its next 10-year strategy. National Heritage Areas 

were established as long-term conservation tools to protect America’s heritage in 

places where sole federal government ownership, i.e., units of the National Park 

Service were not feasible or practicable. National Heritage Areas need to be reauthorized in order to fulfill their Management Plans. Selecting a pre-determined termination, as it has been suggested after 10 years, will cause more harm than good. 

Reauthorization of the Ohio & Erie Canalway, and the other eight National Heritage Areas, allows us to complete our Management Plans, fulfill our commitments 

to the communities and develop the necessary funding diversification and self-sustaining strategies. In essence, reauthorization enables the National Heritage Areas 

identified in S. 1721 to move towards sustainability and a decreased dependence on 

the National Park Service for long-term funding. 

From 2012 to 2020, the Corridor Management Plan for the Ohio & Erie Canalway 

recommends the development of funding diversification and self-sustaining strategies to maintain the quality of the experience of the Ohio & Erie Canalway. Although we are not scheduled to address this issue until 2012, in 2006, we began 

an internal review of our operations and initiated conversations with our local foundations, corporations, governments and state agencies regarding funding diversification and self-sustaining strategies and models. Building upon the recently completed 

studies of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor 

and the Delaware and Lehigh Canal National Heritage Area, it is our goal to begin 

the implementation of our funding diversification strategy within the next six years. 

With the continued participation of the National Park Service, we will develop a 

comprehensive funding diversification and self-sustaining strategy that protects the 

investment of private, local, state and federal resources, continues the promotion of 

resource conservation, while stimulating community and economic development in 

the region. 

Mr. Chairman, now, more than ever, we need to maintain our partnership with 

the National Park Service and renew our shared commitment to the Ohio & Erie 

National Heritage Canalway, and the eight National Heritage Areas listed in S. 

1721. National Heritage Areas successfully promote and export the National Park 

Service ethic of resource conservation without significant permanent investment. 

Through the National Heritage Area designation, we are building permanent community partnerships and developing funding diversification and sustainability strategies for the conservation of nationally significant resources. Most importantly, National Heritage Areas expand the reach of the National Park Service and allows the 

Service to affect the lives of ordinary citizens, in urban areas and townships, across 

this country in extraordinary ways, without the burden and responsibility of ownership and long-term maintenance by the National Park Service. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe that National Heritage Areas are an innovative approach to resource conservation and they represent the future direction of the 

National Park Service in the 21st century. That is why I strongly urge your support 

for the passage of S. 1721 so we can continue our successful partnership for resource 

conservation and the celebration of our nationally significant resources. Working together, we are creating legacies for future generations. 

I would like to express my thanks to you, Senator Thomas, for your outstanding 

leadership and vision regarding National Heritage Areas. Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding S. 1721 before your Committee, and I am happy 

to answer any questions that you, or other members of the Committee might have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Cutler. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLENE PERKINS CUTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CEO, QUINEBAUG-SHETUCKET HERITAGE CORRIDOR, INC. 

Ms. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

offer testimony on the amendment of the Quinebaug-Shetucket 

River Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994. 

I am the executive director and CEO of Quinebaug-Shetucket 

Heritage Area, Incorporated, which is a nonprofit, designated management entity for the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor. 

47

* The document has been retained subcommittee files. 

I ask that our document ‘‘The Trail to 2015, a Sustainability 

Plan’’ can be entered in it’s entirety into the record of the subcommittee.* To summarize that document, I am pleased to say that 

the Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Incorporated has been 

very successful in its work to date in fulfilling the intent of Public 

Law 103-449, the responsibility given to us by the Congress, and 

the visions and goals of our management plan. It is our intent to 

be self-sustaining and not need Federal funding by the year 2015. 

Our heritage corridor has been diligent, has completed a management plan, an implementation and action plan, an interpretative 

plan, a 10 year plan that extended the vision of the management 

goals, and now a sustainability plan. And those documents have 

been truly useful. 

We have shown a consistent ability to maximize scarce resources 

by developing and fostering partnerships with State and Federal 

municipal governments and regional corporate and private entities 

as well as our residents. 

We’ve acted as an educator and facilitator to motivate other organizations to take independent actions in line with our mission. 

The Quinebaug-Shetucket Corridor is one of the most appropriate entities, we have taken action through specific projects and 

programs to do critical work. 

Our heritage corridor has received numerous State and national 

awards recognizing the excellence of our work including the 2005 

Public Education Award from the American Association for our 

Green Valley Institute. 

We have consistently met and exceeded the requirements from the Federal appropriation. The communicative ratio is $19 to every 

Federal dollar, and I have a pie charts attached to the back of my 

written testimonies so you can see that where it divides up by type. 

Direct grants to 191 local projects have funded work in trail development, historic preservation, economic development, heritage 

tourism infrastructure, natural resource conservation and community planning. The sustainability plan offers many examples of 

those projects. 

Hundreds of volunteers have given more than 10,000 hours of 

service last year alone to our projects and programs. And 7,045 

participants have benefitted from our fiscal year 2005 education 

programs. 

According to our fiscal year 2005 audit, 89% of the heritage corridors expenditures regardless of source go directly into programming. 

Our communities and residents increasingly look to our heritage 

corridor as a source for educational assistance and an advocate for 

resource conservation. We have developed credibility at local, regional, state and Federal levels and we need to continue the work 

to fulfill the mission to be present for several decades. That is why 

we adopted the sustainability plan this January and why we are 

committed to achieving its goals. 

There are two key elements to realize those goals. We must 

maintain credible programming and we must have the faith in our 

work that the Federal investment demonstrates to attract signifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
48

* The document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

cant, long-term non-Federal resources. Therefore, we respectively 

request that the Quinebaug-Shetucket Area National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 be amended to extend the period of authorization 

from 2009 to 2015 and to extend the total appropriation from $10 

million to $16 million to coincide with our time table for being selfsustaining. 

We would also request that we retain designation as a national 

heritage corridor after authorization has ceased since our region 

will be known as significant national resources. I thank Senators 

Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy and Lieberman for their support of our work 

in this amendment, and I am pleased to answer any questions the 

subcommittee may have. This concludes my prepared testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cutler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLENE PERKINS CUTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND

CEO, QUINEBAUG-SHETUCKET HERITAGE CORRIDOR, INC. 

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

to offer testimony on S. 574, to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley 

National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994. I am the executive director and CEO of 

Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc., the grassroots nonprofit designated as 

management entity for the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor. 

I ask that our document, The Trail to 2015, a Sustainability Plan, be entered in 

its entirety into the record of this subcommittee.* 

To summarize that document, I am pleased to say that Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor Inc. has been very successful in its work to date in fulfilling the intent of Public Law 103-449, the responsibility given to us by the Congress, and the 

visions and goals of our Management Plan. It is our intent to be self-sustaining and 

not need federal funding by the year 2015.

• Our Heritage Corridor has been diligent and has completed a Management 

Plan, an Implementation and Action Plan, an Interpretive Plan, a Ten-Year 

Plan that extended the vision of the original management goals, and now a Sustainability Plan. Those guiding documents were completed in a timely and efficient manner, and have been truly useful documents. • We have shown a consistent ability to maximize scarce resources by developing 

and fostering partnerships with federal, state and municipal governments, and 

regional corporate and private entities. We have acted as an educator and 

facilitator to motivate other organizations to take independent actions in line 

with our mission. When the Heritage Corridor was the only or most appropriate 

entity, we have taken action through specific projects or programs to do critical 

work. • Our Heritage Corridor has received numerous state and national awards recognizing the excellence of our work, including the 2005 Public Education Award 

from the American Planning Association for our Green Valley Institute. • We have consistently met and exceeded the required match on our federal appropriation. The third page of my written testimony includes an analysis of our 

funding and non-federal leverage since 1994. The cumulative ratio is $19 to 

each federal dollar. • Direct grants to 191 local projects have funded work in trail development, historic preservation, economic development, heritage tourism infrastructure, natural resource conservation and community planning. The Sustainability Plan offers many examples of these projects. • Hundreds of volunteers have given more than ten thousand hours of service last 

year to our mission-related projects and programs, and 7,045 participants have 

benefited from our FY05 education programs. • According to our FY05 audit, 89% of the Heritage Corridor’s expenditures, regardless of source, go directly into programming.

Our communities and residents increasingly look to our Heritage Corridor as a 

source for guidance and assistance, and as an advocate for resource conservation. 

We have developed credibility at the local, regional, state and federal levels. The 

need to continue the work to fulfill the mission will be present for several decades. 

49

That is why we adopted the Sustainability Plan this January and why we are committed to achieving its goals. 

There are two key elements to meeting those goals:

• In order to maintain credible programming that will attract significant, longterm, non-federal resources, it is critical to retain the federal investment over 

the next ten years. 

• Reauthorization to 2015 would leverage significant, multiyear, non-federal commitments that are essential to our self-sustainability.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Reauthorization Act of 1994 be amended to extend 

the period of authorization from 2009 to 2015, and to extend the total appropriation 

from $10 million to $16 million, to coincide with our timetable to be self-sustaining 

by the year 2015. I thank Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry and Lieberman for their 

support of our work and this amendment. 

