TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND AMERICAN 

HERITAGE AREAS ACTS OF 1995 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1280 

A BILL TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION OF 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

AND 

H.R. 1301 

A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS 

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

90-778 cc 

MARCH 28, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Document,, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047300-4 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY, Califurnia 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLA.RD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi11 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Chief of Staff 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator JOHN LAWRENCE, Miru>rity Staff Director 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMI'l'TEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

WAYNE ALLA.RD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona Samoa 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachus~tts 

WES COOLEY, Oregon CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho Rico 

LINDA SMITH, Washington NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/ Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held March 28, 1995 ............................................................................... .. Text of H.R. 1280 .................................................................................................... . Text of H.R. 1301 .................................................................................................... . Statements of Members: Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .............................. . Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ................. . Hefley, Hon. Joel, a U.S. Representative from Colorado ............................. . Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .................... . Statements of witnesses: Galvin, Dennis, Associate Director for Planning and Development, National Park Service ...................................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Cushman, Chuck, Executive Director, American Land Rights Association 

Norton, Ed, Vice President for Public Policy, National Trust for Historic 

Preservation ................................................................................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Watson, Elizabeth, Chair, National Coalition for Heritage Areas .............. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Additional material supplied: LaGrasse, Carol W. (The Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc): 

CRZLR, Inc.: Letters opposing the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor Proposal ........................................................................................ . Hicks, Steve, geologist: Letter of March 16, 1995 to Ms. La!P"asse ..... . National Coalition for Heritage Areas: Statement of national need 

R:b~c~~~~~!{Th~ Ai~~k~ Mi~~~);·M:·~~~~··Mi~~~·F;;~~~ J~;·~g Irons After Dispute With NPS in Alaska ........................................... . Testimony on the Technical Assistance Act of 1995 ............................. .. 

(III) 

Page 

1 

58 

80 

1 

2 

2 

3 

5 

39 

23 

27 

53 

25 

48 

175 

171 

180 

170 

167 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND AMERICAN 

HERITAGE AREAS ACTS OF 1995 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMI'ITEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee of National Parks, Forests and 

Lands will now come to order. Today, we will be hearing two bills 

reflecting very different approaches to establishment of a heritage 

area program in the National Park Service. 

One version reflects legislation which passed the House by a 

large margin last session. That effort, authored by Mr. Vento, was 

opposed by a majority of Republican Members on this committee. 

The other legislation, offered by Mr. Hefley, is based on the legislation passed last session, but reflects the efforts of Mr. Hefley to address the concerns of those who opposed the heritage legislation last session. Of specific importance, H.R. 1280 ensures that this 

legislation can no longer serve the agenda of those seeking Federal 

land use planning and reduces the cost of this program by about 

70 percent. 

Heritage areas have become very popular across the country in 

recent years. Although Congress has designated only six Federal 

heritage areas, there are over 100 in existence. Several States have 

significant heritage programs. I know there remains a question in 

the minds of some as to whether the Federal Government needs to 

have such a program. 

The fact is that the Federal Government is already involved in 

this program, and many more requests are pending. In fact, every 

time I go on the floor, there is another Member of Congress who 

wants a heritage area. The only real question is should there be 

sideboards placed on this program, or should we permit it to go forward on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis? 

Despite Mr. Hefley's efforts today, it is my understanding that 

there may be additional concerns about this bill. I look forward to 

today's hearing as the opportunity to receive any comments on this 

matter and point out that while the record will be open for the 

(1) 
2 

usual two weeks after this hearing, the subcommittee is not scheduled to mark up this bill for at least a month. 

I appreciate the efforts of all of our witnesses today. I look forward to their testimony, and I apologize to many of you because 

I had an Intelligence Committee meeting. We had to delay this by 

half an hour, and that committee, which is different than all other 

committees on the Hill, we all have to be there for certain things. 

So it was a very important issue today, and I apologize to you for 

delaying this by a half hour. Mr. Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

your holding today's hearing on this very important issue. Heritage 

areas are something that have commanded a lot of the subcommittee's attention over the past several years. I know that my colleague, Mr. Vento, has spent a lot of time and effort on this matter, 

and for that, he should be commended. 

I am pleased to see that Representative Vento has introduced 

H.R. 1301, which is essentially the House-passed bill from last 

year. A solid bipartisan majority of 281 Members voted for that legislation, and many of us believe it sets an appropriate policy path 

for dealing with heritage areas. 

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation from last year 

was not without some controversy. Mr. Hefley has introduced, as 

you mentioned, H.R. 1280, which is a scaled-back version of the 

House-passed bill to deal with the concerns raised by many that 

objected to the initial bill. 

I am glad both bills are out on the table. I look forward to the 

testimony of our witnesses on this important subject. And, hopefully, as a result of this hearing, we will be able to proceed with 

a legislative product that isn't only workable but bipartisan. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Hefley from Colorado, do you have 

an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM COLORADO 

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may, Mr. Chairman, it is 

with some trepidation that we approach this hearing here today on 

the subject of heritage areas. Nevertheless, I believe it is a subject 

that we must address if Congress is to get any kind of control over 

these units. 

At this time, there are over 100 heritage areas nationwide generated at the local, State and Federal level. Admitting the fact that 

support for Federal involvement in these areas is profoundly 

mixed, there is no denying the need for a rigorous debate on the 

issue. 

A number of years ago, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Gedjensen, proposed a heritage area in his State. The Park Service 

wasn't sure what to make of his bill, not because it didn't think it 

was a good idea, but because as an agency the Park Service had 

no idea of what a heritagE~ area was supposed to be. 

Spending in the four Federal heritage areas is likewise undefined. At one end, we have the Illinois and Michigan Canal, estab-
3 

lished 10 years ago, which costs about $250,000 annually. At the 

other, we have the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Area, which 

may eventually cost the Federal Government up to $418 million. 

Unless we take action to define what these areas are and what our 

responsibility should be to them, we risk a run on the Federal 

Treasury and other Park Service programs. 

The two bills we have before us today represent different approaches to the same problem. H.R. 1280 has grown out of discussions with heritage groups, property rights associations, and the 

Park Service. The feeling is that these people do not want some 

huge overreaching Federal program, but rather some standards 

and some help in making their dreams happen. 

This bill includes impact on private property rights as an issue 

that must be addressed early in the scoping process. It limits authorized Federal spending in any given year to $8 million, and it 

limits the Federal role in heritage areas to an advisory one. 

Today, we will hear from some people who will say the Federal 

Government should have no involvement in these areas, that if 

local people want them, then they should pay for them. And I 

would say to this, this might be fine. But budget pressures and the 

nature of newer park proposals are forcing us to examine partnerships with the States, such as those California partnerships cited 

in the hearing we had about a month ago on the National Park 

Service reform bill. 

Indeed, without some well-thought-out idea of what the Federal 

role should be in these areas, it is questionable whether units like 

Wounded Knee or Shenandoah Valley can ever be part of the Federal Park System. They are simply too big and too diffuse for the 

Park Service to handle. They affect too many lives and too many 

interests for a government agency to be involved in under our 

present setup. 

So I am looking forward to today's testimony. I doubt a final heritage bill will look wholly like either the one I am presenting or Mr. 

Vento's bill. Maybe we will decide we don't want a heritage bill at 

all, but it is time we try to get our arms around this issue. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 

Vento, for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. 

I am pleased to participate, of course, in the hearing, and we have 

introduced, as you have observed, H.R. 1301. And I did observe the 

introduction of H.R. 1280, and I want to commend my colleague, 

Mr. Hefley, for picking up on some of the points. 

Insofar as it is a technical assistance bill, it does pick up on 

many of the commonalities that we have in terms of the technical 

assistance in the bill that we wrote in a bipartisan basis last year 

in this committee and which it passed out of and, of course, overwhelmingly passed on the floor after being hung up in the whole 

issue with regards to property rights. Hopefully this year the tenure of that will be different considering the fact that we have acted 
4 

on legislation and agreed to disagree on the issue of property rights 

and the regulatory compensation issue that embraces it. 

Many areas of the Nation include important resources worthy of 

preservation conservation as all of us readily understand. However, 

the Federal Government cannot afford, of course, nor is it appropriate, to manage each of those areas. Such areas contain resources 

which may be worthy of joint Federal and State designation and 

assistance but do not necessarily qualify either in the suitability 

category or the ownership patterns of those lands. 

The legislation that we have come together on last year and 

passed poses a solution. This proposed Act initiates a true local 

partnership program to preserve and prudently manage our Nation's resources so that they can be enjoyed by future generations. 

Through heritage partnership arrangements, the Federal Government would provide limited assistance to the State, local and 

private organizations to develop and implement operation management plans in such heritage areas. The legislation provides national recognition-that is, the designation enacted by the Congress-and encouragement for protecting our national assets without instituting a massive new bureaucracy or providing significant 

increases in Federal funding. 

Given the intense interest and importance of recognizing and 

preserving these areas, current Federal budgetary limitations and 

criticism for the National Park Service management that we have 

heard certainly intensify this year on the committee; the concept of 

heritage partnerships is a good fit for the time and the name. 

I also would point out that I think there is a relationship between this bill and the park review bill that the committee has 

been considering because clearly as we look at possible alternatives 

to continued designation and bringing units into the National Park 

System, a concept like this which provides limited Federal assistance and designation is appealing. It may even be an alternative 

as we look to how we ought to manage units that are not suitable 

for continued inclusion in the Park System. 

The American public has, of course, repeatedly demonstrated 

their support and positive response to this innovative concept. A<> 

my colleagues know, we have six areas, as the Chairman mentioned, and all of them serve as examples of what to do and what 

not to do. As is the case of the Western Pennsylvania area, as my 

colleague from Colorado mentioned, there is no authorization for 

that that exists actually. That is something that has come directly 

through appropriations. 

The measures that we have written, the Blackstone, the issue 

with the Lehigh-Delaware heritage area, the Connecticut area--

Quinebaug-Shetucket area-those are three measures that came 

through the committee. The others all sort of have been annealed. 

The Cane River area, of course, which is new, came through the 

committee as well. 

Anyway, more specifically, the Vento legislation would establish 

a heritage area partnership program in the Department of Interior. 

The Secretary is authorized to provide limited assistance. It takes 

it from, of course, the Historic Preservation Fund that has author- ized dollars that are not expended. It provides positive commit-
5 

ments made both in the State and local level and the national 

level. And, of course, as a consequence, it enjoys a lot of support. 

Just let me add, this session poses, of course, special challenges. 

The facts haven't changed, but the participants have, and the challenge is to any new program because of any costs associated with 

said program. But this common sense initiative and partnership 

will permit a cooperative approach which limits Federal spending, 

provides the designation, hence the recognition, while permitting 

and encouraging collaborative conservation for key parklike areas 

in our national landscape. 

Simply, congressional designation of these areas, such as is proposed by my colleague's bill in the technical assistance, I don't believe is enough. If that were enough, basically, Historic Register 

status would have probably saved these areas. 

American heritage partnerships are a written commitment to 

preserve and protect our natural and cultural legacy, and, of 

course, I look forward to working with my colleagues. I think this 

is a bill that we could come to closure and agreement on, and I 

hope that that happens, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vento. We have had opening statements from myself, Mr. Richardson, the ranking member, Mr. 

Hefley and Mr. Vento. Now, in the interest of time, I would like 

to proceed. If there is someone on the committee that feels their 

eternal life is in jeopardy if they don't give an opening statement, 

we would be happy to consider you for a brief two-minute opening 

statement. I hear no one nor do I see any hands coming up. 

Mr. Dennis Galvin, please come up, from the National Park Service. It is good to see you again, Mr. Galvin. How much time do you 

need? 

Mr. GALVIN. Five minutes, Mr. Chairman, would be adequate. 

Mr. HANSEN. Five minutes. Are you sure that is enough time? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes, sir. I will summarize. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. Now, watch that green light go on. And when 

it turns red, we expect you to live up to your commitment. The 

time is yours, sir. 

Mr. GALVIN. I have a statement for the record, Mr. Chairman. I 

will simply summarize it in the interest of time. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS GALVIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR 

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Mr. GALVIN. It is a pleasure to appear before the subcommittee 

on this subject. Again, Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned in the 

opening statements, it is a subject that the subcommittee has spent 

a lot of time on on both sides of the aisle, and it is certainly something that the National Park Service has pondered in terms of, as 

you have mentioned, putting sideboards on this phenomenon. 

We have two bills here, Mr. Chairman, that I would characterize 

both as good bills and interesting and divergent approaches to the 

problem. We strongly support H.R. 1301 with some minor amendments discussed below. This bill is based on an Administration proposal transmitted to this committee in March of 1994, and it is 

similar to legislation H.R. 5044 that passed the House in the last 

Congress. 
6 

We could also support H.R. 1280 if amended to authorize the 

Secretary to provide grants as well as technical assistance which 

is the principal difference between the two bills. These bills do offer 

an alternative to those seeking establishment of new units in the 

National Park System. We believe that, in turn, H.R. 1280 should 

be amended to ensure that the Secretary has the ability to oversee 

how Federal assistance is utilized, and he should be authorized to 

approve management plans. 