I am pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. This concludes 

my prepared testimony.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you for 

being here. It’s a great job and I know that it takes a great deal 

of work on the local level to do these things, and it’s very much 

that way. I have just one or two quick questions, and if you can 

give us a quick answer, then we’ll be able to wind up here pretty 

soon. 

Mr. Sullivan, when do you expect the Blackstone River Heritage 

Area to be self-sustaining? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we would be 

able to maintain the 22-1 ratio, and I would say by June 6 we could 

have come close to meeting that challenge. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. Okay. Good. Mr. Rice, your heritage area 

does not lose its authorization until 2012. Why are you seeking to 

go to 2027 with 6 years remaining? 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, there’s actually two caps in our legislation there’s a funding cap of up to only a million dollars for a total 

cap of $10 million, and then there’s the amount of years, I believe 

15 years. We are coming up against our refunding cap. That’s why 

we’re seeking reauthorization at this time so we can continue to 

fulfill the obligations and responsibilities outlined in our management plan. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. Okay. 

Ms. Cutler, yours will be self-sustaining then by 2015, is that 

your plan? 

Ms. CUTLER. Correct. 

Senator THOMAS. Did you intend to be self-sustaining as you organized your plan in the first place? 

Ms. CUTLER. The first 5 years of our appropriation was about 

$300,000 a year in an area of 1,100 square miles. That didn’t make 

a lot of impact so it was only within the past 5 years that we’ve 

been able to make some significant headway and realized what our 

capabilities would be. And so it’s been our intention over the past 

couple of years to develop this plan because we feel that if we can’t 

sustain that work over the long term. This is off-and-on, though. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, well, I appreciate it. I want you to understand, I’m not trying to make a huge issue out of this funding 

thing, but I do think that heritage areas are pretty much oriented 

to regions and to local areas and they’re very helpful to the local 

people, although they do retain side things as well. 

50

You know, we have 390 park systems now and we have a funding problem on that, as you well know, you’ve read a lot about it, 

and so we have to try to figure out the best way overall to handle 

this financial situation and so on. We certainly want to continue 

to see these things happen and find the best way to do that. 

Ms. Wyatt, section 5 of the bill as I understand it, authorizes the 

use of Federal funds for land acquisition and section 5(e), states 

that Federal funds may not be used for acquisition of real estate. 

I don’t understand that. 

Ms. WYATT. Typo. 

Senator THOMAS. Typo? Gotcha. 

Ms. WYATT. That was just a typo, we have no intentions of using 

the funds under this Federal Act for the purchase of real property. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. 

Ms. WYATT. Other funds from other donations could be used by 

the non-profit. 

Senator THOMAS. Sure. I understand. 

Ms. WYATT. But we will certainly make that change. 

Senator THOMAS. Yeah, okay. Well, again, let me say how important I think it is to continue to do these things. Because, you know, 

the park generally, why the whole park is a ball park and it’s all 

public land, and it’s maintained and so on, where here you have 

private lands within your operations, and Federal and local lands, 

and all this other, they are different, but they’re very important. 

And it’s very important of you to be able to work at the local level 

to create these kinds of things. They are great. I was just in Virginia a couple of weeks ago, and all the things that happened in 

Jamestown and Yorktown and also all the park facilities that are 

already there. But it’s great, you know, it’s historic and we’re very 

proud of Yellowstone and Cavetown and so on in Wyoming, so I’m 

glad we’re working together to do these things and we just got a 

buzz to go vote, I noticed and thank you very much for being here. 

We’ll certainly work with the committee in trying to get maybe 

some of the changes that the Department would like to have and 

then see if we can get you in and do other things. So thank you 

very much. If there are any questions from other members, why, 

I will ask you to answer them by mail. 

Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. The committee’s is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(51)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF CATE MAGENNIS WYATT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 2645, Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA Designation): Have 

any private property owners objected to this designation as a National Heritage 

Area? 

Answer. No individual property owners have approached the Partnership with 

concerns or objections about how they feel the proposed bill might affect their land 

specifically. However, representatives of a few organizations representing private 

property rights viewpoints and opposed to the national heritage area concept, generally, have contacted the Partnership to voice opposition. 

Where the Partnership has been able to engage in dialogue with these groups, 

and language has been proposed by them to improve the bill and strengthen private 

property rights protections, we have readily agreed and immediately incorporated 

suggested language—for example the language in Section 5(a)(2)(D) clearly stating 

that ‘‘no lands or interests in lands may be acquired by condemnation.’’ Other entities have been unwilling to engage in dialogue, and have limited themselves resort 

to public protest tactics, making it hard to discern from them improvements to the 

bill that would address concerns. 

We can tell you, however, that hundreds of private property owners resident in 

the area have voiced resounding support for the National Heritage Area and strongly desire a more coordinated regional approach to honoring the national importance 

of the history of the region for residents and visitors. 

Question 2. (S. 2645, Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA Designation): Section 5(a) of the bill authorizes the use of Federal funds for land acquisition and Section 5(e) states that Federal funds may not be used for acquisition of real property 

or interest in real property. 

a. Do you intend to use Federal funds to acquire any land for the Journey 

Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area? 

b. Should we amend the bill to correct the conflicting statements about use of Federal funds for real property/land acquisition? 

Answer. One of the intended purposes of Section 5(a) was to recognize that the 

management entity, as a Virginia corporation like any other corporation, has the authority generally to accept funds from a variety of sources to assist with operational 

and other costs. However, it was also the intent of the legislation, as stated in Section 5(e), to clearly prohibit the Partnership from using federal funds provided 

under the Act to acquire real property or any interest in real property. We agree 

that the language in Section 5(a)(2)(D) conflicts with that in Section 5(e) and thus 

the Partnership would support an amendment to strike Section 5(a)(2)(D) and retain 

Section 5(e) in its entirety. 

Question 3. (S. 2645, Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA Designation): What 

do you see as the best use of Federal funds that are made available to National Heritage Areas? 

Answer. The Partnership believes that the federal funds made available to National Heritage Areas are best utilized to develop and implement heritage area management plans that represent the very finest that can be achieved by public-private 

collaboration and coordination toward the united goal of moving ahead as a society 

while respecting our past. 

The Partnership understands the economics of prospering through preservation 

and is working currently on creating strategic alliances with the private sector and 

52

with educational foundations to sustain the critical work of educational programming, to create profit centers in publishing, study tours, and audio touring tapes, 

among other initiatives that will enhance such collaboration. 

The federal funding that the Partnership is provided as the management entity 

will further these types of efforts, and allow the Partnership to fulfill its goal of setting an example of the kind of exciting and inspiring things that can happen when 

government, business, and citizenry work together at celebrating, commemorating, 

conserving and promoting the history and resources in an area in a cost-effective 

manner that leverages funding from a variety of sources. 

Question 4. (S. 2645, Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA Designation): What 

do you see as the Federal government’s role in National Heritage Areas? 

Answer. Only the federal government, and specifically only an Act of Congress, 

can provide the national ‘‘seal of approval’’ for an area as a designated National 

Heritage Area. This national designation is honorific. It honors regions which not 

only hold significant heritage, but confers this designation because the citizens, 

businesses, elected bodies and non-profit organizations within the region have taken 

decided steps to ensure this heritage will be available to generations to come. In 

this respect, for over 10 years, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership 

has worked not only to increase awareness, but has worked collaboratively with 

stakeholders to significantly celebrate, commemorate, conserve and promote our heritage. 

As the Partnership has seen many times ‘‘if you Honor people—they become Honorably.’’ Specifically, we have witnessed, and have research to support, the tangible 

and intangible benefits which result from federal honorific designations. The recognition serves to bolster a sense of pride and place. It provides a catalyst to voluntary community and individual efforts to celebrate, commemorate, conserve, promote and protect resources integral to our American heritage. 

In short, the federal role is recognition of the importance of an area to the Nation’s story. Also, importantly, the designation permits the increased partnership of 

the management entity with the professionals within National Park Service who 

lend their decades of expertise to these regions as they work closely and collaboratively to promote historic, cultural, recreational and other resources for visitors 

and residents. National Park Service involvement helps ensure the ultimate success 

of the heritage area effort. 

Question 5. (S. 2645, Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA Designation): Is 

your heritage area prepared to become self-sustaining and not require Federal funds 

like Ms. Cutler has outlined for her heritage area in Connecticut? If so, by what 

date do you expect to be self-sustaining? 

Answer. The JTHG Partnership has been self-sustaining for over ten (10) years, 

with the significant support of the private sector, and has created a business plan 

to ensure it has been self sustaining each of those ten years. This private sector support will only increase with the passage of this legislation, with the federal support 

authorized under the legislation being utilized to broaden the activities of the Partnership to serve as a management entity in the manner outlined in the legislation. 

We have every expectation of being fully self-sustaining as a management entity for 

the heritage area within the 15 year authorization period for funding set forth in 

the legislation. 

RESPONSES OF ANN MARIE VELASQUEZ TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 2037, Sangre de Cristo NHA Designation): Approximately how 

many people reside within the boundaries of the Sangre de Cristo Heritage Area? 

Answer. According to the 2003 Population Estimate from the San Luis Valley statistical profile, 27,731 people reside within the boundaries of the proposed National 

Heritage Area. U.S. Census Bureau actual figures for the year 2000 were stated as 

27,029. This area encompasses all of the counties of Conejos, Costilla and Alamosa. 

Question 2. (S. 2037, Sangre de Cristo NHA Designation): Have any residents objected to the designation as a National Heritage Area? 

Answer. We have not encountered anyone objecting to this designation. We have 

held public meetings to inform residents of the efforts and what the designation 

could mean for the area. After speaking with several people in other currently designated National Heritage Areas, and with the National Park Service personnel at 

the beginning of this process, we learned that most objections in the west were concerned with private property rights. We have addressed this issue whenever possible 

and specifically asked to have a clause concerning private property rights included 

in the bill. We understand that this clause has become a standard clause that is 

now incorporated into a bill to designate a National Heritage Area. 

53

Question 3. (S. 2037, Sangre de Cristo NHA Designation): If your area is approved 

as a National Heritage Area, how long do you think it will take for you to be selfsustaining without a need for Federal funding? 

Answer. During the planning process for the feasibility study we reviewed other 

currently designated National Heritage Areas. Many areas are able to leverage the 

federal funding received through the U.S. Congress by up to 22 to 1. This figure 

is even surpassed in some areas. With this type of leveraging, self-sustainability 

should be attainable within the authorized period. We intend to create a business 

plan along with the Management Plan that is required within the first 3 years of 

authorization. This should help to focus on projects that will lay a solid foundation 

for sustainability and study how the SDCNHA can operate without federal assistance. Business enterprises that directly relate to our Not for Profit status could be 

one avenue of longevity, as an example. One of our partners is Adams State College, 

a local higher education facility. We intend to work with the School of Business to 

pursue a plan for sustainability. The ingenuity that it took to produce the feasibility 

study with $5,000.00, called ‘‘superior’’ by NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy, exists in this region of the country. We view these federal funds as a stimulus, not 

a crutch. We are confident that self sustainability is within reach during the original authorization period of 10 to 15 years. 

RESPONSES OF CHARLENE CUTLER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization): Ms. Cutler, 

you stated that your heritage area will be self-sustaining without any need for Federal funds in 2015. Have you always intended to become self-sustaining or is this 

a new approach to doing business? 

Answer. Senator Thomas, early on our Heritage Corridor anticipated becoming 

self-sufficient, and our planning documents bear that out. We were one of the earlier 

NHAs designated and received a smaller appropriation for the first five years 

($200,000/year). In a region of nearly 1,100 square miles, it is understandable that 

under that level of funding our impacts were small. In the past five years we have 

accomplished significant work with the increased federal investment and been able 

to coalesce many partners and, most importantly, residents around our joint mission. 

In 2000, we wrote Vision 2010: A Ten-Year Plan, that expanded on the vision of 

our original management plan. The overall goal of that plan was ‘‘to accomplish the 

mission of our National Heritage Corridor by perceiving and reflecting the priorities 

of residents and translating these into programs and services for the next ten years 

and beyond.’’ That plan also foresaw the need to think past federal funding and 

stated that if the overall goal was to carry the work forward, an endowment or some 

other type of permanent fund would need to be established to generate income for 

the work. 

In preparation for that eventuality, our organization conducted a Fundraising 

Feasibility Study in 2002. That study recognized that there was no example of a 

National Heritage Corridor developing a permanent fund, and therefore, we were 

in uncharted waters. The document also recognized the rural nature of our region. 

It laid out a conservative and realistic plan to developing sustaining resources. Extrapolating out to our $10 million goal, we plan to have the fund capitalized in 2015. 

Our experience has also shown us that there is a required critical mass of successful programming that must be attained in order to attract significant, non-federal 

resources. We feel that we have reached that threshold and will be able to begin 

a capital campaign to develop a permanent fund. However, in our National Heritage 

Corridor, that is very rural and has a relatively low population, we also know that 

we need the time to 2015 to be successful in accumulating the funds. 

In 2004, we began working on Trail to 2015, A Sustainability Plan. The permanent fund is one leg of our three-legged stool plan; the other two are for-profit activities and foundation support. 

With private funds, we have just hired a well-respected and very successful development professional to shepherd the organization through the next ten years to the 

point of self-sustainability. The only element left to be in place is continued authorization through 2015 to maintain credible programming until other resources take 

over. We are committed to becoming self-sustaining and this is not a new idea for 

us. 

Question 2. (S. 574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization): Do you 

think all National Heritage Areas should become self-sustaining and free of Federal 

funding at some point? 

54

Answer. Every NHA is distinctive, although they all have commonality in resource protection, resource interpretation and economic development. If each NHA 

is truly grassroots in origin, that is, its focus is driven internally as opposed to externally, then there must be some point at which the stewards take complete ownership for the fulfillment of the mission. I think self-sustainability is inevitable if the 

work is to carried forward to the next group of stewards—our children and grandchildren. 

Question 3. (S. 574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization): What do 

you see as the Federal government’s role in National Heritage Areas? 

Answer. I think the Federal government best serves National Heritage Areas by 

first recognizing regions of significant national resources, designating them as such, 

and providing seed money for the work the residents of that area determines is important. National Heritage Areas are impressive in their ability to put responsive 

programming in place very quickly. That ability is what attracts non-federal match 

to the process. 

Many layers of federal requirements would seriously impede that process and put 

a damper on the ability of a NHA to become self-sustaining. For example, if instead 

of appropriations funding was allocated as grants for particular projects, the accomplishments of heritage areas would be significantly less, and the time to put essential programs on the ground would become so slow that the programs would lose 

credibility with residents. 

Question 4. (S. 574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization): What do 

you see as the best use of Federal funds that are made available to National Heritage Areas? 

Answer. The best use of Federal funds is to support necessary planning documents and invest in programming until a critical mass is reached that measures impacts, identifies work no other entity can do, and points the way to self-sustainability. 

RESPONSES OF DAN RICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 1721, Omnibus Heritage Area Extensions): Has the National Heritage Area that you manage had any adverse impact on private property with the 

boundaries of the heritage area? 

Answer. No. The Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway has not had any adverse impact on private property within the boundaries of the Heritage Area. 

Question 2. (S. 1721, Omnibus Heritage Area Extensions): Mr. Rice, the House 

has added private property rights language to every National Heritage Area bill 

they have passed. Do you have any objection to the language the House is using? 

If so, what are your specific objections and how would you amend the language if 

given an opportunity to do so? 

Answer. Yes, I object to the private property rights language being inserted into 

the National Heritage Area legislation by the House Resources Committee. It is particularly confusing since the General Accounting Office investigated the relationship 

between private property rights and National Heritage Areas, and they were not 

able to document any examples or evidence of National Heritage Areas having an 

adverse impact on private property within the boundaries of Heritage Areas. The 

General Accounting Office report conclusively stated that National Heritage Areas 

do not have an adverse impact on private property rights. 

For over 45 years, the citizens of northeast Ohio have worked in a collaborative 

manner to conserve, interpret and develop the natural, historical and recreational 

resources along the Ohio & Erie Canal, without a single issue of adverse impact on 

private property rights. The proposed language is unnecessary since we do not, and 

cannot preserve, conserve or promote private property without the consent of the 

private property owner. The success of our project is dependent on the cooperation 

and participation of our partners. Any other approach is unacceptable and inconsistent with our mission. 

Based on our 45-year history and experience, I would suggest that the proposed 

private property rights language is not necessary and does not need to be included 

in our Reauthorization Bill, S. 1721. 

Question 3. (S. 1721, Omnibus Heritage Area Extensions): S. 1721 reauthorizes 

9 National Heritage Areas including the one that you manage. 

a. Your heritage area, the Ohio and Erie Canalway, does not lose its authorization 

for Federal funding until 2012. Why are you seeking reauthorization to 2027 if you 

have another 6 years remaining? 

55

Answer. In our original authorizing legislation, the Omnibus Parks and Public 

Lands Management Act of 1996, there were two clauses established for planning 

purposes:

‘‘The Secretary may not make any grant or provide any assistance under this 

title after September 30, 2012.’’

‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated under this title not more than $1,000,000 for any fiscal year. Not more than a total of $10,000,000 may be appropriated for the corridor under this title.’’

Since our authorization in 1996, we have received approximately $8,500,000 of federal funds towards our $10,000,000 authorization. At our present rate of federal 

appropriations, we will reach our funding authorization before 2012 and before we 

fulfill the responsibilities outlined in our Management Plan. 

By seeking reauthorization now, we will maintain the momentum of leveraging over $12 of private, local and state resources for every $1 of federal investment, 

complete the responsibilities and projects outlined in the Management Plan and fulfill our commitment to the local communities. 

Question 3b. Is your heritage area prepared to become self-sustaining and not require Federal funds like Ms. Cutler has outlined for her heritage area in Connecticut? If so, by what date do you expect to be self-sustaining? 

Answer. According to our Management Plan, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, there are three phases to our plan, 2000-2006: Establishing the Identity, 

2006-2011: Develop key Linkages and Resources and 2012-2020: Funding Diversification and Self-sustaining strategies. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are 

ahead of our schedule and we are already examining what we need to accomplish 

by 2020 and what partnerships, collaborations and resources we need to meet our 

objectives outlined in the Management Plan. Currently, we are developing a 3-year 

funding diversification and cultivation strategy for implementation in 2008, with the 

expectation that by 2012, we will be on target according to our Management Plan. 