We strongly support the establishment of heritage area partnership programs that empower citizens at the State and local level 

to protect resources important to the heritage of their communities 

and the United States. We believe the creation of a system of congressionally designated heritage areas is critical to ensuring the 

long-term success of these local citizen-driven initiatives. 

We recognize that the traditional approach to protecting resources-establishing a distinct park unit with defined boundaries 

and Federal management responsibility-is not always appropriate. 

As several of the members of the subcommittee have pointed out, 

there is extensive citizen interest in protecting resources through 

a heritage mechanism, and these resources have shaped the character of the communities and regions in which these people live. 

We believe their protection is critical to accomplish the goal of protecting the Nation's diverse character. 

While the Congress has created six heritage areas, two are relatively new. We have experience at four areas-Blackstone, Illinois-Michigan Canal, the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal, 

and Southwestern Pennsylvania. In addition, the last Congress created two additional heritage areas-Quinebaug-Shetucket and 

Cane River. We are just getting started in those areas. 

We recognize through our work in these areas that the people 

who live on the land are uniquely qualified to protect it. The heritage area designation provides a significant impetus to divergent 

groups to come together and work to protect their community, care 

for their distinct culture and heritage, and protect their land. Heritage area designation fosters community pride. These flaces are 

and will continue to be places where people work and wil influence 

future generations of Americans. 

As I say, Mr. Chairman, these two bills are very similar. Both 

call for establishment of a system of heritage areas. Both contain 

definitions that are essentially similar. Both call on the expertise 

of the National Park Service to assist heritage areas. Both rely on 

similar commitments from and responsibilities for heritage areas, 

and both require the locality to be the primary agent responsible 

for making a heritage area happen. For the most part, they establish the same program. 

Their basic difference is one of financial support. H.R. 1280 limits the role of the Secretary to one of providing technical assistance. 

H.R. 1301 goes beyond this and provides money for implementation 

of management plans. Oversight by the Secretary is also greater in 

H.R. 1301, and there are stricter Federal consistency requirements. 

H.R. 1280 uses the term National Heritage Areas Partnership 

Program. We prefer the use of the term National as opposed to 

American for two reasons: It is a term consistently used by the 

Congress for designating systems-the National Trail System, the 
7 

National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 

National Forest System. America is also a common term used to 

refer to all nations of the Western Hemisphere. National would denote a program more specific to the United States. 

H.R. 1280 would require the management entity to be responsible for implementation. H.R. 1301 would, in addition, provide limited Federal dollars to assist the management entity. We believe 

that limiting Federal technical assistance may not be the most effective way to encourage local groups to propose and manage national designated areas. In some instances, implementation grants 

could be very useful. 

We recommend that the full range of assistance available on 

H.R. 1301 remain a part of the partnership program. Although we 

support the full range of assistance opportunities that are available 

in H.R. 1301, we are concerned that the limited resources available 

to the States and local governments through the Heritage Preservation Fund would be diminished by using that fund. H.R. 1280 

does not rely on the Historic Preservation Fund, and we support 

that position. 

We would prefer the Federal consistency provision in H.R. 1301. 

There are additional titles in H.R. 1301 that principally relate to 

individual areas, Mr. Chairman, and I have summarized our position on some of them-as are outlined in my prepared statement. 

Funding for this bill would be subject to the Administration's budgeting priorities and constraints consistent with the Budget Enforcement Act. That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I would be 

happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your statement. Mr. Galvin, in H.R. 

1280, the funding authorization is about $8 million a year, and in 

H.R. 1301 we go up to $25 million. Now, you have got a flat budget. 

I don't see any more money coming in. We are way behind in a lot 

of things we are doing in the parks. In H.R. 1301, where do you 

get the additional money? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, in essence, Mr. Chairman, the question is a 

good one with respect to both bills. Clearly, the bills are similar 

with respect to the amount of money authorized for technical assistance--$8 million for each. H.R. 1301 contains an additional $14 

million for implementation. 

The question of where the additional money will come from is a 

good question with regard to either bill, Mr. Chairman. I guess the 

best answer is we are, as in the Federal budget, spending money 

on these heritage areas, and the question is, is a systematic approach more efficient than a case-by-case approach? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, in effect, doesn't it just stand to reason that 

you are going to take the money out of the other parks? You have 

only got so much money. If you have to come up with $14 million, 

it has to come from somewhere. 

Mr. GALVIN. That is right. Your assertion is correct that our 

budget targets in the out years are essentially flat so it is a matter 

of moving money around. That is clearly the case. 

Mr. HANSEN. Does it bother you at all considering how far in 

debt we are and how much you don't have and all of the demands 
8 

of all your superintendents demanding more in their infrastructure 

and all this type of thing? $14 million-you know, a little here, a 

little there. 

Mr. GALVIN. Certainly it bothers me. It bothers me in a much 

larger context than simply the authorizations in either of these 

bills. It is certainly a problem to know how to deal with the existing system, but not only with the existing system, with existing 

programs. We believe though that these are programs of merit that 

meet a need that people are expressing all over the country, in fact, 

as Mr. Hefley mentioned in his opening remarks, and we believe, 

as I believe the subcommittee does, that some kind of systematic 

approach to the phenomenon would be useful. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. You know, in the West, the old pioneers had 

a statement that said, "Fix it up, wear it out and make it do, or 

do without." Tell Mr. Kennedy to put that on his desk, would you? 

Mr. Richardson. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Galvin, on this funding issue, what is the 

unappropriated balance of the Historic Preservation Fund, and how 

much is credited to the fund annually? Do you have those statistics? 

Mr. GALVIN. No, I don't have those statistics right on hand, but 

it is hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, the unappropriated 

balance is not available to the National Park Service in terms of 

our annual budget cycles .. But, yes, there is a large unappropriated 

balance in the Historic Preservation Fund. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, State and local governments have funding problems too to replenish their Historic Preservation Fund. 

Right? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is coiTect. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. And that is why you are expressing concern 

that there is not much funding in H.R. 1301. Is thatMr. GALVIN. Well, in H.R. 1301, all the authorization is drawn 

from the Historic Preservation Fund. In H.R. 1280, the authorization is simply an authorization for general appropriations. In terms 

of budget formulation, it comes to much the same thing from year 

to year. Since the unappropriated balances in the Historic Preservation Fund are unavailable to us although it is an authorized 

source of money, it still comes down to $8 million or $22 million. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. OK. Well, I didn't understand that, but I will 

let it pass. Tell me about national. Why do we have to use the word 

national for heritage areas when we already have 18 different 

names with the word national as part of the National Park System? Can't we find another word? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, there are two different schools of thought on 

that I believe, and I must say they are sort of evenly divided. We 

fought this battle out in-house. I think that the arguments for the 

word national are twofold. The first is, the most frequently used 

designation for conservation units is the word national. And, second, it does imply that the system is confined to the United States 

and not to the Americas at large. 

The other argument for American is that this is a different system, and so to highlight the differences that we should use the 

word American, I am persuaded that it is a close argument, but we 

would come down on the national side. 
9 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, but, you know, there are already so many 

acronyms and abbreviations in the bureaucracy. You would be performing a service consistent with reducing the role of government, 

reinventing whatever by acceding to the word national used one 

less time and going with the other designation. Mr. Chairman, I 

have no further questions. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Hefley. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. I have concern too about the money that would 

come out for this-either way you go, the money that would come 

out for it. And we are struggling to figure out ways to better use 

the money we have in the public park system, and you seem not 

to be too concerned about that. You know, our National Park revision bill is based largely on the fact that we are doing a great 

many what I call pork projects within the Park Systems that aren't 

well thought out. Can you imagine how that is going to expand 

with heritage areas across the country? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, either bill places limitations on the amount of 

money that can be used for heritage area purposes which I would 

say is one of the major arguments for the bill as opposed to considering separate heritage areas authorized area by area with individual ceilings attached to each area. 

That is another way of creating heritage areas which the Congress has availed itself of six times. So we feel that a systematic 

approach in a sense, as the Chairman said, puts sideboards on a 

program for which money is already being spent. This would place 

annual national limits on all these areas as part of a system and 

different limits, to be sure, from one bill to the other. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I think a logical approach is appropriate, and 

that is the reason for both of these bills. But given the success of 

this program, by and large without the Federal participation, we 

have six Federal heritage areas. We have 100 altogether so we 

have 94 that have done quite well without us. Why do you think 

the Federal Government ought to get as deeply involved as I feel 

the Vento bill takes us? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, without commenting specifically on the bill, 

Mr. Hefley, I think that-first off, we are convinced that this is sort 

of an idea that has turned the corner in American conservation. It 

is a grassroots movement as you point out. Now, of those 100 some 

areas, you may recall that there were something like 30 bills proposed before the last Congress to get the Federal Government and 

specifically the National Park Service involved. 

So some of those areas that are out there have moved forward 

without Federal participation or at least without National Park 

Service participation. And as we survey the landscape, we see more 

of that. We believe that it is entirely possible to have viable heritage areas without the involvement of the National Park Service or 

the Federal Government. 

In both of these bills, I think there is a high degree of local autonomy. They specify local management entities that can either 

avail themselves of technical assistance or not. So I guess the short 

answer to your question is we see a lot of interest even in that balance of 100 in areas that want additional Federal technical assistance or implementation. To be sure, there may be some that do not. 
10 

Mr. HEFLEY. You know, last year in the debate, I think you made 

the statement, Mr. Galvin, that evidence of commitment to modifying zoning regulations prior to designation of a Federal heritage 

area may be necessary. Can you see why people who are interested 

and concerned about private property rights would be afraid of 

statements like that? 

Mr. GALVIN. Sure. In fact, I don't remember making that statement, but I will accept your assertion. But I believe that, having 

watched the debates last year, certainly the property rights, the 

land use issues were the principal focus of the debate. And I note 

that at the time H.R. 5044 was amended to include protections, 

and I also note that both these bills now contain additional language, language brought in from H.R. 5044, that excludes the Secretary from dabbling in land use regulation. Mr. HEFLEY. I see the light is going on, Mr. Chairman. I will stop 

at that point. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief 

because I have to leave. But, Mr. Galvin, is there anything in the 

law that would prohibit a State or local government from designating one of these areas as a heritage area and handling it themselves? 

Mr. GALVIN. With respect to national or American heritage areas, 

both bills require the Congress to designate a national heritage 

area or American heritageMr. DUNCAN. Is there anything in the law right now that would 

prohibit some State from coming in and saying this is a heritage 

area? 

Mr. GALVIN. No. In fact, there are States such as Pennsylvania 

that have a heritage area system. Massachusetts has a heritage 

area system. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Now, Mr. Hansen mentioned our national debt 

which is rapidly approaching $5 trillion, and all of these State and 

local governments, as strapped as they are for funds, almost all of 

them are in much better financial shape than is the Federal Government. You do recognize that, don't you? 

Mr. GALVIN. They certainly don't have deficits. That is correct. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And yet you say there is this national clamor or insistence that we do this, and yet really in truth it is simply somebody always wants somebody else to pay the bill. Don't you agree 

with that? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, I think there are a lot of people paying the 

bills in these heritage areas, even in the federally designated heritage areas-the six that we now have. There is a considerable 

amount of State, local, and private money going into those so it is 

not strictly a Federal investment. Mr. DUNCAN. In your testimony though you said that what you 

feel should be done is that we should get into these areas, but the 

primary Federal role should be financial. 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, technical assistance--

Mr. DUNCAN. Yet the main decision should be left up to the people in the area. 

Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. 
11 

Mr. DUNCAN. That is what you said yourself just a few minutes 

ago. Mr. GALVIN. That is right. There is a financial dimension to both 

these bills, and the difference is one is an $8 million authorization 

and the other is a $22 million authorization. And that is the principal difference in the bill. Mr. DUNCAN. My undergraduate degree in college was in journalism, but I took so many history courses that I had a major in history also. And I have always been sort of a history buff, and I love 

these different historical areas and so forth. But we have been designating many, many areas of very questionable significance in recent years. And, in addition, every piece of ground in this land has 

been here the same amount of time, the same number of years. You 

can come up with a historical designation for almost every place in 

the country, can't you? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, every place in the country, certainly your assertion is correct, has had patterns of human activity. These bills 

both establish very similar criteria against which these areas 

would be tested before designation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The problem that many of us see, we have 368 

units in the National Park System I believe it is right now, and you 

and your associates are always telling us and some of us agree that 

we are not taking adequate care of the facilities that we have. And 

if we keep coming and designating all these other areas under all 

these different names and classifications, we are only going to 

make a bad situation much, much worse it seems to many of us 

on this committee. And we, obviously, can't spend huge amounts 

more in money on these things, and so some of us think we should 

take better care of the 368 units we have instead of continually 

looking for ways to expand, expand, expand. 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, I think that, as I said in my testimony, these 

bills try to come up with an alternative way to keep from expanding the National Park System by designating units that are really 

very different than traditional national park units. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that some of us feel 

that the time has come that we need to tell the State and local governments that they are going to have to play a bigger role in these 

types of decisions, and they can't always come to Big Brother in 

Washington for every single thing that occurs like this. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan, I would just say 

that that is exactly what this particular proposal does because 

right now, I mean, in the absence of the heritage area, these partnership types of programs, we are going to be designating some of 

these as units. 