During the development of the funding diversification and cultivation strategy, we 

will examine the role of all of our public/private partners, including our federal, 

state, local and private partners, to determine if there is a continued need for continued participation, as outlined in Senator Thomas’s National Heritage Area program legislation (S. 243). As part of the family of the National Park Service, there 

is a level of expectation and service that visitors to Heritage Areas have, due to the 

association with the National Park Service. When folks see the National Park Service logo attached to National Heritage Area materials, programs and projects, there 

is an immediate recognition that this is one of America’s special places and that 

visitors will have a quality experience. One of the ways to ensure quality and service of the programs and projects of National Heritage Areas is to maintain the partnership with the National Park Service. 

Question 4. (S. 1721, Omnibus Heritage Area Extensions): Should National Heritage Areas be made units of the national park system? 

Yes. Despite being in direct conflict with Senator Thomas’s National Heritage 

Area program legislation, S. 243, as well as the National Park Service Advisory 

Committee Report on Heritage Areas, I believe it is time to re-examine this issue. 

Even though the National Park Service Advisory Committee Report on Heritage 

Areas states, ‘‘the National Park Service must commit to Heritage Areas for the 

long term and welcome Heritage Areas into the system of the National Park Service,’’ the recent testimony by the National Park Service on our Reauthorization bill, 

S. 1721 contradicts that statement. It is apparent from their testimony that the National Park Service is not committed to National Heritage Areas, nor have they welcomed National Heritage Areas into the system of the National Park Service. 

I have reached the conclusion that the only way for the National Park Service to 

fully accept, embrace and understand National Heritage Areas, may be to make 

them units of the National Park System. Our situation is similar to the National 

Long Distance Trails, National Seashores and National Recreation Areas, who received similar treatment before becoming part of the National Park System. Rather 

than being treated as the ‘‘red-headed step child,’’ National Heritage Areas can be 

recognized for their contributions to resource conservation, stewardship cultivation 

and recreational opportunities. Additionally, some of the successes of National Heritage Areas, including public-private partnerships and leveraging significant 

amounts of private, local and state funding, can be applied to units of the National 

Park Service. Congress has thoroughly examined the benefits and successes of National Heritage Areas and their entrepreneurial ways of conserving nationally significant resources. As the National Park Service looks to fulfill its mission in the 

21st century, they can utilize the National Heritage Areas principles of leveraging 

private, local and state resources, cultivating public-private partnerships and develVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
56

oping entrepreneurial business practices to make the current system of National 

Park Service units more efficient and cost-effective. Finally, as units of the National 

Park Service, National Heritage Areas will demonstrate the significant costs savings 

of National Heritage Areas, compared to traditional National Park Service units. 

Rather than the traditional funding of between $5,000,000 and 8,000,000 annually 

to each unit of the National Park Service, National Heritage Areas fulfill the mission of the Service at a fraction of the cost. 

Based on these reasons, I believe it may be time to re-examine the issue of including National Heritage Areas as units of the National Park Service. 

RESPONSES OF GOVERNOR DONALD CARCIERI TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 1387, Blackstone River NHA Reauthorization): How many acres 

of state, Federal, and private land are there within the boundaries of the Blackstone 

River National Heritage Area? 

Answer. There are 400,000 acres of land within the boundaries of the Blackstone 

River Valley National Heritage Corridor. Of this total, approximately 26,000 acres 

are state-owned and 1,365 acres are Federally-owned. The rest is primarily in private ownership. 

Question 2. (S. 1387, Blackstone River NHA Reauthorization): Have any private 

land owners within the boundaries of the Blackstone River National Heritage Area 

objected to being included in the area? 

Answer. The Corridor Commission is not aware of any private land owners who 

have objected to being included in the area. On the contrary, several towns have 

expressed an interest in being included within the Corridor’s boundaries, based 

upon local citizen initiatives. The Corridor has no authority to own or control land. 

Rather, it works in partnership. The Corridor Commission developed a policy early 

on to avoid taking positions on land use disputes at the local level, acting instead 

as a mediator or ‘‘convenor’’ on issues related to the Corridor’s mission of resource 

protection. The Corridor has hosted public meetings on many occasions, inviting all 

factions and all levels of involvement, including Federal, state, and local governments, business entities, organizations, and local citizens. The purpose of these 

meetings has been to provide a neutral space for all parties to state their case, rather than to decide the outcome of a particular issue. This policy helped cement the 

Commission’s reputation for promoting ‘‘the big picture’’ and a true spirit of cooperation and collaboration. 

Question 3. (S. 1387, Blackstone River NHA Reauthorization): National Heritage 

Areas are established to form collaborative partnerships for identifying and managing areas with unique natural, cultural, and recreational resources. How much of 

the budget for the Blackstone River National Heritage Area is derived from Federal, 

state, and non-government sources? 

Answer. The BLAC operating budget ($800,000 in FY 2006 before recissions) is 

matched by the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island at least one-to-one. This 

requirement helps assure that each state is engaged in activities consistent with the 

ten-year work plan for the Corridor submitted to Congress. BLAC also has also received development funds in varying amounts throughout its 18 year term. BLAC 

has documented leveraging of 22 to 1 on those funds. A detailed breakdown of Federal appropriations and the leverage these funds have created in the Corridor was 

included in the Blackstone Sustainability Study, ‘‘Reflecting on the Past, Looking to 

the Future’’, which was published early this year, and is excerpted below: 

THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CORRIDOR’S MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

It is also important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the management structure. At the Commission’s request, the NPS serves as staff and coordinates and implements the management plan, working primarily through partnerships to protect 

the valley’s nationally important resources. The original assumption of the designation was that the heritage corridor management framework would be a less costly 

alternative to a traditional national park designation. While it may be difficult to 

compare the operations of a national heritage corridor and national park, it nonetheless demonstrates different funding scenarios and provides insights to the added 

value the NPS achieves through partnership management strategies. 

Below, we compare two national parks with the Blackstone National Heritage 

Corridor in terms of annual operating budget and staffing. The Chesapeake and 

Ohio Canal National Historical Park is a linear canalway traversing several states, 

and Lowell National Historical Park is an urban partnership park focused on industrial heritage. 

57

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park follows the route of the Potomac River for 184 miles from Washington, D.C., to Cumberland, Maryland, and 

encompasses 20,000 acres. The park manages a complex historic and natural resources program with an annual operating budget of $8.4 million and 122 full-time 

employees. 

Lowell National Historical Park encompasses 141 acres within the City of Lowell, 

Massachusetts, and is responsible for preserving and interpreting numerous historic 

and cultural resources and celebrating the beginnings of America’s industrial heritage. Lowell has an annual operating budget of $8.5 million and 112 full-time employees. 

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor encompasses an entire watershed of 400,000 acres and includes 24 cities and towns. It has a very broad mandate 

for the preservation, redevelopment, and interpretation of the cultural landscape. 

Blackstone has a current annual operating budget of approximately $1 million and 

14 full-time employees. 

Historic Preservation: The Commission has invested approximately $3,560,000 with an estimated return on this investment that exceeds $132,705,000. These 

projects include such activities as historic preservation of national register eligible 

properties, cultural landscape assessments, collection management and curation of 

historic objects, archaeological studies, and community preservation plans. 

Interpretation, Education and Tourism Development: The Commission has invested approximately $9,966,000 in historical research, interpretive and cultural 

programs, and educational programs, with an estimated return on this investment 

that exceeds $17,700,000. These projects include such activities as NPS-ranger guided tours and lectures, visitor center and museum development, exhibit design and 

fabrication, interpretive master plans for heritage sites and communities, curriculum development, support for cultural arts education and programming, development of interpretive brochures and websites, tourism marketing and promotion, 

a unified identity system, and public information program. 

Community Planning and Economic Development: The Commission has invested 

approximately $4,667,000 to assist communities in developing strategies and plans 

that help to support Corridor heritage preservation and development goals. It is difficult to put a definitive dollar value on much of the leverage to this investment. 

An estimated $292,371,000 in leverage contributed toward community revitalization 

projects, regional visions, transportation improvements, master planning for historic 

mill villages, land preservation, regional economic development plans, revitalization 

of historic industrial properties, and the redevelopment of historic mills. 

River Recovery and Recreation: The Commission has invested approximately $4,684,000, which has leveraged $79,121,000. These activities include developing 

parks, constructing the Blackstone River Bikeway, developing river landings and 

public access sites for boating and fishing, constructing trails, developing plans for 

the restoration of migratory fish, wetland and streambank restoration projects, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, watershed-wide education programs, and 

water quality monitoring and protection programs.

Commission leverage Commission

investment 

Partnership

leverage 

Historic Preservation .......................................... $3,559,810 $132,704,834

Interpretation, Education and Tourism ............ $9,965,629 $17,713,372

Community Planning and Economic Development ................................................................. $4,666,497 $292,370,886 River Recovery and Recreation .......................... $44,684,340 $79,120,938

Development funds are the most effective way we engage with our partners. More 

recently, BLAC has been able to require greater levels of collaboration and matching 

funds from our partners. For example; the Northern Gateway Visitor Center in 

Worcester, MA—a project which will anchor the northern end of the Corridor—was 

developed as a result of a feasibility and engineering study partially funded by the 

Corridor Commission. That contribution, along with funding set aside for exhibit development, consists of about $700,000 in funding from the Corridor. This contribution leveraged a commitment of $6.4 million in federal transportation funds, $1.6 

million in state matching funds, and $2 million from the City of Worcester. In addition, the Visitor Center’s prime tenant and operating entity, the Worcester Historical Museum, expects to raise between $5 million and $7 million to develop a worldclass museum facility in the Visitor Center. It is unlikely that this complex project 

would have succeeded without the upfront ‘‘seed’’ money provided by the Corridor 

Commission. 