That is exactly what you want to avoid, but you have to have a 

sufficient incentive and participation by the Park Service or the 

Federal Government in order to actually accomplish and to provide 

the designation. That is very significant. And this bill, we say what they have to study. That has to come 

before Congress, and once they get done with the study, they come 

back to us with a compact-an agreement-commitments by the 

States, commitment by the local governments or entities, and they 
12 

present a contract to us, and then we decide whether that should 

be designated as to what it should be. 

So it is exactly for those reasons, because in the absence of that, 

what are we going to tell our colleagues? And the way many of 

these have grown, in fact, you could easily include a seventh one, 

and that would be Wheeling, West Virginia, as sort of a heritage 

area. Because the way much of this has gone on in the past save 

the three, the Blackstone, Lehigh, Delaware and the Quinebaug 

and Shetucket heritage areas-the other four including Wheeling 

have all come about because the Appropriations Committee has 

sought and put money in without any framework in terms of what 

has accomplished. 

And I think if you search around, you could probably find another couple of projects exactly like that, and so here we are. We 

are trying to put a format in place where we have some screening, 

where you have a study, where you have consistent standards, and 

where you would have designation action by the authorizing committee and limited funding by the Appropriations Committee. 

The issue and the dilemma, of course, that we have is that visitor visitation to the parks is nearly 300 million visitor days now. 

And, of course, the dilemma is if you expand the units, that would 

be one way to respond. The other is to try to recognize that many 

of these areas that are proposed as heritage areas have a pattern 

of ownership and participation. Like the community of Wheeling, 

do we want to take it over and make it a park? I don't think so. 

But, clearly, it is an area for a restrained or limited amount of 

involvement in terms of this so I hope that we could dissuade ourselves. Obviously, we have serious problems within the Park System in terms of meeting the funding needs, but we need to get ahead of the curve, and that is what these bills try to do; one with 

a limited amount of technical assistance. 

And I would say that this is, of course, the pattern of the last 

20 or 25 years in terms of the Historic Preservation Act and the 

more full development of the Historic Register. And I would suggest that for the dollars we spend on the Historic Register and the 

activities of our State historic preservation officers, which are in 

town this week as most of you will be visiting with them, we get 

a hell of a lot back for what we do in terms of trying to have some 

national standards. 

Now, that may be intimidating to some, and, of course, the issue 

on property rights, this bill really didn't address that. There are 

many that would say, well, through this bill I want to limit what 

the local governments and the State governments can do in terms 

of property rights. 

We don't try to expand that or limit that. We don't expand or 

limit the Federal Government's role in terms of that. Clearly, other 

measures are addressing that in this Congress which we are sharply divided upon. But these bills shouldn't be the vehicle, and some 

look at them as the vehicle in terms of trying to superimpose their 

views with regards to regulatory compensation. 

Mr. Galvin, the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 1301, has 

amendments to the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Area. It has 

amendments to the Blackstone, and those are examples of one we 

are trying to put limits on; the other, obviously, is an expansion of 
13 

that area, but it is coming before Congress to be expanded. And we 

are trying to get the other one under control. As Mr. Hefley said, 

the amount that could be spent in Southwest without direction 

from this authorizing committee could be quite substantial. And so 

we are really trying to limit what damage is being done by that. 

I think we really have a responsibility. We are not kidding anyone. You can kill these bills and do nothing. But the fact is, you 

are going to have programs that are going to be going into effect, 

units that are going to be designated, the Park Service-you are 

growing. We are going to get less for the dollars spent, and we are 

going to create more of a problem with the Park System. 

Mr. Galvin, why did you suggest it was so important for the Secretary to have approval of the management plans? In other words, 

he wouldn't regulate the land. Why is that important? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, particularly in terms of the management plan 

in H.R. 1301-the management plan sets forth the actions taken 

by the management entity, and it is with respect to the financial 

assistance that comes with the approval of that management plan 

that would make the approval of the Secretary important to us. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the other aspects of these bills that is absolutely unique and that is the ability to actually act and provide 

grants based on some economic benefit to the local community. 

Isn't it true that every unit in the Park System now is devoid of 

any claim of economic benefit to the local communities? Every unit 

that you have in the Park System now does not make a positive 

statement with regards to economic benefit to the communities although there may well be some. In fact, there is great economic 

benefit? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. But the law does not state that that is not a criteria, 

that there be an economic benefit to the community. Is that correct? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is right. Mr. VENTO. And these bills for the first time actually address 

that particular point so that is a very, very important difference in 

both of these bills. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to 

that. Just an additional minute, I was just going to point out--

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent for an additional minute? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. I will give the gentleman an additional minute. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just point out that these bills provide that 

the Federal Government can take through the capital spending no 

ownership position or purchase any land or equity value from these 

grants. Is that correct? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. That is unique, is it not? 

Mr. GALVIN. Prohibited in both bills. That is unique. Mr. VENTO. That is unique. And that means we would not be 

buying, but the local government units by using that money then 

or nonprofit groups would actually obtain the ownership of those 

resources. Is that correct, Mr. Galvin? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. Not the Federal Government. 

Mr. VENTO. Not the Federal Government. 
14 

Mr. GALVIN. Right, not the Federal Government. 

Mr. VENTO. So, I mean, there are many, many limitations and 

many innovations in these bills, and I think that it should follow. 

As I said, the facts haven't changed. Obviously, the particirants 

have, but I think as we review this, it is worthy of our carefu consideration. They aren't all my ideas. The other is that there is an 

absolute limitation in time on the participation of these particular 

dollars in these bills-15 years maximum in H.R. 1301. I guess 

H.R. 1280 has no limitation as such, does it? 

Mr. GALVIN. It does. It does for technical assistance. I believe it 

is 13 years. 

Mr. VENTO. 13 years. The time limit, in other words, we are looking at is an absolute sunset. And then after that, the Federal Government would simply monitor the management plan-and, of 

course, there is a provision in this law for dedesignation if there 

is action. That does not follow very closely with the Historic Preservation Act, does it, Mr. Galvin? 

Mr. GALVIN. The parallel really is with the National Historic 

Landmarks Program where we have dedesignated landmarks or 

threatened to dedesignate landmarks. 

Mr. VENTO. And the landmark program is entirely-it is a Park 

Service program. There is no congressional designation or involvement in that. Is that correct? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is right. It is merely the recognition of a na·· 

tionally significant resource. 

Mr. VENTO. There is in terms of dedesignation, you hold publie 

hearings. So that is an important provision. Do you have any comments on it? 

Mr. GALVIN. I think it is a very important provision, and I think 

both bills contain time limits, time limits for which the program is 

authorized and time limits in which individual areas can participate. So the notion is that heritage areas get Federal assistance for 

a limited period of time, but they remain heritage areas forever. 

That is, once the Federal assistance is over, if the criteria are 

met and if the standards are maintained and if the integrity is 

maintained, they remain heritage areas. The reason that the Secretary has in both bills the power of dedesignation is to ensure that 

the standards set for the heritage area in the planning documents 

are maintained. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Galvin. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Mr. Galvin, existing heritage areas have language requiring that the Secretary of the Interior be afforded an 

opportunity to review actions of other Federal agencies within the 

heritage areas to determine their compatibility. Could you identify 

significant impacts to heritage areas which have been avoided 

based on this review requirement? 

Mr. GALVIN. I think principally it relates to things like the alignment of roads. I can think of one instance in which the siting of 

an airport was an issue. I should say that even in the existing Federal law on heritage areas and the individual heritage areas, the 

Secretary has no approval authority in the sense that he could stop 

the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Highway Ad-
15 

ministration or a State highway administration. The requirement 

is a consultative requirement and an attempt to make the actions 

of other Federal agencies consistent with the objectives of the area. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Where was the airport situation? 

Mr. GALVIN. Blackstone River. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And what happened in the final outcome of the 

airport? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, the proposal on the table was to build a second 

regional airport in the Boston metropolitan area. There were four 

alternatives. I am not sure what the nature of the study is now, 

but the alternative to place it someplace in the Blackstone River 

Valley was eliminated from the study. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. And the issue of alignment of highways, can you 

elaborate somewhat upon that? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, first I should say that in many instances Federal money that has gone into these heritage areas has been ISTEA 

money. It has been one of the most common sources of revenue for 

these heritage areas. 

And it is precisely because of the objectives set in the ISTEA, the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, that allowed the construction of bicycle trails, paths, and other things as parts of transportation issues that has made that funding available. 

So it doesn't always come down to saying, "We are going to block 

highway construction here." What it has been far more frequently 

is, "If you are going to build a highway through here, could you put 

a trail on the same corridor? Could you put a trail adjacent to the 

river?" So the Federal consistency provision works in both a positive and a negative way. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I gather the 1966 Department of Transportation 

Act already requires that DOT consider parks and historic resources in their planning, so is it your feeling that this provision 

of consulting the other Federal agencies is designed to include 

other agencies besides DOT, or does this add some new requirement beyond that that is contained in Section 4[fl presently of that 

1966 law? 

Mr. GALVIN. No. 4[fJ would be consistent with the requirements 

of this Act with respect to transportation. I should point out too 

that the requirements in the two Acts that we are looking at here 

are different. In H.R. 1280, it is the governor of the State that is 

more central to the consistency provision. In H.R. 1301, it is the 

governor of the State and the Secretary of Interior that are involved in the consistency provision. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Are you aware of any issues regarding private 

property which have arisen from designation of the six Federal heritage areas to date? 

Mr. GALVIN. I am not-I can't think of an issue that has come 

up. Now, maybe because I am not that familiar with what is going 

on at the local level in some of those, but I can't think of an issue 

that has come to Washington with relation to private property or 

land use in any of the existing areas. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Pombo, is recognized for five minutes. 
16 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I think that in a way I 

agree with something that Mr. Vento said. Don't be afraid, but one 

of the things that he brought up was that if we don't do something, 

Members will continue to try to go through the appropriations process and establish these heritage things on their own and just do 

it through getting money applied. 

And I think maybe the debate that we are · really having or 

should be having is whether or not we should allow heritage corridors to be established under Federal law and whether or not we 

should have them at all. I think that is really the quandary that 

we are in is whether or not we should do them at all. And whether 

it be done through the matter of H.R. 1280 or H.R. 1301, it is the 

fact that we are establishing these under Federal law that really 

I have a question with and a real problem with-whether we 

should be doing that. 

But, Mr. Galvin, historically, Federal land use has been limited 

to properties that the Federal Government owns; if they own a national park they establish Federal land use; if the DOD owns a 

base, they establish a base. Historically, that was the case with the 

Federal Government. In recent years, many of the pieces of legislation that we have passed in Congress have delved into local land 

use. 

In reviewing these two bills as they are before us as well as what 

we had before us last year, what would make you think that in 

some way this is not Federal land use? I know that in H.R. 1301, 

it establishes boundaries, it establishes goals for the different heritage areas of what needs to be protected and what should be managed in that area. It also establishes a Federal management authority over what happens in those heritage areas. And in H.R. 

1280, even though it does not establish official boundaries as language in the bill, it does establish as part of the management plan 

that certain things should happen inside these areas. 

Now, the hammer that the Federal Government holds over people is the money. "If you do these things, we will give you money." 

And, you know, that is Federal land use. We are telling them that 

within these boundaries you must do these certain things, and once 

you have established that a county or State is going to participate 

in one of these heritage corridors and begins to accept the money, 

we have then established Federal land use control. 

You have brought up the idea of the airport and whether or not 

that was consistent with what should be happening within the heritage corridor, and I can think of other instances of activity that 

maybe a local community or a local government may decide that 

that is an ideal location f;)r an airport. But because they have this 

national heritage corridor hanging over them, then it becomes Federal land use because we hold the big hammer of the money that 

they established this with. So how do you get around the argument 

that this is Federal land use? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, if I might, let me just go back to the airport 

example. The objections to the airport in that instance were local. 

They were not Federal objections. They were the objections of local 

government officials in the town selected, and they went through 

the local commission in ~~ssence saying, "You have got to consult 

with us." They weren't saying, ''You don't have to have an airport. 
17 

You have got to consult with us." Now, ultimately, FAA decided to 

go someplace else. 