58

Question 4. (S. 1387, Blackstone River NHA Reauthorization): Dr. Sullivan, we 

have just heard the director of a heritage area in Connecticut state that she plans 

to be self-sustaining and free of Federal funding by the year 2015. When do you expect the Blackstone River National Heritage Area to be a self-sustaining entity with 

no requirement for Federal funds? 

Answer. The question of becoming self-sustaining is one that post-dates the designation of the Corridor in 1986. BLAC was only the second National Heritage Corridor designated. No heritage area program or set of guidelines existed at that time. 

Certainly the Commissioners had no expectation of becoming self-sustaining after 

five years when Congress first reauthorized the Commission, or even after ten 

years, when Congress extended the Commission’s authorization in 1996. Early on, 

Commission reviews suggested that it would take at least 20 years to make the Corridor’s legislative mission and vision sustainable without Federal funding through 

the National Park Service. Even that estimate failed to fully reflect the scale of the 

task faced by the Commission. 

While the newer heritage areas can take advantage of a well-established template, BLAC spent much of its early years creating that template. The first Management Plan, begun from scratch, took 18 months to be completed and approved. 

Newer areas can complete these tasks in much less time because of policies and procedures that were pioneered and shared by BLAC. The Sustainability Study undertaken by the BLAC was precedent setting. BLAC was the first area to conceive of 

such an open ‘‘audit’’ of their practices and procedures and to invite the public to 

help critique the effectiveness of the Heritage Corridor and say how they would like 

to see the Commission operate in the future. The Conservation Study Institute was 

engaged because of its talent and ability to act as a third party reviewer. 

Each Heritage Area must have a management entity appropriate to the landscape 

and people within its borders. For BLAC, that has been a Federal commission because of the bi-state nature of its operations. BLAC has had a close alliance with 

the National Park Service, and its citizens sent a resounding note of confidence in 

this management entity and NPS partnership. BLAC has requested a Special Resource Study be conducted to help determine the Corridor’s future relationship with 

the NPS, and NPS has endorsed this position to your Committee. BLAC intends to 

use its next reauthorization period to study and recommend future management options for the Corridor. Because 5 communities, and most importantly the City of 

Worcester, the second largest city in New England, have only participated in the 

Heritage Corridor for 10 years, and the northern leg of the Corridor is, therefore, 

not completed, the Commission believes that 10 years, rather than 5 years, would 

be more appropriate to the job left to complete. River restoration and the completion 

of the northern section of the Blackstone Bikeway that will link the entire Heritage 

Corridor and join with the East Coast Greenway require the leadership and convening abilities of the Blackstone Corridor Commission. 

(59)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

ADAMS STATE COLLEGE, 

Alamosa, CO, June 16, 2006. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

On behall of Adams State College, I am pleased to lend our support to the efforts 

of the Sangre de Cristo National Historical Area Committee. We wholeheartedly endorse congressional designation of the tri-county area of Conejo Costilla, and 

Alamosa counties as a national historic area. This designation will greatly enhance 

the historical, recreation, and economic situations of this area. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 719-587-7341. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID P. SVALDI, 

President. 

CITY OF ALAMOSA, 

Alamosa, CO, June 16, 2006. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

On behalf of the City of Alamosa, please accept this as support for the efforts toward Sangre de Cristo National Historic Designation Area of Alamosa, Conejos and 

Costilla Counties. 

The designation of this area will enhance tourism, heritage, recreation, and economic development of the entire San Luis Valley. 

Please give this request your favorable consideration. 

Sincerely, 

FARRIS J. BERVIG, 

Mayor of the City of Alamosa. 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

Boston, MA, June 21, 2006. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: I am writing to express my support for Senate Bill 1387, 

relative to the reauthorization of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and Commission. 

As you know, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor serves the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Rhode Island. The work of the 

Commission has had substantial, positive economic and environmental impacts on 

our states, and has helped to further interstate cooperation on a number of fronts. 

The Commission’s efforts have demonstrably improved water quality, opening up 

new opportunities for business, tourism and outdoor recreation. Notably, the numbers of fish and wild animals have increased, and Great Blue Herons and Bald Eagles have returned to the river valley. Much of this progress has been the direct 

result of the Commission’s involvement and dedicated work. Passage of SB 1387 

would affirm the federal government’s commitment to this tremendously successful 

partnership. 

60

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would urge your favorable consideration of this important piece of legislation. 

Sincerely, 

MITT ROMNEY, 

Governor. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, June 22, 2006. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN THOMAS AND RANKING MEMBER AKAKA: We are writing to commend the Subcommittee for scheduling a hearing on S. 1387, the John H. Chafee 

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Reauthorization Act of 2005, 

and we respectfully urge you to report this legislation favorably. 

The Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor was established in 1986 in recognition of the national importance of the region as the birthplace of the American 

Industrial Revolution. Redesignated in 1999 as the John. H. Chafee Blackstone 

River Valley National Heritage Corridor, the Corridor has become a national model 

of how the National Park Service, without federal ownership and regulations, can 

work cooperatively with local communities and a multi-agency partnership to create 

a seamless system of parks, preserved historic sites, and open spaces that enhance 

the protection and understanding of America’s heritage. The Corridor is managed 

by a bi-state, 19 member federal Commission, which represents federal, state, and 

local authorities and citizens from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the 

State of Rhode Island. The Commission’s federal stature has made it an extremely 

effective management entity for coordinating two states and 24 local governments 

around a common action agenda. 

As you may know, the authorization and funding for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Commission are scheduled to expire November 

2006 unless reauthorized by Congress. S. 1387 would provide for the update of the 

Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the Corridor, extend the authority of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission for an additional ten years, and authorize operating and development funding appropriations to enable the Commission to continue its work. 

The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is important to Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as well as to our entire nation. Please let 

us extend to you our appreciation in advance for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, 

RICHARD E. NEAL, 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, 

Members of Congress. 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, June 22, 2006. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

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

DEAR CHAIRMAN THOMAS: As cosponsors to Senate Bill 1721, the National Heritage Area Extension Act of 2005, we would like to take this opportunity to convey 

our strong support for reauthorization of the National Heritage Areas Program. 

The National Heritage Areas Program has been very beneficial to communities 

throughout the country. Heritage Areas are proven methods of community preservation and revitalization. 

Currently, Iowa is fortunate to have the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership. This Heritage Area encompasses a 37-county region and covers more than 

20,000 square miles. The Partnership is helping to preserve significant agricultural 

and industrial events from our history. America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership 

61

was part of the originally authorized Heritage Areas in the Omnibus Parks and 

Public Lands Act of 1996. 

In addition, the Mississippi River National Heritage Area would be established to 

serve the counties bordering this mighty river in ten states, one of which is Iowa. 

This Heritage Area would help inventory, improve, promote, and preserve the resources and rich culture along our nation’s river. 

We appreciate your consideration of this program before your committee this 

week, and hope that you are able to support the National Heritage Area Extension 

Act of 2005. Please call on us if you need additional information, or if we can be 

of service as you work to reauthorize program. 

Sincerely, 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, 

TOM HARKIN, 

U.S. Senators. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIE C. HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ESSEX NATIONAL

HERITAGE COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I am pleased to submit the following written testimony in support of S. 1721, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. I am writing in favor of the 

provisions included in S. 1721 to extend reauthorization for the nine National Heritage Areas, including the Essex National Heritage Area, authorized under this Act 

to receive up to $10 million in appropriations over a fifteen year period. 

I serve as the Executive Director of the Essex National Heritage Commission. The 

Commission is the designated management entity for the Essex National Heritage 

Area. Operating under the oversight of a 25 member board of trustees, 150 commissioners and 62 ex officio commissioners, the Commission coordinates preservation, 

conservation and education programs in throughout this 500 square mile area north 

of Boston, Massachusetts. Essex National Heritage Area, along with the other eight 

National Heritage Areas established in the Act of 1996, has an impressive ten-year 

track record in preserving America’s heritage through innovative and successful 

public-private partnerships at every level of government. S. 1721 would allow this 

worthwhile work to continue by extending the federal funding and permitting the 

National Park Service to continue to participate this important work. 

There are four questions that are frequently asked about the National Heritage 

Areas. These questions go to the core of the National Heritage Areas. I have answered them below and illustrated my answers with examples from the Essex National Heritage Area.

1. What are the public benefits of the National Heritage Areas? 

2. Does the National Park Service derive significant benefits from the National Heritage Areas? 

3. Why should Congress consider reauthorizing the National Heritage Areas? 

4. Do National Heritage Areas restrict private property rights?

1. What are the public benefits of the National Heritage Areas? The National Heritage Areas provide significant national, regional and local benefits to the American 

public in these ways:

a. NHAs preserve nationally important historic sites, develop regional recreational facilities (such as bikeways and trails), and foster community revitalization through the rehabilitation of historic and cultural resources. 

b. NHAs leverage their annual federal appropriations, regularly attracting between $3 to $12 in private, local and state investment for every $1 of federal 

investment ‘seeded’ in the Area. 

c. NHAs build dynamic civic partnerships by bringing together hundreds of 

volunteers, businesspeople, educators and elected officials to work together to 

revitalize their communities.