With respect to the land use issue, I think in the debate on the 

floor last year, which, as I mentioned, centered on the land use issues, both of these bills contain statements that enforce State and 

local authority and try to make very clear that these are not Federal land use bills. And the language in both bills is very similar 

because it was language agreed to by the previous Congress. 

But as an example, Section 10 of the Hefley bill says, 

"LACK OF EFFECT ON AUTHORITY OF GoVERNMENTS.-Nothing in this Act shall be 

construed to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal, State, or local 

governments to regulate any use of land as provided for by law or regulation. 

"LACK OF ZONING OR LAND USE POWERS OF ENTITY. Nothing in this Act shall be 

construed to grant powers of zoning or land use to any management entity for a National Heritage Area." 

Both bills also call for local management entities but do not 

specify what they shall be. They don't say that they have to be a 

unit of government. It is, in essence, the locals who will decide the 

nature of the management entity in both of these bills. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman's time has expired. Do you want an 

additional minute? 

Mr. POMBO. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. POMBO. But also in H.R. 1280 in Section 5[c], "To be eligible 

for designation as a National Heritage Area, an area shall meet 

each of the following criteria:" They lay out criteria that the heritage corridor must meet in order to establish that. And getting back 

to Mr. Vento's comment earlier, if we do this at all, you have to 

have some type of criteria. 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Mr. POMBO. But the criteria is there, and then in a subsequent 

section, it describes how this is revoked-how the heritage corridor 

would be revoked. 

Mr. GALVIN. Right. 

Mr. POMBO. And one of those is if they verge away from the management plan that was established to establish the heritage corridor to begin with. 

Mr. GALVIN. Right. 

Mr. POMBO. So what happens is if a local community decides that 

they want an airport, and I am just using that as an example, in 

what happens to be a heritage corridor, the possibility is great that 

they would lose their heritage corridor designation, therefore losing 

the Federal dollars that are attached to that. 

In the Vento bill, it goes much further in establishing criteria for 

being within a heritage corridor and specifically what things should 

be protected, what the goal is of each individual criteria of each individual heritage corridor. And, in effect, this bill is establishing 

national land use. That is exactly the purpose of doing it. 

I think the debate that we are having here is whether or not we 

should do that at all. Whether it is in the respect that Mr. Hefley 

wants to do it or whether it is in the respect that Mr. Vento wants 

to do it, it is establishing national land use. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you want to respond, Mr. Galvin? 
18 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, I would respond by saying the controls all remain at the local level. Certainly, there are criteria. Certainly a 

plan is required, and dedesignation could be accomplished if the 

plan is not carried out. Now, that--

Mr. POMBO. If I may interrupt you there just briefly, yes, it establishes local criteria, but with your example of the airport, a local 

group of people who may not want the airport there use national 

heritage corridor as their method of stopping the airport from getting it located there. 

Mr. GALVIN. Of getting it talked about. Now, this bill does not 

prevent people from building airports. Let me be clear about that. 

If an airport were built on top of a historic resource that was called 

for preservation in the plan, then you might have cause to take a 

look at the plan-at dedesignation at some future time. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I would ask 

Mr. Hefley of Colorado if he would briefly take the Chair, and we 

will now turn to Mr. Cooley of Oregon for five minutes followed by 

Mrs. Chenoweth of Idaho. At the conclusion of Mrs. Chenoweth's 

remarks, the first panel will be Chuck Cushman, Ed Norton, and 

Elizabeth Watson. So, Mr. Hefley, if you would briefly take the 

Chair, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuing Congressman 

Pombo's line of questioning, and I am very concerned about what 

he is bringing up also. In H.R. 1280, under Section 6, there is a 

section called management plans. It reads, "This plan shall take 

into consideration the existing Federal, State, county, and local 

plans." If you go down into Section A, it reads, "An inventory of resources contained in the national heritage area including a list of 

property in the area should be conserved, restored, managed, or developed." Does this not infringe upon private property rights under 

this issue? 

Mr. GALVIN. I would not see it that way, Mr. Cooley. Since this 

plan is locally derived particularly in H.R. 1280, to the extent that 

this infringed on property rights, it simply could be left off the inventory. There is no prescriptive requirement to include all properties. It would presumably include properties that locals want to 

preserve, want to use to attract tourism. Certainly, that is the way 

it has worked in existing heritage areas. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, but you would not allow property within the 

corridor when you are Federal funding if we have an area that is 

designated as heritage, and then all of a sudden have one or two 

buildings in that particular area going to high rises, modern development, or otherwise you wouldn't list the funding. The problem we 

have here is what we call technical assistance. I am not sure what 

technical assistance means. What does that really entail? What 

does that term mean? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, H.R. 1280 is limited to technical assistance, 

and that would include assistance in inventorying resources and 

doing plans. The National Park Service would assist locals in doing 

a plan and developing a feasibility study, and that is it. We would 

not be there as an operating presence or as a landowner. 

Mr. CooLEY. With your experience in planning and development, 

do you agree with the assessment that the heritage area proposals 

carry enormous potential cost liabilities? 
19 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, I think in the opening remarks before the subcommittee, the members, and Mr. Hefley in particular, accurately 

pointed out that our experience has been quite different in different 

areas. Most of these heritage areas have not cost a lot. Some of 

them have entailed fairly significant Federal expenditures. One of 

the reasons for trying to develop a system here is to try to prevent 

that from happening. But, yes, there have been areas or there has 

been an area where there have been fairly significant expenditures, 

and there are a couple of others that are potentially that way. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, if you take the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Area, it cost the Federal Government $63 million, and you 

have right now estimated potential costs of $355 million. What 

drives these costs that we seem to not have any control over or you 

don't have any control over? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, as Mr. Vento pointed out, much of that came 

through actions of the Appropriations Committee, specifically with 

respect to the $60 million expenditure. A good portion of that was 

spent within the boundaries of several national parks thereJohnstown Flood, Allegheny Portage, and Friendship Hill and Fort 

Necessity. In that particular heritage area, there are four units of 

the National Park System. So not all those expenditures were 

straight heritage area expenditures. And, of course, in Title II in 

H.R. 1301, there are provisions to try to amend the Southwestern 

Pennsylvania area to limit expenditures there. 

Mr. COOLEY. When I look over these two pieces of legislation, I 

have a feeling that we are trying to redefine parks so we are calling it national heritage now where we don't have the same commitment, but we are still designating really park areas with some control by the Federal Government through tr.e funding process in 

preserving areas that maybe the locals and only maybe part of the 

community is really agreeable to. Are we just changing the name 

now? Are we just changing the bells and whistles, or do we really 

have a completely different designation? 

Mr. GALVIN. I think these are quite different in the sense that 

there is no Federal ownership, and they deal with large and fairly 

complex landscapes that require a different kind of approach. And 

I would say that there is a good deal of local support for these 

areas. You know, if you went into the Blackstone River Valley, you 

would find a very substantial amount of support for what is going 

on there by the local-State officials. We have had several hearings 

before the subcommittee in which a broad cross-section of people 

including business interests have come in and supported these 

areas. So I think they are different. 

Mr. HEFLEY. [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs. 

Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Galvin, you 

know, I cannot quite figure out how many square acres or square 

miles are involved altogether in this proposal-in H.R. 1301 and in 

H.R. 1280. 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, it is difficult to say since they would come by 

virtue of studies that happen in the future. Let me give you an example. With respect to the existing heritage areas, Illinois and 

Michigan Canal is probably on the order of 100 miles long. Black-
20 

stone River Valley is probably about 30 miles long; probably contains about 30 towns. 

One of the things that H.R. 1301 does to modify the Blackstone 

River Valley is to include Worcester, Massachusetts, which, of 

course, is a large town, and is really at the source of the Blackstone 

River. The reason for that amendment is because Worcester wants 

to be included. It was not included in the original designation so 

that this isn't an expansionist move, it is because they wanted to 

be excluded in the original area. They were excluded, and now they 

want to be included. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Galvin, how many acres or square miles 

are involved in these proposed bills? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, as I say, it is impossible to come up with a 

number for that without having a feasibility study and a compact 

that the Congress can look at prior to designation. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is the Park Service looking at doing an environmental impact statement and an economic impact statement 

under the requirements of NEPA? 

Mr. GALVIN. If NEPA is involved, we will meet the requirements 

of NEPA. Now, normally, we do not do those. The full environmental impact statement with things like feasibility studies we do 

comply. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, in one area, we are involving six areas 

or eight new areas, three heritage area studies and two existing 

area modifications. Wouldn't you consider that a major Federal action? Some of them are 100 miles long, undefined widths. 

Mr. GALVIN. It is not necessary under either of these bills that 

the Federal Government do any study. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And why isn't it necessary to prescribe to the 

mandates of NEPA? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, we will meet the mandates of NEPA. I am just 

saying that the question of whether or not there is a major Federal 

action with the creation of a heritage area would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is entirely possible that you are 

correct, that you might have a situation where the dictates of 

NEPA need to be met. But it is also possible I think with these 

heritage areas that NEPA wouldn't apply and, again, on a case-bycase basis. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I would dispute that with you, but we 

are sort of defining NEPA out of the argument lately. But I was 

interested in your testimony, Mr. Galvin, where you stated, ''We 

strongly support the establishment of heritage area partnership 

programs that empower citizens." And yet, you know, under Mr. 

Vento's bill, the Secretary has all final say on all management 

plans, all technical assistance, everything. And so to say that it empowers citizens, I find that not quite convincing. I am not convinced when the Secretary still has total control over the final determination. 

And I also was interested in the fact that you said at the bottom 

of page two that, ''We recognize the traditional approach to protecting resources"-this is the traditional approach you mention-"that 

establishing a distinct park unit with defined boundaries and Federal management responsibilities is not always appropriate." Mr. 

Galvin, until you are able to come to the Congress with defined 
21 

boundaries and defined responsibilities, how can you ask us to sign 

onto a blank check in either bill? 

Mr. GALVIN. The purpose of that sentence in the statement is to 

point out that this is really very different than creating a unit of 

the National Park System. If you are talking about whether or not Worcester, Massachusetts, belongs in a heritage area, clearly we are not talking about 

arresting the development of Worcester or changing the character 

of that town. They have some interests that they seek to pursue 

by being added to a heritage area, and both these bills allow those 

people to do that. But we have no intention of creating a unit of 

the National Park System there. I think that was the purpose of 

that statement. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Galvin, can you tell me what lands now 

under consideration in either one of these bills are currently held 

by the Nature Conservancy? 

Mr. GALVIN. I don't know of any. Now, obviously, and in H.R. 

1280, no areas are specified at all. I know of none in H.R. 1301, 

and I would point out again there is an absolute prohibition 

against Federal acquisition in these areas using funds authorized 

by the bill-in both bills. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentlewoman yield to me? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, Mr. Vento, I will as soon as I finish, and 

I would like to ask unanimous consent for one more minute. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Without objection, the lady is granted one more 

minute. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to know who the Hudson River 

Valley Greenway Communities Council is and the Greenway Conservancy, and are any of these supported by Nature Conservancy? 

Mr. GALVIN. I don't know. I would have to supply that for the 

record. I would say that the Hudson River Valley Commission is 

a body established under State law. It is financed by a hotel tax 

passed at the State level. And there is a Hudson Valley Greenway 

established under State law. They are interested in becoming anational heritage area. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that is your testimony for the record, that 

Greenway Conservancy is not affiliated with Nature Conservancy? 

Mr. GALVIN. I would have to answer that I do not know. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you find out for me? 

Mr. GALVIN. Sure. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Now, also in the management of the Ohio 

and Erie Canal American Heritage Area, I am a little leery because 

part of the management will be turned over to the superintendent 

of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. And I think that 

the National Park Service knows how I feel about what happened 

in Cuyahoga Valley. I am a little nervous about that because, you 

know, you mentioned how we want to preserve the heritage of the 

areas, and yet in Cuyahoga Valley, we literally destroyed homes 

and did away with any semblance of the heritage that was created 

by man there. 

So I am leery of the bill, and I wish that we were at a better 

time in our budget where we could afford to set aside areas. Our 

land base is going to be impacted, our tax base is going to be impacted by taking these areas out of the tax base in some parts. And 
22 

not being able to define that which is private and that which is already held by a trust under a 501[c][3] makes it difficult for us to 

realize the impact on the tax base, and, sir, that is why I ask, 

when you come to this committee, we need to have defined boundaries and impacts. Mr. GALVIN. And, in fact, ultimately, in the processes laid out in 

both of these bills, you would have a boundary. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. 

Galvin. We appreciate your coming. Does anyone have further 

questions of Mr. Galvin? 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just say Mrs. Chenoweth 

didn't have time to yield, but I would just point out that it is quite 

right that the designations in the H.R. 1301, which was a bill introduced last week, there had been hearings on those, and there is a 

complete record. There are maps. There are boundaries established 

in each of those. Those are areas that have all undergone study 

and are now being proposed for designation as an American heritage partnership under the provisions of the Act. And, of course, 

they all have advocates. 

And the issue with regards to local participation, there is overwhelming local support for those. One of our problems is trying to 

hold locals down so they don't become designated units of the park. 

The part through Cuyahoga is actually the part that is in the 

recreation area in Cuyahoga already, and that is why the superintendent would be involved in that instance. But I think there are 

a number of questions you raise that I think can be answered. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. These two bills are being offered under the assumption that this piecemeal process as it has happened in the 

past is going to continue into the future of members going to Appropriations. I just want to ask if given the declaration by Mr. Regula, Chairman of the relevant Appropriations subcommittee, of the 

matters affecting this committee, that he would not fund what we 

don't authorize. Would it be safe to assume that under that criteria 

we wouldn't have any more piecemeal approach to this in the future by people going around this committee and to appropriations? 

I am just asking that as a question of you or anybody else on the 

committee who would care to comment. I just want to make sure 

I understand that. Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield to me, I would just 

point out that during the discussion of the Southwest Pennsylvania 

Heritage Corridor, that, in fact, we did not designate that. It was 

a commission that was established by the study, and that was the 

extent of it. And so I don't want to take credit for or have the eommittee take credit for what has occurred there. 

I will leave the gentleman's question whether Mr. Regula can answer that or other members of that committee can answer that. We 

also have, of course, the U.S. Senate which has been a participant 

in this process on an equal or more than equal footing in terms of 

what has occurred in this process. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
23 

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. And I would respond by saying that as long as 

the committee is structured the way it is here and as long as Mr. 

Regula is in that spot, that might be the case, but that is not going 

to be forever. And don't you, Mr. Galvin, also have general authority to provide technical assistance and restore historic buildings 

and some of those kinds of things anyway, if we do nothing? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes, we do. We have under various previous Acts 

authorities to provide technical assistance in a wide variety of 

areas. 

Mr. HEFLEY. One of the problems I guess I have, Mr. Doolittle, 

with Mr. Vento's approach, and first of all, he has worked very diligently on this in this area and deserves credit for that, but one of 

the problems I have with that particular bill is that it does designate areas at the same time it designates a process. And I think 

that ought to be separated. Whichever direction we end up going, 

if we pass anything out of here, I think those two things ought to 

be separated. Now, if you want your process to have a better 

chance of getting through the Congress, then you can designate 

areas and pick up a lot of votes by doing it, but I don't think that 

is the appropriate way to do this. 

Mr. Galvin, we appreciate your testimony, and we will get to the 

next panel. If Mr. Chuck Cushman, Executive Director of the 

American Land Rights Association, Mr. Ed Norton, Vice President 

of Public Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Ms. Elizabeth Watson, Chairman of the National Coalition for Heritage 

Areas would join us at the table. Mr. Cushman, would you like to 

start, and we will just kind of go down the table? 

Mr. VENTO. Have we received written testimony from this witness prior to----

Mr. HEFLEY. I don't believe Mr. Cushman has written testimony. 

Mr. CUSHMAN. No. I have been sick, Mr. Vento, and I will provide it within 10 days, and I apologize for not having it today. I 

feel fortunate just to get here-to be able to do that, and I ask 

leave of the committee to allow me to submit it later. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Without objection, we will do that, Mr. Cushman. 

We appreciate you being here. 

[Mr. Cushman's testimony had not been submitted at press time.] 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CUSHMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CusHMAN. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for inviting me 

to participate today. As you know, I am Executive Director of the 

American Land Rights Association, formerly the National Inholders 

Association. I am also Chairman of the League of Private Property 

Voters, 600 organizations strong throughout the country. I am a 

former member of the National Park System Advisory Board. 

I guess I would ask first of all why are we considering doing 

this? I know it has the best of intentions by some, but we have got 

an agency here who cannot account for all its money. It is $6 million behind in deferred maintenance, health and safety. It is $5 to 

$10 billion behind in land acquisition, and we, of course, only endorse willing sellers, but that is the numbers placed on it by the 

GAO and others. They are very much behind in ranger housing and 
24 

other services. I wonder if we can afford to fragment the National 

Park Service and diffuse its goals and its manpower and its ability 

to service the public. 

As all of you have to nm on your record every two years, I think 

so the Park Service should have to run on its record. And while 

there are many good people in the Park Service-! was a volunteer 

for the Park Service as a young man; my father was a Park Service 

employee-there are still a great many difficulties within the agency. And the key words or buzz words in these bills refer to some 

of these things, and I am going to just harken back and remind the 

committee of a little history. What is that old quote? "If you don't 

remember history, you are bound to repeat it," and, "If you don't 

know where you are going, you are probably going to get there." 

There have been a number of GAO reports in recent years, over 

the last 10-12 years, and Inspector General reports about land acquisition, land management problems, maintenance problems, 

other policies within this agency. This agency needs to kind of take 

a look inward; tighten its belt; take a look at where it is going; get 

more efficient; be able to deliver the services at a more rational 

cost. 

I guess another concern I would have about this bill is diversity. We have a tendency to think that the Park Service always does it 

better, and in many cases they may do that. But it is our view that 

to maintain cultural diversity in this country, the Park Service's 

record in enhancing that as being the curator of our history has not 

always been laudable. 

Having all the planning done for these areas from one planning 

base in Colorado may not enhance the diversity of this country or 

in these areas. And no matter how these communities want to be 

part of a national system for whatever reason, whether it is tourism or other reasons, they may, in the process, lose a good portion 

of their diversity. 

Partnerships. The record of Park Service working as a partnership has not been good. I will just touch on them because of the 

shortness of time, but the Upper Delaware River-now, actually 

that has turned into a pretty decent partnership in recent years, 

but without an active citizen aggressive attack on the original plan 

by the Park Service, it certainly was not. It was a top-down management plan designed from Denver which was exactly the opposite 

of what Congress had in mind. 

Culture. This agency has, as has been referred to earlier today 

I am sorry to say, destroyed the culture in many areas of this country. I will just touch on a couple here, but the Buffalo River in Arkansas. It was clearly the intent of Congress not to buy a lot of 

land. It was clearly the intent to be a partner with the local community, to work with local people. 

When NBC did an investigation of this area, they said there 

were 1,108 landowners when that Buffalo River was created in Arkansas, and when they did their investigation, which was like 

1987, there were eight landowners left. So this unique cultural heritage which had been documented by National Geographic a couple 

of times and in various films had virtually been eliminated. I 

mean, I could cite lots of examples. We don't have time here today. 
25 

Promises. There are a many good things about both of these bills. 

The problem is can this agency implement them? Can they be 

trusted to honor their promises? Look at the National Natural 

Landmark Program. I mean, we can go into detail, but the fact is 

that this agency promised all landowners they would be notified 

ahead of time. They would be notified if they were going to be considered and, in fact, decided that that was too much of a bother. 

They went ahead and designated people as National Natural Landmarks or their property without telling them. And this program is 

just in suspension. It is still there, and a real investigation of the 

Park Service has never gone on. 

Appalachian Trail. This started out as a very good volunteer program and gradually expanded and expanded partly through congressional action so that it involved massive land acquisition and 

land use controls. 

Training. There is no difference in the Park Service in training. 

They train the rangers exactly the same way if they are going to 

manage a National Park on the high end of the scale and a National Recreation Area on the low end of the scale. 

Good neighbors. I am sorry, but the Park Service does not have 

a good record of being good neighbors. So the terms of compatibility 

of heritage areas no matter how well intended cast a shadow over 

local communities. 

Cost. Anybody who thinks this bill is not going to massively increase in costs over the years just has not tracked how the National Park Service has functioned. We can go and document-! 

mean, many of you know the numbers, and you know the locations. 

There are literally hundreds of places that started out at modest 

costs and just consistently over time gradually expanded. 

And, finally, please don't tum these into seed areas to become 

new Santa Monica Mountains or Gateways or Golden Gates. 

Should the Park Service become, in effect, a dumping ground for 

open space, or should we concentrate our resources on taking care 

of the crown jewels and the really important areas? Thank you for 

the opportunity. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Cushman. Ms. Watson. 

STATEMENT OF EUZABETH WATSON, CHAIR, NATIONAL 

COALITION FOR HERITAGE AREAS 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure 

to appear before this committee and members of the subcommittee. 

As you know, I am Chairman of the National Coalition for Heritage 

Areas, and I am here to speak to proposed legislation that will 

allow local and State governments and other partners to seek voluntary national recognition and assistance for their efforts to preserve distinctive landscapes. 

In preparing this testimony, we learned late last week that H.R. 

1301 is also under consideration by this subcommittee. We believe 

that most of our comments today also apply to that bill, and should 

you have any specific questions about H.R. 1301, I will be happy 

to respond. 

I will summarize my remarks, but for the record I would like to 

establish that we are extremely pleased that Mr. Hefley and Mr. 

Torkildsen, sponsor and co-sponsor for H.R. 1280, and Mr. Vento 
26 

and the several co-sponsors for H.R. 1301, have made such an excellent start at bringing forward all issues considered by this body 

in the last Congress, and we are most grateful for their leadership 

in returning to this issue so early in this Congress. 

H.R. 1301 is a slightly changed version of the bill that passed the 

House in the last Congress, H.R. 5044, which the National Coalition for Heritage Areas supported with the exception of the source 

of the funding which was identified as the Historic Preservation 

Fund. This fund is inappropriate as a sole source of support for a 

program that extends well beyond historic preservation in its goals 

and objectives. 

H.R. 1280, in general, streamlines and refines H.R. 5044, remaining faithful to the basic concept negotiated last year. There 

are only five significant differences between the two as we see it, 

which my written testimony does address. 

Today, what we are asking Congress to do is to authorize the Department of the Interior to participate as the lead Federal partner 

in an extraordinary new program to recognize communities who 

are willing to undertake a comprehensive program of stewardship, 

economic revitalization, and education-words which I am afraid I 

have not yet heard in this committee discussion, and I would like 

very much to receive any questions on those topics. Property owners remain property owners and key partners under 

this program. Civic and community leaders remain in charge of the 

community's future. What is added from the national level is a program of national recognition, technical guidance, information sharing, and standard setting, things that I believe the Federal Government can do well. From the community level comes the recognition 

of the special resources in a place-cultural, natural, and historical-and, again, I must emphasize the voluntary commitment to 

make the most of these resources for the sake of their reside'Jlts 

and the many new visitors who will be drawn to these newly recog7 

nized places. ' 

The bulk of the responsibility and investment properly falls on 

local, State, and private partners in this national program. Such a 

commitment under the process set forth in both of these bills can 

only follow extensive public discourse and evaluation. That is to 

say what I call "long lead time". There is a lot of public discussion 

before the community goes back to Congress and asks for that designation, especially under H.R. 1280 with no "instant designations", as they are called. 

This public discourse and evaluation is designed to assure that 

all involved parties are heard and their concerns addressed before 

asking Congress to confer national recognition by naming these 

places national or American heritage areas. 

Why do communities want to do this? Because they are proud of 

their accomplishments and their assets, and they want that special 

recognition; because the many existing programs for stewardship 

have taught them much about themselves, and they want to celebrate and educate well beyond any impulse to regulate. 

What I would like to emphasize is that this program adds nothing new in the tool kit, as folks in the conservation and environmental and historic preservation world would call it. It doesn't 

change land use. It doesn't change zoning. It does confer recogni-
27 

tion on communities that have taken special steps to protect assets 

that they all recognize. 

Sometimes historic preservation is talked about as "putting history back into historic preservation". That is essentially the concept 

that I am trying to get across here. This program is about more 

than regulation. It is a matter of education and celebration for the 

history in this country. 

And also communities want to do this because they want to capitalize on their special assets for the economic betterment of their 

citizens. In particular, I would like to call attention to a recommendation for changes to both bills before you today-for one 

change especially. We strongly believe that the economic aspirations for the national heritage area should be defined by the partners who develop the management plan. 

In describing what a management plan must include, both bills 

call for policies for the management of resources and recreational 

opportunities "in a manner consistent with the support of appropriate and compatible economic viability." We believe that the management plan should also be required to define what "appropriate 

and compatible economic viability'' actually means to the partners 

in the national heritage area rather than leave the interpretation 

up to others outside the process. 

We suggest the following language: "Identification of sustainable 

economic development needs, including heritage tourism support 

services and planning, small business opportunities, resource restoration and revitalization, the continuation of traditional land 

uses, infrastructure development, heritage area marketing and promotion, and ways to address the continuing sustainability of the 

management entity." 

Mr. Chairman, I have worked as a consultant in the Delaware 

and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and I would be pleased to 

offer comments on the process that is designed in both bills. I have 

spent quite a lot of time thinking about these issues, and I believe 

that a very well-designed process is now before this committee. 

That concludes my remarks at this time. I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Ms. Watson. Mr. Norton. 