Examples: The Essex National Heritage Area contains more than 9,200 National Register of Historic Places properties, 607 National Register districts and 

24 National Historic Landmarks. The Area interprets three nationally significant themes: Early European settlement, American maritime history in the 

Great Age of Sail and the early Industrial Revolution, and conserves four major 

heritage landscapes. The Essex National Heritage Area plays a critical role in 

facilitating collaborative programs across the region including an extensive Heritage Landscape Inventory that identified more than 1,300 resources, two scenic 

byways designations, and thirty miles of proposed rail-trail development. The 

62

ENHA ‘Trails & Sails’ event annually attracts more than 3,500 people, introducing them to the rich heritage resources of the region and engaging them in 

the long-term preservation and promotion of these significant assets. Bikeways, 

trails, regional tourism, downtown revitalization, education and recreation are 

all important aspects of ENHA. In 2005 alone, the Essex National Heritage 

Area hosted 1,182,000 cultural visitors, oversaw 10,500 hours of volunteer time, 

managed 369 formal and informal partnerships, made 33 direct grants, worked 

on projects that improved 37 National Register properties, and offered education 

programs that engaged 340 people. During the past 10 years, the Essex National Heritage Area has gained extraordinary momentum but the work is ongoing and should not be stopped in mid stride.

2. Does the National Park Service derive significant benefits from the National 

Heritage Areas? The National Park Service derives important benefits from their affiliation with the National Heritage Areas, and many of these have been identified 

in the ‘‘Report by the National Park System Advisory Board’s Partnership Committee’’ which notes that ‘‘National Heritage Areas contribute to the mission of the 

National Park Service’’ and ‘‘the National Heritage Area approach . . . can serve 

as a model for achieving NPS collaborative conservation goals.’’ It is our experience 

that the following benefits result from the collaboration between the National Heritage Areas and the Park Service:

a. NHAs build goodwill for the National Park Service especially in areas 

where the Heritage Area is adjacent to or surrounds the NPS site. 

b. NHAs promote partnerships between residents and the Park Service on a 

broad range of projects from small, one time events to large volunteer maintenance and construction projects. 

c. NHAs often provide significant additional resources, monetary and otherwise, to the Park Service. 

d. NHAs support the mission of the Park Service and allow many of parks 

to focus on their core resources more effectively.

Examples: The Essex National Heritage Area partners with the National 

Park Service’s Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus Ironworks 

National Historic Site on a wide variety of projects. There is the tall ship 

‘‘Friendship’’ volunteer program where 200+ volunteers maintain and sail the 

NPS tall ship thus saving the Salem Maritime NH Site thousands of dollars 

each year in maintenance and operations costs. Recently, the Essex National 

Heritage Area has provided assistance to Salem Maritime for the acquisition of 

a dock for their Visiting Vessels program, an important NPS initiative developed to generate new educational activities and revenue for the park. Another 

example is the interpretive thematic trails that ENHA has developed cooperatively with NPS that are designed to educate residents and visitors about the 

history of the park and the surrounding region and that also encourage the economic benefits of increased visitation. The Essex National Heritage Area works 

cooperatively with local area colleges, the National Archives regional office and 

the National Park Service on exhibits and primary source research projects, and 

this in turn enables the NPS to have new exhibits and educational programs 

at no cost to the park.

3. Why should Congress consider reauthorizing the National Heritage Areas? The 

work of the National Heritage Areas is not complete. While there are many successful initiatives and projects, ten years is too short a time to build and maintain hundreds of lasting collaborative partnerships. The National Heritage Areas should not 

be stopped in mid-stream when so much more can be accomplished by continuing 

the relationship with the National Park Service and the small investment of federal 

funds.

a. NHAs have proven to be very effective historic preservation and resource 

conservation tools. Hundreds of National Register properties have benefited 

from the support of the National Heritage Areas. Miles of trails have been 

cleared and improved by the Areas. A multitude of cultural organizations and 

civic groups have revitalized their communities with the guidance of the National Heritage Areas. These improvements benefit not only the residents but 

also the thousands of tourists who visit the National Heritage Areas every year 

(68 million visitors at last count). 

b. NHAs have built hundreds of regional and local partnerships to carry out 

their work. These relationships are usually carefully nurtured over many years, 

and often include small investments of ‘seed’ funding to assist the partners in 

the cooperative projects. These ‘seed’ funds allow the National Heritage Areas 

63

to build trust among formerly competing organizations, and in turn, this stability has enabled these organizations to attract additional matching funds from 

a wide range of new sources. All of the National Heritage Areas are working 

diligently to develop sustainable sources of revenue, but it is too early in the 

process to zero out the federal funding. These funds provide a stable platform 

upon which many new cooperative ventures are being built. All of the partners 

need to remain ‘at the table’ for a while longer so that this model can continue 

to mature. 

c. NHAs and their special affiliation with the National Park Service are designated in perpetuity. The quality of the National Heritage Area has a direct 

bearing on the public’s perception of the National Park Service. Up to this 

point, the National Heritage Areas have reflected well on the Park Service, 

however without any public assistance for their base operations and programming, this may not be the case in the future. 

d. NHAs have oversight from the National Park Service through Cooperative 

Agreements that specific the federal funding and the annual work program for 

each National Heritage Area. With no federal appropriations, there will not be 

Cooperative Agreements and the Park Service will not be in a position to provide oversight to the work of the National Heritage Areas despite their continuing affiliation with the Service.

Example: To date the Essex National Heritage Area has made 228 direct 

grants to historic preservation projects, heritage education programs, trail development, interpretative projects and historical records preservation. These 

grants total $1,351,000 and have leveraged $4,123,000 in additional direct investment in these resources. The National Heritage also makes other types of 

grants such as twenty-one survey and planning grants to archival organizations 

where hundreds of thousands of nationally significant historical records are 

housed and grants to the regional visitor centers who collaborate with the National Park Service to welcome tourists to the Area. In addition, the Essex National Heritage Area maintains over 300 formal and informal partnerships that 

promote the heritage resources in the region in broad array of projects ranging 

from bikeway planning to seed funding. The National Heritage Area works 

closely with the National Park Service’s Salem Maritime and Saugus Ironworks 

National Historic Sites on education, interpretation, and preservation projects 

that are outlined in the annual cooperative agreement. These projects feature 

the historic themes of the two National Park units and integrate the park 

themes into projects with other regional partners. For example, ‘‘Using Essex 

History’’ highlights Salem and Saugus along with other significant historic sites 

in a multi-year project that links teaching history to the statewide standards 

testing. The ‘‘100 Milestones’’ celebrates many significant accomplishments in 

regional preservation and community engagement including the National Park 

Service’s resources.

4. Do National Heritage Areas restrict private property rights? The simple answer 

is no; there is nothing in the National Heritage Area legislation or in their practice 

that restricts the rights of property owners to own, develop or change their property. 

Some people confuse the limitations imposed by local authorities such as zoning and 

planning boards as somehow being the purview of the National Heritage Area. This 

is incorrect.

a. NHAs do not have any regulatory authority explicit or implied in the legislative acts that established them. 

b. NHAs do not have legal authority to tell private property owners what they 

can and cannot do, nor is there any evidence that they try to do this. 

c. NHAs are not mandated to affiliate with other regulatory federal and state 

agencies. In fact, the cooperative nature of the work of the National Heritage 

Areas dictates the opposite.

Example: The Essex National Heritage Area works to inspire residents and 

their communities to cooperative in preserving and promoting their heritage resources. The Area’s collaborative partnerships seek to demonstrate the benefits 

derived from heritage while they reframe from interfering with local decisions. 

With the hundreds of formal and informal partners working on matters that affect a substantial portion of the 9,000 national register properties in this region 

as well as acres of open space and trails, the Essex National Heritage Area has 

a proven track record of excellent relationships with all levels of government 

and civic organizations, and at no time is there evidence that this work has limited the rights of private property owners to do what they wish with their property.

64

In conclusion: The work of the National Heritage Areas requires that all of the 

partners in this exciting experiment continue to cooperate and work together. The 

successes to date are clearly documented, but the challenges for heritage preservation and community revitalization are still many. This is a work-in-progress that 

should be continued. Perhaps no group has said it better than the National Park 

System Advisory Board’s Partnerships Committee. In their recent study of the National Heritage Areas, they concluded that ‘‘the National Park Service can benefit 

from the National Heritage Areas approach to conserving nationally important living landscapes and cultures’’ and they recommended that the Director of the National Park Service and by extension the Park Service and Congress:

1. Create a home for Heritage Areas in the Park System 

2. Commit to Heritage Areas for the long-term 

3. Provide for unique legislative authorities 

4. Extend our reach to gateway communities 

5. Support research and understand partnership networks.

Their study recognizes that ‘‘National Heritage Areas are founded on consensusbased planning, local commitments and a network of long-term partnerships. For 

this reason a long-term commitment is needed to achieve meaningful progress.’’ The 

National Heritage Areas endorse this conclusion and urge this committee to reauthorize the nine National Heritage Areas established in the Act of 1996. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for your 

consideration of this matter and for the opportunity to make a written presentation 

to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF THE CONEJOS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We the Conejos County Board of 

Commissioners would like to submit the following testimony in support of Senate 

bill 2037 for the purpose of establishing the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage 

Area in the San Luis Valley located in Southern Colorado. 

The passage of this bill would enhance the opportunity this designation would 

bring to the Counties of Alamosa, Conejos and Costilla. The designation would bring 

economic opportunities to the two poorest counties in the state of Colorado. Although, we have been called the poorest counties in the state, we are rich in culture 

and heritage. The opportunity to share our area’s history and culture would entice 

tourism into our communities and bring economic value to our local businesses and 

agricultural community. 

The idea of a National Heritage Area concept was introduced by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization called the Los Caminos Antiguos Scenic and Historic Byway 

(LCA). Through the efforts of the LCA a steering committee was formed, this was 

the beginning of much hard work and perseverance to make the heritage area a reality. Hundred of hours in planning, research, committee and community meetings 

took place over a 5 year period of time. Over time much support was gained from 

citizens, organizations, local and regional governments. All groups recognized the 

need to capture and preserve the unique blend of the native American, Hispano and 

Anglo settlement and to preserve the history, art and traditions or future generations. 

‘‘The mission of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is to promote, preserve, protect, document and interpret its profound historical, religious, environmental, geographic, geologic, cultural, and linguistic resources’’. The efforts will contribute to the overall national story engender a spirit or pride and self-reliance, and 

create a legacy in the Colorado counties of Alamosa, Conejos and Costilla. 

A feasibility study that was required by both the U.S. Congress and the National 

Park Service was produced by using local and regional professional writers, historians, academics and local citizens, working on a volunteer basis. 

The heritage and history of the area has been well preserved through the isolation 

of the San Luis Valley and through local preservation and conservation efforts. 

The abundance of historical and cultural sites is described in detail in the feasibility study. Although there are many historical and cultural sites in Conejos County, the following are a few sites that have played an important part of early history 

in the State of Colorado:

• Pike’s Stockade—the contact between the Anglo and Hispanic cultures in the 

San Luis Valley. Dating back to 1806 the encounter between Lt. Zebulon Pike 

and Spanish scouts, the stockade was constructed on the Conejos River. 

• Our Lady of Guadalupe Church—considered the oldest Church in Colorado, established in 1856. 

65

• The Lobato Bridge—one of three iron bridges remaining in the United States 

constructed in 1892. This bridge was the first bridge constructed in Colorado 

over the Rio Grande. Iron and lumber at a cost of $8,400 was brought in by 

wagon. 

• Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad—going into new New Mexico on February 

1, 1881. The railroad not only conquered the Sangre de Cristos and the San 

Juan Mountains, but brought the blend and diverse ethnic and racial groups 

that still live in harmony today. This nineteenth-century steam railroad provides an adventure for tourists to enjoy yet another historical experience.

We the Conejos County Board of Commissioners and on behalf of our citizens ask 

and urge you to consider and approve S. 2037 bill designating the Sangre de Cristo 

National Heritage Area. 

STATEMENT OF DARIUS ALLEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ALAMOSA

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, am Darius Allen, Chairman of the 

Board of Alamosa County Commissioners and in support of S. 2037, the Sangre de 

Cristo National Heritage Area Act, appreciate the opportunity to present my 

thoughts on behalf of the Board of Alamosa County Commissioners on the proposed 

legislation. 

S. 2307 proposes to designate the counties of Alamosa, Conejos and Costilla, 

Monte Vista National Wildlife Relive, the Baca National Wildlife Refuge, the Great 

Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve as a National Heritage Area and to establish guidelines, standards and requirements for the Area. A local 501(c)(3) nonprofit 

board of directors will be put in place and would be designated as the management 

entity for the Heritage Area to work with the National Park Service and the many 

local heritage organizations. 

The mission of the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area is to promote, preserve, protect, document and interpret its profound historical, religious, environmental, geographic, geologic, cultural and linguistic resources. These efforts will 

contribute to the overall national story, engender a spirit of pride and self reliance 

and create a legacy in the Colorado Counties of Alamosa, Conejos and Costilla. 

THE SANGRE DE CRISTO NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IS RICH IN CULTURE AND

HISTORY AND WORTHY OF PRESERVATION

The Sangre de Cristo National Heritage located in the South Central part of Colorado is rich in culture and natural resources. The people of the San Luis Valley 

have found ways to preserve their cultural and natural heritage. There are historical structures and land that still exist today such as Mexican land grants, the narrow gauge railroad also known as the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroads Pikes 

Stockade, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Fort Garland. The language, art, 

architecture, religious tradition of the Native American early Spanish colonists and 

Mexican settlers is still alive and thriving in the area. The towns of San Luis and 

Antonito, Colorado are the two oldest settlements in the State. The area still contain 

moradas (place of worship, the oldest church in Colorado, murals, the first mercantile of the region, the first water right and La Vega (the last remaining commons 

area in the United States that is still used for its original purposes) which is located 

in Costilla County, Colorado. Festivals and religious celebrations including century 

old procession of Los Hermanos Penitentes are still hosted today. 

The Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area inhabited over 11,000 years by native people, including Ute, Navajo, Apache, Tiwa, Tewa, Comanche, Kiowa and 

Arapaho remains central to native cultures and is home to Mount Blanca (one of 

Colorado’s 14,000 foot peaks) also known as Sisnaajini, a sacred mountain for Navajo and other people that marks the eastern boundary of their world. There are also 

petroglyphs and pictographs along the Rio Grande telling stories and cosmologies 

of early inhabitants. The San Luis Valley is beautiful in nature surrounded by the 

San Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The San Luis Valley is one of the largest alpine valleys in North America and has an abundance of natural resources. 

I believe the San Luis Valley is very unique because of the preservation of culture 

and the strong historical significance. The San Luis Valley history has been well 

preserved through isolation and conservation efforts. 

A volunteer steering committee worked hundreds of hours in committee meetings, 

research, and public meetings to organize and gain support or this effort. There are 

resolutions from local governments that show support with the feasibility study that 

has been submitted to Congress. I strongly urge you to pass Senate Bill 2037. This 

66

will enable the people to preserve the rich culture and natural resources of the San 

Luis Valley. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to submit a written testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD P. SHORT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SILOS & SMOKESTACKS

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership, also known as Silos & Smokestacks 

National Heritage Area, is a thirty seven county area located in Northeast Iowa. We 

are the second largest of the twenty seven National Heritage Areas and the only 

one telling the story of American agriculture through a network of over ninety partner sites covering more than 20,000 square miles. 

Silos & Smokestacks is proud to have distributed over $1.3 million to assist partner sites in telling the story of American agriculture through grant programs. Our 

cash matching requirements for this program has created a five to one multiplier 

effect. 

Launched in 2001, CampSilos (campsilos.org) educational website targets students 

in grades 4-8 with online educational material related to all aspects of agriculture. 

Student activities, teacher lesson plans and virtual field trips are featured on the 

website with over forty thousand (40,000) hits per month. The National Education 

Association recognized CampSilos with a national 2nd place award in 2003 for quality education. 

SSNHA is also nationally recognized for its L.I.F.E. (Living an Iowa Farm Experience) Tours group travel program creating relationships with several foreign countries including Denmark, Norway, France, England, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, 

Ireland and now (October, 06) Argentina. Life Tours has definitely impacted Iowa’s 

six billion dollar tourism industry yet state funding ranks third from the bottom nationally. 

Silos & Smokestacks acts as a facilitator for small communities. We provide technical assistance, hospitality training workshops and grant opportunities to help 

them become self supporting. Our support helps them ‘‘jump-start’’ projects that 

may never become a reality for small town Iowa to again prosper. 

SUMMARY

Silos & Smokestacks provides the tools for its people and communities to preserve 

and tell the story of American agriculture. Fewer people are living in rural areas. 

As farming becomes more automated, the people are separated farther from how 

their food is grown and processed. Silos is the critical link to preserve the stories 

and the culture. 

The most difficult dollars to raise are for administrative expenses. Nobody wants 

to fund an organization’s daily operating. When federal funding stops the wheels 

could slowly come to a halt. Federal funding brings other partners to the table and 

has enabled us to create a match of the fed funds. The small rural communities do 

not have the audiences to fund many of the initiatives needed for sustainability. 

Heritage Areas provide the critical supporting link. 

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, Leadership Advisors and Partnership Panel 

of Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area, we’re asking you to pass S. 1721. 

Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley are strong supporters of this bill. A letter of support was delivered to your committee at the hearing on June 22, 2006. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE MCCOLLUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA

NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

The South Carolina National Heritage Corridor (SCNHC) is one of 27 congressionally designated heritage areas in the country. A ‘National Heritage Area’ is a place 

where natural, cultural, historic and scenic resources combine to form a cohesive, 

nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped by 

geography. 

A recent National Park Service survey shows that almost 45 million people across 

17 states live within a national heritage area. The very nature of the ‘heritage area’ 

structure engages communities to work in partnership across jurisdictional boundaries to improve their future by building on a shared past. This is a very unique 

and effective way for the federal government to impact local communities with minimal investment. It is important to note that a recently conducted GAO report stated 

that national heritage areas do not infringe upon private property rights. National 

67

Heritage Areas allow the federal government to preserve, protect and promote the 

resources of these areas without acquiring or managing additional land or programs. 