STATEMENT OF ED NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC 

POLICY 

Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the Vice President 

for Public Policy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

and we are delighted to be here today to testify on the heritage 

bills now before you. 

The National Trust strongly supports Federal legislation to rationalize, systemize, and make the designation of heritage areas 

work. And we support this legislation for essentially two reasons: 

First of all, as we look around the United States, it is clear that 

heritage areas, whether they be Federal heritage areas or State 

heritage areas or local heritage areas, are clearly an idea whose 

time has come. 
28 

From New England to the Midwest to Texas, the Four Corners 

area in Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, Wyoming, California, citizens locally driven, concerned about the quality of their 

life have come together to establish heritage areas. And this movement, I believe, arises out of a really profound human desire to 

know and to understand our history, our culture, and our heritage, 

and who we are as a people. And so it is that locally driven, upfrom-the-bottom desire that is really fueling and promoting heritage areas. And we believe that the Federal Government ought to 

respond to that. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, we believe that there is a need for this 

legislation, as I said, to rationalize what heretofore has been somewhat a whimsical system. We recognize that there are limits on 

what the National Park Service can do and that the Park Service 

has many other responsibilities. We recognize that there is a limit 

on the amount of Federal money that will be available for programs such as heritage areas. 

But we believe that this is a system that should have support 

from the national government, and I would remind you of the 

statement once attributed, I believe, to a British statesman during 

the days of the Second World War when he said, "Well, now that 

we are out of money, we are going to have to think." And we do 

face limited resources, and I think that we are going to have to 

think creatively about how we can satisfy the important national 

purpose reflected in the desire for heritage areas and the limits imposed upon us by the availability of both financial and human resources to address that need. 

We believe that the heritage areas bills now under consideration 

by the community do establish a rational system, a system that has 

limits, both limits in terms of the role of the Federal Government 

and the primacy of the role of local government, and also sets forth 

a system that will also set priorities and regularize and make the 

Federal and financial involvement in this equitable. 

We think that the bills by their establishment of clear criteria 

and a definite process, a rigorous criteria and a rigorous process for 

creating a Federal heritage area will make those heritage areas 

which are sustainable and which can continue without continuing 

Federal involvement-those are the heritage areas that will be established. 

In addition to that, we think that the bills also provide the heavy 

funding on the front end, if you will, of the heritage area designation process, and that by doing that, providing critical Federal support at the time in which it is most difficult to get these heritage 

areas moving that the Federal involvement will be used in the 

most efficient and in the most cost-effective way. 

So we think that the money for the heritage areas can come and 

will come from a partnership between the Federal Government, the 

States and local government, and the Federal involvement will be 

at a time when it is most needed, but there will not be a continuing 

requirement for Federal involvement. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that of the other issues that 

have been raised here today, the question of whether or not the 

Federal legislation results in a taking of private property or creates 

an impingement on private property rights, having read the bill 
29 

many times, I think that it is clear from a reading of the bill that 

the government authority and power to create and manage heritage areas rests exclusively with State and local government. And 

we support that strongly. We support that division of authority and 

responsibility with respect to the creation, the designation and the 

management of heritage areas. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Norton, and committee. Ms. Watson, we have all talked about the 100 heritage areas that are out 

there and six of which are designated by the Federal Government. Do you anticipate that 94 areas will come rushing into this committee for designation? 

Ms. WATSON. I hope not. I think it would be a workload you 

wouldn't want to have and would be kind of tough on us out in the 

field as well. That number 100 is one I think that is just an estimate. We have more than 100 organizational members. There are 

various lists, and I think it is going to be a matter of putting this 

process forward so that the rules are out there, and communities 

that feel that they can pursue this process want to engage in it. 

One of the advantages of this sort of rushing forward, as you say, 

is there is a long lead time so that feasibility studies would proceed 

on course and then work through the compact. It is going to take 

several years for any community to work through this kind of process before they decide whether or not they want to come to this 

committee and get designated and receive that Federal recognition 

that is put forward in this process. 

Mr. HEFLEY. You know, we know that one of the driving forces 

at the local level for creating heritage areas is economic development, and you mention that in your testimony. Can you give us 

some examples of how this has enhanced economic development in 

places around the country? 

Ms. WATSON. Sure. In the Illinois and Michigan Canal, new restaurants have been established; access to the canals. The canals 

have been restored. Basically, what is happening is that people are 

coming back down to some places that maybe have been forgotten 

or lost in the public memory, and they are getting access to trails 

along canal sides and rivers. And merchants and people in the hospitality industry are able to offer new services in those ways so 

that you would have bicycling, for example, and overnight accommodations and lunch preparation. Small business development of 

that kind is taking place in these areas. 

I want to emphasize though that this is new. Illinois and Michigan have been around more than 10 years. Blackstone River Valley 

has been around almost 10 years. Delaware and Lehigh is not 

nearly that old. Southwestern Pennsylvania, of course, has had 

quite a lot of investment to move it faster in that process. We are 

expecting this (economic development) to happen but I can't give 

you as many hard figures as I would like. It is one of the jobs, I 

think, of the National Coalition to track that. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. Norton, I think you could tell the 

question on the minds of many of our committee is, do we need to 

do anything at all? I mean, after all, these things have been developing and progressing on their own and through the appropriations 

90-778 0 - 95 - 2 
30 

process and without the Federal Government. And you said it is essential that we do this. How do we tell the members of our committee that are skeptical about this that we need to even do anything? 

Ms. WATSON. I guess there are two answers to that, Mr. Chairman. The main thing is that this process, and by this I mean both 

the first title in H.R. 1301 and H.R. 1280, essentially, you are setting rules for yourselves to consider these proposals. And I am not 

going to be able to sit here and tell you that you will follow those 

rules. That is up to the Congress to follow those rules. 

Could you repeat that question? I had another thought in there. 

Mr. HEFLEY. I was wondering how we would convince the skeptics on our committee that we need to do anything when, you know, 

it has been progressing and we have developed heritage areas without the Federal Government's involvement. 

Ms. WATSON. Yes. I guess what I want to call attention to in my 

written testimony is that there is a Federal role here that is exclusive to the Federal Government, and that is in extending this national recognition. I think if these communities are going to be 

building these programs, if they are not going to get the recognition 

and, therefore, I think over the long term the visitation and the excitement really of the national recognition, that they will falter. 

And that is one of the efficient uses of the Federal role. 

There is not money necessarily involved in strictly national recognition. I do think that in addition to that, without consistency, 

some level of standard setting, I think that standard setting is a 

two-edged sword because you have the issue of being top-down. But 

we are looking for something that across the board says that those 

communities that want to do this, that are willing to undertake the 

additional commitment and expense, deserve special recognition. 

They deserve promotion, international marketing, creation of recognizable national signage, the kinds of things that would create, 

in essence, a national system that would be something that would 

tell a different American story than programs that are reserving 

land in special natural areas. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Norton, would you like to comment on that as 

well? 

Mr. NORTON. I think that those are all very good answers, Mr. 

Chairman, and I agree with them. I think that in addition to the 

factors that Ms. Watson has just cited, that there are perhaps several others. One is, I think that there is a great deal of agreement 

on this. Our national history is our national history. 

I know that sounds like just the most straightforward of statements, but the fact is it does belong to all of us, and there is a 

strong sense among people that this history, whether it took place 

in Massachusetts or in Utah or in California, does belong to us, 

and that we have a national interest in protecting and promoting 

that. Practically every Congress and every Administration since the 

beginning of the Republic has in some way recognized and sought 

to foster and enhance that. 

So then it becomes, I think, a question of, under our present circumstances, do we have the resources given all the other demands 

to go ahead and do that? I think that both of the bills and certainly 

your bill, Mr. Chairman, provide a very modest amount of money 

to recognize that national interest. 
31 

I think also that we should recognize that this Federal involvement can have a tremendous stimulant and multiplier effect on 

many local economies. The National Trust has learned through our 

Main Street Program, for example, that this kind of technical assistance and working with local communities has a tremendous 

leveraging effect; in the case of Main Street, almost a 22-to-1 

leveraging effect so that really what we are doing with programs 

like this is really enhancing economic development, economic 

growth, and communities' sustainability in a very positive way. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony of 

the witnesses. Obviously, our friend, Mr. Cushman, suggests we 

ought not to give anything to the Park Service because the Park 

Service can't do anything right. And so I don't know if there is any 

reason to pursue a line of questioning, but I did appreciate, I guess, 

probably his focus on the Park Service left him less opportunity to 

critique our bills. But I think they are a different step, and I think 

this will make a kinder and gentler Park Service even to Mr. 

Cushman's evaluation. I think that is the purpose. 

I look at this as sort of an evolution of what has happened in 

terms of designation of recreation and other areas where there are 

substantially nonfederal lands, and we have tried with Santa 

Monica, you mentioned, and other areas. And this offers an opportunity to do it differently in terms of giving the designation. I think 

it is enormously important when we put the Federal imprimatur on 

there in terms of a heritage area. That is something that they 

want. 

We have a couple of examples of that that rely pretty much on 

that in terms of the landmark and the Historic Register programs. 

They don't function all by themselves. Obviously, the surveys take 

funds on the part of the Park Service. They take funds on the part 

of the Stage Historic Preservation Offices to oversee and to guide 

and to educate as it were and to review their multiple functions 

that they have but certainly to review the candidates for the Historic Register. 

So this, obviously, is built on that, and I think your experience, 

Ms. Watson, with Delaware-Lehigh, which I think I pronounced Lehigh-Delaware before and I apologize for that, is instructive be- cause it gives me a little reason for optimism because I know we 

wrote that. You know, my staff, Rick Healy who is behind me, at 

that time and others with regards to Blackstone worked hard trying to find the balance. I don't know where we got all those ideas 

from, but we are all right to take good ideas wherever we find 

them. And so I invite my colleagues to take my ideas and do things 

with them. 

But one of the things that comes through here, the difference between the two principal bills in trying to set aside, and I think 

Mrs. Chenoweth specifically is right about saying we are not looking at all these designations in here. I guess that if we are trying 

to go forward, I would suggest we do so. 

I respectfully disagree with my colleague, Mr. Hefley, about not 

including areas that have undergone study because I think we need 

to address that. You need that to get the Senate's attention, I think 

too. But the major differences between this technical assistance 
32 

versus some small amount, really a modest amount, $14 or $15 

million of capital type of investment. 

First of all, there are matching funds in here. Axe these matching funds just one to one, three to one matching? Axe these easy 

to meet, and will they be met by candidate communities that want 

to receive heritage designation? 

Ms. WATSON. Yes, sir. I believe these are reasonable. I remember 

in the last Congress raising this issue specifically for rural communities where a 25 percent match seemed to be doable, but larger 

than that would have been difficult. Now, I want to be specific that 

technical assistance in both bills is $8 million. Actually, the $8 million in H.R. 1301 also pertains to grants, but in any case, expenditures in either of those $8 million pots would be a 75 percent Federal-25 percent local match, and that is doable. Under H.R. 1301, 

the 50 percent match for capital development, I believe, is also reasonable. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the points, of course, Mr. Norton mentioned, 

a 22-to-1 leveraging, but there are other incentives like tax benefits. We could go in that direction if you think our tax historic preservation and the alternative minimum if you want to get into modifying that, you won't be talking about tens of millions of dollars. 

You will be talking probably about billions of dollars just to look 

at what is out there to be engaged in the use so we are necessarily 

putting this out there with $14 million. There are some other tools 

out there that can be used. There are private purpose bonds that 

can be used that are also a Federal Government purpose. 

There are also other resources like you said, ISTEA. Now, are 

those resources in and of themselves adequate? Do we really need 

the money that Vento has in this bill, as an example, as an authorization? 

Ms. WATSON. Congressman, I believe that that money should be 

reserved for covering gaps that are not addressed in ISTEA or 

Land and Water Conservation Fund and other kinds of Federal 

programs where funding may be available; watershed planning 

under EPA, for example. There are a wide range of Federal programs available. 

We do not see funding-and this is where, again, keeping in close 

touch with our constituents over time will tell us better, but what 

appears to be needed is restoration funding. Bricks and mortar 

money, as you know, under the Historic Preservation Fund has 

long been gone. There also have been uses of the money for some 

trail-building that extended beyond some of the limits that the 

local programs have---

Mr. VENTO. Let me get Mr. Norton into it because the National 

Trust for Historic Preservation has a lot of advice, a lot of technical 

assistance. Basically, that is your forte, and you don't do really 

much in terms of grants at all, Mr. Norton. Do you think the Park 

Service should have a program like that? 

Mr. NORTON. I think a grants program is a useful tool for heritage areas and other similar programs. The National Trust does 

have modest grants programs which we find to be very successful. 

The Preservation Services Fund, Preservation Loan Fund, Critical 

Issues Fund, Inner City Ventures Fund are all grants or loans programs which the National Trust uses in a very targeted way for ei-
33 

ther specific historic preservation projects, brick-and-mortar-type 

projects, or also for conducting critical feasibility and other type 

studies and also for educational activities. So I think that a grants 

program for the reasons that Mr. Galvin cited are a very useful 

arrow in the quiver for the administration of a program such as 

this. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, just let me add with the tolerance of 

the members here, I think that having up-front in terms of the 

compact of the feasibility study some format in terms of knowing 

what the parameters are is enormously important. 

One of the problems we have had here where we have set up 

commissions and done other matters without any authorization for 

any type of capital is that the committees, others, have taken it 

upon themselves to decide what the amount would be, and that has 

proven to be a disaster. 

If you do this up front, you at least say in the compact then what 

the dollars are going to be, where they are going to come from, 

what the parameters are, and the amount here really is quite modest. We may not have the money to appropriate it. 

I suspect though that the driving force behind this would be well 

advised in terms of providing this type of format in terms of knowing what the Federal participation is going to be and then recognizing that there are other programs that can be engaged and will be 

like these tax credit programs in terms of revenue expenditures. 

We are spending billions of dollars in terms of these goals. This 

permits them to tie it together and to really receive the type of recognition and commitment in terms of getting a lot for Federal effort. 

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Chenoweth has five minutes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. Norton, I was very interested 

in your testimony. Can you tell me what the annual budget for the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation is? 

Mr. NORTON. Yes, ma'am. Our budget is approximately $33 million. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. $33 million. And isn't it true that you receive 

$7 to $8 million annually from the National Parks Department? 

Mr. NORTON. In fiscal 1994, I think we received just about $7 

million, actually $6.9 million. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Cushman, you represent the National Alliance for Property Rights? 

Mr. CusHMAN. Well, we are involved with a whole group of private property owner organizations. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you receive $7 to $8 million from the Park 

Service? 

Mr. CusHMAN. Oh, no. I have never had the Park Service call 

and offer me money. They did give me a ticket once to speak at a 

seminar in Grand Canyon. I am grateful for that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Cushman, I am interested in knowing 

what political forces might cause the cost of these proposed heritage areas to increase? 

Mr. CusHMAN. Well, it typically happens when a designation 

comes in. The local community thinks and expects more than what 
34 

we are talking about here in these bills. And so by designation, you 

create a critical mass of support within the community. And there 

is almost always support within the community. Then there are 

some opponents too, but this support mechanism has this funding 

and seed money and this national designation. And then it begins 

to lobby to expand its role, and this happens. So all this is is a 

seeding program to set up these heritage areas all over the country. 

I am not disputing the concept of setting up heritage areas, having them on a local or statewide basis. In fact, we have spoken before this committee endorsing that concept before. I guess I am just 

very concerned that this process is a nose under the tent which will 

then lead to a vast expansion of expenditures for these projects, 

and we will look back in 20 years and wonder how this project got 

away from us just like we can look at many others in the Park 

Service and other agencies similar to that. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. You know, I just want to say to 

the participants on the panel that my granddad used to tell about 

the man that was standing by his well-groomed, well-organized, 

beautiful farm land when somebody drove by and said, ''Well, Mr. 

Bailey, you have got a beautiful spread here. God has been very 

good to you." And Mr. Bailey looked at the man and said, ''You 

should have seen this land when God had it all by himself." 

And, you know, I know you have heard this before, but the fact 

is that the reason that these areas are beautiful is because of the 

impact of the different cultures that the different ethnic groups 

brought to this great land. And I share a great enthusiasm and a 

great interest in history. I love being in this area and being able 

to enjoy the history, but I went to Mount Vernon last weekend, and 

I also try to take a trek every once in a while to Monticello. And 

those areas are run by private organizations, and yet in Mount 

Vernon, they have one million visitors a year, and it is doing very 

well. 

I am just saying I think that that is the area that we as a governing, law-making body need to look at, that there really is people 

empowerment, that there really are private organizations who can 

take this on; and also that we will always take into consideration 

private property rights, and the fact that we don't want to go in 

and destroy cultures like we have seen happen before. And I think 

that we can reach a commonality of goals in the future without 

coming to the Federal Government for the authority and the power 

that comes with the money from Congress. Mr. Cushman. 

Mr. CUSHMAN. I wanted to expand on something I said a minute 

ago. I just want to read from Heritage Links which is published by 

the National Coalition for Heritage Areas, April 1995, to give you 

a sense of expectation of what you will see down the line. This is 

on the front page, and it says, "In general, it appears that if we 

are to see Federal legislation addressing heritage areas in this Congress, we must be prepared to accept a shortened step along the 

pathway many of us envision. 

"In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps someday we will see 

a combination of what has been laid out in other national heritage 

corridor legislation and ideas for linking other Federal agency programs to the basic foundation of a designation program." I mean, 
35 

it is clear that this is a nose under the tent, and it risks a mass 

expansion and I think can do really terrible damage to the culture 

and the history and the framework of this country. We need to empower local people, encourage them to go forward and do these 

kinds of projects. If they are worthwhile, there are lots of examples 

where they will survive on their own without Federal intervention. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Cushman. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I apologize to the panel for not being 

here during your presentation. I had to step out for just a few minutes. I get the distinct impression, Mr. Cushman, that you are a 

Pombo fan when it comes to the comment that he made that there 

is no reason to do heritage areas. You know, we have National 

Parks, and then not quite fitting though, I guess, would be heritage 

areas. The obvious difference between the two bills is cost that we 

are looking at. And I assume you are not in favor of either one of 

these bills. Is that right? 

Mr. CusHMAN. Yes. That is accurate. I mean, there are a lot of 

good things to be said for the motivation of why these bills were 

drafted. Many of these areas are worthy of activities to create 

areas, to enhance the local economy and the local community. But 

at some point, we have to check the appetite of the Park Service, 

and I am very concerned the motivation here is to get the Park 

Service to look at its existing problems. 

You can't constantly solve your existing problems by going out 

and doing other new and exciting things while trying to pretend 

that the old egregious problems are just going to go away. We have 

got to deal with the housing problem. We have got to deal with the 

maintenance problem. 

We have got to deal with the land acquisition backlog. We have 

got to focus on trying to be good neighbors in local communities, 

and when we have a track record of that kind of activity, when we 

have a record that shows that the agency can be a good neighbor, 

then you can expand out into these neighbor programs. 

Mr. HANSEN. Now, you feel that if the local and the State governments believe in their own minds that an area justifies a certain 

designation that they should be the ones that should bring that 

project about? 

Mr. CuSHMAN. I do and I have to say that I don't think that this 

agency, the Park Service, has a record it can stand on and be proud 

of in these areas I am sorry to say because, I mean, I have an involvement in the Park Service. It is over 40 years, having been a 

volunteer and on the National Park System Advisory Board, and 

my father was a ranger for the Park Service. And it manages wonderful places. Many people confuse the issue of a great agencythat it is a great agency because it manages great places. We need 

to make it a great agency, but we need to get it to fix its problems. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Our other two witnesses, excuse me for 

not hearing your testimony. I have been trying to read it briefly. 

What is wrong with the idea of locals and States doing it? Do you 

feel the Federal Government has some expertise or knowledge or 

understanding that gives them a better advantage than the locals 

and the States doing these things? 
36 

Ms. WATSON. Yes, sir. Obviously, Mr. Cushman and I differ in 

our faith in the National Park Service, and certainly we wouldn't 

have so many local and State efforts expressing hope that there 

would be national recognition at some point in establishment of 

this program. I think reasonable people can differ as to whether 

the Federal Government should engage in this program at all. 

I do believe that the National Park Service and the Department 

of the Interior and the Federal Government can contribute to these 

areas by a very limited amount of funding over a very limited 

amount of time in order to put these places into a position to take 

advantage of the kind of visitation that a Monticello or a Mount 

Vernon might engender. But I do think that in the beginning as 

you get something like this started up, the ability to obtain technical assistance and information and shared standards across the 

Nation is an advantage to those local and State efforts. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Norton., would you also like to respond to the 

question regarding why you feel the Federal Government can do a 

better job than State and local? 

Mr. NORTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that I would not quite 

accept that exact characterization of the issue because I think the 

virtue of the Hefley bill and Mr. Vento's bill is, in fact, they turn 

the camel around and head him back out of the tent. 

The way I read these bills, and I look at the structure and the 

process that you set up with these bills, is that you are committing 

the major responsibility in developing the feasibility for these areas 

and developing-which includes almost a business plan for whether 

these areas will be sustainable, the whole criteria in the bill, the 

process set up by the bill, and then the actual implementation really is a locally driven program, and that the Federal involvement is 

very much limited to providing technical advice, technical assistance, and providing that assistance at the most difficult time for 

really getting these heritage programs moving which is at the beginning. 

And in that sense, I do believe that these areas will succeed. 

They will stand or fail largely on the result of local efforts. Indeed, 

I believe that that is their greatest virtue, that they are locally 

driven. They will be locally developed and locally managed and controlled. But I do not think that that means that the Federal Government, therefore, has no role whatsoever in trying to start this 

process in the designation and creation of these heritage areas forward at the time when that kind of help can be most critical, most 

needed, and that it will have none of the parade of horribles that 

Mr. Cushman holds out for it. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is always an interesting discussion, isn't it, to 

see, and I agree with your statement that the locals would be the 

ones that would drive it and probably the ones that would bring 

it about. And the statement always comes down--

Mr. CusHMAN. Should be, must be. 

Mr. HANSEN. We always draw this down to the bottom line, and 

we eventually get there when we do this. What is technical assistance? And I am sure that Mr. Vento, who is the institutional memory of this entire committee, could easily respond to that. 

But seeing as I have the mike and the gavel right now, I will just 

say that my past AA back in the early 1980's is now the Director 
37 

of Natural Resources, a very bright, young attorney. And so I sat 

him down with some of his Park people, and I said, ''What technical assistance can they give you that is better than you have 

got?" And it was one of those tough questions that shouldn't be. It 

seems like a simple question. I am still waiting for a response to 

that, and I will turn to my friend from Minnesota because I know 

you could respond. 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't want to respond to the technical assistance 

issue, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to point out there has been 

some discussion about whether or not we ought to write a generic 

Act on heritage areas. I think it is very important because I think 

that as you look even at the six measures or seven measures because I would add Wheeling to that-never authorized but seems 

to be well funded, Mr. Chairman, and I would add that pointing 

out that we need to, as you said, put some sideboards in place, and 

a generic Act would do that. 

I think, in fact, it would actually be limiting on the Park Service 

as well as it would be on those that are bringing these proposals 

to us. You know, the working up where Mr. Hansen is, it is hard 

to tell your colleagues that their baby isn't a beautiful candidate 

for adoption to the National Park System. And so we need, as Mr. 

Norton so aptly put it, to turn the camel out of the tent around and t~with leveraging dollars and matching dollars, it becomes adopting ground for what doesn't happen to fit locally or some bright 

idea that someone has to get money out of the Federal Government. 

And if you look at these seven areas, you find all different degrees of that that has gone on, and I would just suggest that, you 

know, having a generic Act is going to be a lot better than having 

some sort of goals in terms of the amount of dollars; in terms of 

what our capital commitments are going to be is also very important. I mean, you know, we have sliced it pretty thin in terms of 

that and then having enough incentive. 

Mr. Hefley when you were gone mentioned he didn't think we 

should designate this Act, but I would suggest that doing so will 

give great strength to the legislation as it is considered in the Senate because otherwise this enthusiasm for authorization and generic Acts may not be so great in the Senate as it is in this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. You may be right, Mr. Vento. Let me point out on 

one of your comments, that is true, those six areas have been well 

funded. However, under the new world since November 8, Mr. Regula and others have been instructed and have all taken the oath 

that no authorization, no funding. That is why in front of this committee in a short time we are going to have some real problems 

with BLM authorization because it really hasn't been authorized 

since 1982. 

Mr. VENTO. Just look what they did with the timber sales the 

other week, Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, that is true. So we may find ourselves in a 

little problem on that one. Let me thank the witnesses. I appreciate 

you being here and all of you folks who have been with us today 

and the Park Service for being with us. It has been very informative. We will try to digest what you have said, and we would hope 
38 

we could turn to each one of you for a resource. If that would be 

pennissible, we would appreciate having the option of calling you 

for further knowledge. We realize your great expertise, and your 

beliefs are very strong. I thank you, and this will adjourn this subcommittee hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
39 

STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING 

AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND LANDS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 1280 

AND H.R. 1301, BILLS TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS 

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

March 28, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak before the subcommittee today on 

H.R. 1280 and H.R. 1301, bills to establish a Heritage Areas Parmership Program. I 

appreciate the opportunity to continue the dialogue we began in the 103rd Congress on 

Heritage Areas and how we can best conserve some of the Nation's most important resources. 