Many projects such as downtown revitalization, adaptive reuse of historic structures, preservation of diverse cultures, and conservation of unique and endangered 

landscapes are initiated within and by National Heritage Areas. Heritage Area programs also provide training to individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations 

in grant writing, strategic planning, product development and marketing. Large 

scale technical assistance programs as well as local grant programs are part of the 

leveraging process used to build on the federal seed money. On average, National 

Heritage Areas leverage $10 to every federal $1 that is invested, proving that this 

program is an investment, not an expense, for the federal government. National 

Heritage Areas are also required to match federal funds dollar-for-dollar, thus spurring local investment and building a foundation for local partnerships. 

The importance of the National Heritage Program cannot be overstated. Tourism 

is growing worldwide and Heritage Tourism is the fastest growing segment and the 

segment with the greatest per capita expenditures by tourists. Unless our nation focuses on this segment of worldwide tourism we will be losing ground to other countries which are putting major emphasis on this growing trend. 

The SCNHC was designated in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. The program began under the leadership of the SC Department 

of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and has now moved under the direct management 

of a public/private partnership Board of Directors. This has been a very important 

move for our organization and is part of the overall strategy to become self sustaining. 

The development of the SCNHC has been an important program for our state. Not 

only does the SCNHC preserve and promote ‘‘pride of place’’ in South Carolina, it 

also tells a national story as our state is one of the original thirteen colonies and 

one which has had a disproportionately large impact on national events. Unlike 

many other National Heritage Areas, the SCNHC is not a single destination, but 

a wide variety of sites and attractions. These locations are extremely diverse, and 

they are in many cases ‘‘authentic’’ and ‘‘raw’’ as opposed to ‘‘manmade’’ and ‘‘polished’’. Many facets of historic and rural ‘‘Americana’’ can be experienced within the 

boundaries of our heritage area. Our themes include Native American History; 

Frontier and Colonial Life; Military History; Transportation; and African American 

History. Few programs interpret this level and depth of history and provide such 

a unique and educational experience. 

By weaving the threads of South Carolina’s history, culture and natural resources 

together in a defined area, the state has added to its available tourism product and 

increased visitation and spending. According to a study prepared by Lane, Frenchman and Associates of Boston, completion of the SCNHC 10 year management plan 

will mean as many as 700,000 additional visitor days and will generate $83.5 million in new tourism revenue each year; rising, of course, as the work continues. 

The SCNHC currently works with over 70 local communities and over 120 designated sites to build a foundation that protects area resources and creates quality 

community infrastructure. Since our inception we have successfully completed over 

100 large-scale projects, and are currently working on over 40 more, while also providing programming and major marketing efforts. Product development in the Corridor has centered chiefly on the creation of tourism infrastructure in areas of the 

state that have not always seen the benefits of tourism. As tourism ‘product’ is developed, it is phased into our Discovery System, the mechanism that provides regional interpretation, way-finding and visitors services to tourism locations in our 

14-county area. 

This system is continuously gaining momentum and will ultimately have a major 

economic impact on the heritage area and the state. At this time, half of our system 

has been installed and we need more time and additional federal investment in 

order to complete the foundational structure of the program. This will include the 

design, fabrication and installation of visitor centers, interpretive signage and directional signage in the final two of our four regions. This will also include the completion of over 100 large-scale projects in the rural areas of our state and the development and execution of a major marketing program. 

The entrepreneurial spirit of this program has successfully engaged local citizens 

and they are working together through public-private partnerships to preserve and 

promote the structures, places and traditions that provide a sense of place and a 

unique quality of life for South Carolinians. The SCNHC has served as an incubator 

and a catalyst for heritage tourism development across the state. The efforts within 

our heritage area have led to the development of numerous statewide initiatives 

such as the South Carolina Farmer’s Association and the South Carolina Artisans 

Consortium. It has also placed an emphasis on protecting and celebrating the diverVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:39 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 109663 PO 30701 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30701.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
68

sity of cultures in South Carolina such as the influence of Native American, African 

and Caribbean culture in today’s society. Most importantly, our efforts have stimulated the economy by diversifying economic development initiatives in areas that are 

struggling with the loss of manufacturing jobs and a changing economy. 

Some examples of our accomplishments include:

• The development of two Regional Discovery Centers that serve as visitor’s centers as well as rural tourism development centers. Programming, special events 

and training workshops are held regularly at these locations. 

• The development of a large-scale interpretation system that links together over 

100 sites and attractions throughout 10 counties of our heritage area. This system is complimented by a comprehensive way-finding signage program. Development is still needed in four of our counties. 

• The restoration and adaptive reuse of major historic structures within our heritage area to include the Walhalla Civic Auditorium, the Anderson Arts Warehouse, the Springfield High School and the Lourie Theatre. These four structures alone have diversified economic opportunities, created jobs and increased 

the quality of life for their communities. 

• Awarded over $2.5 million in grants to local projects. Once complete, these 

projects are phased into our program and marketed for visitation and development. 

• Created a partnership with Barbados to highlight the influx of Caribbean influence into our heritage area and ultimately the nation. A joint development and 

marketing plan is currently being created to spur European visitation to both 

countries based on our shared past. 

• Provided much needed technical assistance and training to our communities in 

areas such as product development, marketing, visitor’s services and grant writing. This type of assistance is on-going and has a major impact on rural communities. 

• As a compliment to our economic development initiatives, educational programs 

have been implemented in local schools and our children’s program currently 

has over 450 members.

It is extremely important to point out that the SCNHC comprises 14 counties 

across the state of South Carolina. The impacts of the Corridor have been so great 

for our communities that three additional counties have expressed an interest in 

being added to our program. This will enlarge our Heritage Area to 17 counties and 

a length of over 450 miles. Again, unlike many other heritage areas, the federal investment into our program is spread out not only geographically, but also programmatically. The size of our Heritage Area also increases the time needed to become 

fully established and self-sustaining. Although we have made significant progress, 

10 years is certainly not enough time to complete a project of this proportion. 

Just as all of the Heritage Areas included in S. 1721, the SCNHC was established 

with a 10-year Management Plan to guide the work of the program for the next 10 

years. This was not meant to be a limitation on the life of the National Heritage 

Area, only a limitation on the timeframe of the plan. At the end, or near the conclusion of the Management Plan, the National Heritage Areas were charged with the 

responsibility to chart out their next 10-year strategy. Since the designation of the 

‘‘Class of 1996’’ the individual heritage areas, partner organizations and the National Park Service have all discovered better, more effective ways to operate the 

heritage area program and many of these points are addressed in the Heritage Area 

program bill, S. 243. At this critical point, we need to ensure that the ‘‘Class of 

1996’’ is not penalized for being the test case for the movement before these issues 

were resolved. 

I cannot emphasize enough that the SCNHC understands the need to become self 

sustaining and we are currently in the process of conducting a new 10 year management plan that will include a sustainability plan. This sustainability plan will map 

out a strategy for diversifying funding sources for the program and will solidify the 

on-going development of our heritage area. Because of the fact that the management 

of our program has only recently transferred from a government agency to a public/

private Board of Directors, precious years were lost in which sustainability was not 

a major focus. I assure you that if granted reauthorization our Board of Directors 

will maximize the federal investment and will become self sustaining by the end of 

the authorization period. 

Our new management plan has not been completed at this point; however, several 

goals have already been established:

• Create and implement a strategy for diversification of funding sources for the 

sustainability of the SCNHC. 

69

• Complete the development of the SCNHC Discovery System throughout the entire heritage area to include two (2) additional visitor centers and interpretive 

signage at over 150 additional locations. 

• Implement a tourism plan with the country of Barbados to spur European visitation to both countries based on the ‘‘Carolina—Caribbean Connection’’. 

• Develop Corridor-wide educational programs to be implemented at partner locations and in school-districts within our heritage area. 

• Work with the SC Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Arts, and Parks, 

Recreation and Tourism to further solidify cultural tourism as an economic development tool in the state through major product development and marketing 

efforts.

Heritage tourism development, like all other economic development initiatives, is 

an on-going process. It is also a lengthy process. It takes time to build the type of 

grassroots support and participation that makes the heritage area program successful. This is particularly true of heritage areas encompassing numerous counties and 

numerous themes. The large-scale projects that are initiated by heritage areas also 

take many years to complete as preservation and conservation involves the input 

and assistance of many citizens, organizations and government entities. 

The federal funding appropriated to national heritage areas serves as the foundation for securing state, local and private investment. If this foundation is removed, 

it will surely impede, and could possibly halt, the unprecedented work that has been 

accomplished thus far. The South Carolina National Heritage Corridor has a proven 

record of successfully leveraging the federal investment AND improving the communities that we serve. For these reasons, reauthorization is a necessary and logical 

request. 

The Board of Directors of the SCNHC, the fourteen counties and numerous municipalities within the boundaries of our heritage area, and the many citizens of our 

state appreciate the support and assistance of Congress over the past ten years and 

respectfully request that Congress review our successes, access the impact of the 

federal investment and grant reauthorization through the passage of S. 1721 so that 

our important work can continue.

Æ