We strongly support H.R. 1301 with two minor amendments discussed below. This bill is 

based on an Administration proposal transmitted to this Committee on March 21, 1994. It is 

very similar to legislation (H.R. 5044) reported from this Committee and passed by the House 

of Representatives at the end of the 103rd Congress. 

We could also support H.R. 1280 if amended to authorize the Secretary to provide grants, as 

well as technical assistance, to a National Heritage Area's management entity. One of the 

principal benefits from a National Heritage Area Program is that it offers those seeking 

Federal assistance in protecting nationally significant resources an alternative to the 

establishment of new units in the National Park System. This alternative would not be as 

viable without the possibility of financial assistance. In turn, H.R. 1280 should be amended to 

ensure that the Secretary has the ability to oversee how Federal assistance is utilized. For 

example, the Secretary should be authorized to approve management plans as provided in 
40 

H.R. 1301. 

We strongly support the establishment of a heritage areas partnership program that empowers 

citizens at the state and local level to protect resources important to the heritage of their 

communities and the United States. The Department of the Interior and specifically the 

National Park Service have been looking at the issue of heritage conservation for several 

years. We believe the creation of a system of Congressionally designated heritage areas is 

critical to ensuring the success of local, citizen-driven initiatives aimed at protecting the 

heritage of our communities and regions and in turn the nation. 

The National Park System has traditionally been viewed as the place where the United States' 

important, nationally significant cultural, natural and recreation resources are protected. 

Through the designation of national parks, the Congress has recognized the diversity of the 

nation's character and has worked to :reate a system that is truly representative of that 

character. In turn, the National Park Service works to ensure that each unit's story reflects its 

part of the nation's character and that the unit preserves its piece of our heritage. 

Through the National Park Service's work we have a greater awareness of the forces that have 

helped to shape our nation's character. The interaction of natural processes, distinctive 

landscapes, cultural traditions, and economic and social forces have created a unique pattern 

of human settlement and activity. We recognize that the traditional approach to protecting 

resources -- establishing a distinct park unit with defined boundaries and federal management 

2 
41 

responsibility -- is not always appropriate. 

Throughout the country there is an increasing awareness of the importance of community, the 

individuality of place. There is extensive citizen interest in protecting resources that have 

shaped the character of communities and regions. The working, cultural landscapes that exist 

in all communities embody much of this individuality and their protection is critical in 

accomplishing our goal of protecting the nation's diverse character. 

For a number of years the National Park Service has been participating in a very different 

approach to protecting our nation's heritage. We have experience at four areas, Blackstone 

River Valley National Heritage Corridor, the lllinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage 

Corridor, the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor, and 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Project. Although we do not recommend 

the establishment of Federal commissions, such as those managing some existing heritage 

areas. as a method of ensuring public input and participation in the management of newly 

designated national heritage areas, we recognize through our work in these areas that the 

people who live on the land are uniquely qualified to protect it. This experience reinforces 

our belief that the coming together of citizens, businesses, public and private organizations, 

and local governments to work together is critical to ensuring the protection of community 

character and the individuality of each community or region. The heritage area designation 

provides a significant impetus to divergent groups to come together and work in a holistic 

manner to protect their community, care for their distinct culture and heritage, and protect 

3 
42 

their land and its vast resources. Heritage area designation fosters community pride and 

reinforces the need for local determination of and responsibility for community resources. 

The creation of a national heritage area partnership program and thus a system of nationally 

recognized heritage areas is critical to bringing citizens, businesses and state and local 

governments into a partnership with the National Park Service and the nation as a whole to 

protect the resources that represent our diversity and help define our national character. These 

places are and will continue to be the places where people work and live and will influence 

future generations of Americans. 

The two bills before us today are very similar. Both call for the establishment of a system of 

heritage areas in which a partnership is developed as a means of protecting, interpreting and 

promoting these areas. Both call upon the expertise of the National Park Service to assist 

heritage areas in the development of plans and programs that will help citizens and local 

governments protect the distinct resources and culture of their community or region. Both 

rely on similar commitments from and responsibilities for heritage areas and the federal 

government. Both require the locality to be the primary agent responsible for making a 

heritage area happen. For the most part they establish the same program. 

Their basic difference is one of financial support. H.R. 1280 limits the role of the Secretary 

of the Interior to one of providing tec'lnical assistance to a heritage area on feasibility studies, 

the development of compacts, and management plans. H.R. 1301 goes beyond this and 

4 
43 

provides money for implementation of management plans. Implementation grants are 

available and managed by the Secretary. Oversight by the Secretary is also greater in H.R. 

1301, and there are stricter federal consistency requirements. H.R. 1301 would also designate 

certain areas as heritage areas, require studies of other areas, and provide amendments for 

existing heritage areas. 

H.R. 1280 creates the National Heritage Areas Partnership Program. We prefer the use of the 

term National as opposed to American for two reasons. First of all it is a term consistently 

used by the Congress for designating systems; for example: the National Trails System, the 

National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System. The 

second reason is that this is a program of the United States of America. America is a common 

term used to refer to all nations of the Western Hemisphere. National would denote a 

program specific to the United States. Therefore we recommend that National, as used in 

H.R. 1280, be the descriptive term for the heritage areas parrnership program. 

H.R. 1280 would require the management entity to be responsible for implementation of its 

plan through current means and mechanisms that are available at the local level. H. R. 130 I 

would provide limited federal dollars to assist the management entity that is responsible for 

implementing the plan. We believe that limiting federal assistance to technical assistance 

only, may not be the most effective way to encourage local groups to propose and manage 

nationally designated heritage areas. In some instances the greatest need may be an 

implementation grant as local resources may be available for studies and planning. Therefore 

5 
44 

we recommend that the full range of assistance available in H.R. 1301 remain a part of the 

heritage areas partnership program. This would allow the greatest flexibility for assistance at 

the local level and allow local entities the abil ity to determine their greatest need. 

Although we support the full range of assistance opportunities that are available in H.R. !301, 

we are concerned that the limited resources available to the states and local governments 

through the Historic Preservation Fund would be diminished through this program. H.R. 

1280 does not rely on the Historic Preservation fund as the source of funds for this program . 

We support that position and recommend that any funding made available for the heritage 

areas partnership program not diminish e:xisting programs that currently support state and local 

conservation initiatives. 

With regards to federal consistency, we ?refer the language of H.R. !301. The Secretary of 

the Interior is the appropriate convener of federal agencies when disputes or conflicts between 

federal entities arise. It is at the Cabinet level where differences are worked out and the 

President is the final arbiter. The Governor may be able to bring groups together but does not 

have the authority to direct a federal agency to comply with a decision or enforce federal 

consistency. However, we support including the Governor in the review process and the 

discussion of alternatives to ensure state support of decisions that resolve conflicts and provide 

for consistency. Therefore we support the provisions in each section of Title II that require 

the Secretary to approve the compact fo r each area before the area can be designated. 

6 
45 

With regards to the areas being considered for designation as heritage areas in H.R. 1301, it 

is important to understand that some are more prepared to take on the designation than are 

others. 1n some, feasibility studies have been completed and management entities exist which 

are prepared to develop compacts. In others, the studies are only beginning or are completed 

but there is not yet a designated management entity. We believe that any area which is 

designated a heritage area should be required to meet the criteria of a feasibility study and an 

approved compact before it officially becomes a national heritage area. 

Title IV of H.R. 1301 amends the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 

1986. These amendments would expand the boundary of the heritage corridor, change the 

appointment process for commission membership, extend the life of the commission, increase 

the Commission's annual operating ceiling, revises planning requirements, and reauthorizes 

Secretarial funding authority for corridor development with a ceiling of $5,000,000. The 

National Park Service supports the provisions of Title IV. The changes to the boundary are at 

the request of the communities in the Blackstone Valley not included in the original boundary 

and would make them a part of the heritage corridor. The changes to the Commission 

appointment process address the legal questions which have been raised by the Justice 

Department concerning Federal commission membership. Extension of the Commission is 

critical for the continued smooth management of the corridor. The changes in planning 

requirements address the additional planning needs that result from the expanded boundary. 

The changes in operating and development ceilings will provide the Commission the necessary 

funds to carry out its mandates and complete its work. 

7 
46 

These amendments will provide the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corndor the 

appropriate tools and authorities to effectively protect and interpret nationally significant 

resources through a willing partnership among federal, state, local, and private parties. 

Blackstone currently stands as a model for how to create effective partnerships for protecting 

resources where Federal ownership is inappropriate . These amendments can only help to 

strengthen the work underway in the Blackstone River Valley. We request that the committee 

incorpo rate these amendments into a final heritage areas partnership initiative. 

Title VI of H.R. 1301 amends the legislation which established the Southwestern Pennsylvania 

American Heritage Preservation Commission. The amendments would establish the Southwest 

Pennsylvania Heritage Area and provide the authorities available 10 other heritage areas to the 

Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage P::oject. The work the Southwestern Pennsylvania HistOric 

Preservation Commission has undertaken more than qualifies the Project for designation as a 

heritage area. We recommend that the amendments which establish the Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Heritage Area be incorporated into a final he ritage areas partnership initiative. 

Funding for this bill would be subject to the Administrations budgeting priorities and 

constraints consistent with the Budget Enforcement Act. 

We believe this is an important program and commend the subcommittee for taking up this 

discussion so early in this session. We believe that H.R. 1301, with some minor changes in 

language, will provide the best legislative proposal for a successful heritage partnership 

8 
47 

program. The Administration is prepared· to work with the subcommittee to promote a 

heritage areas parmership program that will be of the greatest value to those responsible for 

creating and managing heritage areas and that will ensure the strongest and most successful 

program possible. This completes my comments. I am prepared to answer any questions 

which you or members of the committee may have. 

9 
48 

NATIONAl. COAliTION FOR 

HERITAGE AREAS 

ii1ll ~ " ~-

P. 0. Bm 3.1011 

VVASHI ,GTO:'\, D.C. 2003)-0011 

TEL: (202) 67)·4037 FAX: (202 ) 67)·4038 

Board of Directors 

Brenda Barrdt 

T. Alla n Comr 

R.:1nd\· Cnt•i: \· 

Wilton CPrJ...ar. 

Betsv Cuthbo: ~:- ,> n 

H. Grant Dc-hJrt 

Tho ma~ Gallahd , lr. 

Eri.-:Hcnr"o:IJo 

Jean Hocker 

Alan Jar.h,n.: ~ 

Hc-nr• A. o~ dJn 

Ethel Lo..:ks 

Me \1a~u iu 

Edward T . .\1.:.\IJhon 

Shelley .\lJ~Ir il 

Ma rvC. .\lcJ!'h 

Phyllis :-.h·t·rl 

Loretta :-.:cumJn n 

Sally G. O ldham 

Claudi a Pol ]c, 

fame s rp, r 

Thomas Ruhemon 

Al\'in Rost'r.bJur:l 

rvbrio ~Jn.h cl 

Da,·id ~ar:1p ~on 

]effreyS(•llk 

Julia S. Sttlke ~ 

A. EliZJJ:'>Ct h \\.Jtson 

Patric iJ F. . \'.'ilJJJnH 

Larrv G. \\·i;t;JnNln 

Officers 

A. Eli 7.Jhcth \\.J!Sl'> O 

Chmr 

Alvin Rll)l·nl:>Jum 

PrniJc>ll 

Patric ia E. William~ 

Secrcr,J r\ 

larry G. \\'i ~li Jm$Oil 

TESTIMONY OF A. ELIZ-\BElH WATSO'\ 

CJ-1.-\IR. '-iATIO'-iAL COALITIOl' FOR HERJTAGE ARE\S. 

:vtARCH 28. 1995 

BEFORE THE SL'BCOMMITITE ON NATIONAL PARKS. 

FORESTS. AND J..A,"-.TIS. 

COM\IITIEE Ot" RESOL'RCES. U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

RE HR 1280. THE TECH:-..lCAL ASSISTA]\;CE ACT OF 1995 

Thank you for the opponunity ro appear before this comminee on behalf of the 

National Coalition for Heritage Areas to speak to proposed legislation that \\ill allow 

local and state governments and other partners to seek voluntary national recognition 

and assistance for their effons to preserve distinctive landscapes. In preparing this 

tesrimon,·. we learned late last " ·eek that H.R 130 I is also under consideration bv this 

comminee. \\'e bel:.eve that most of our comments today also apply to that bill. and 

should you ha\·e any specific questions about H.R 1301. I will be happy to respond. 

Both H.R 1280 and H.R 1301 establish a national program to identify and suppon 

places desen·ing of national recognition not only for their resources but also for their 

commitment to development and protectiorL Mr. Hefley and 'vir. TorkildserL sponsor 

and cosponsor for HR. 1280, and Mr. Vento and the several cosponsors lor HR 

1301. have made an excellent stan at bringing fomard all issues considered by this 

body in the last Congress. and we are most grateful for their leadership in returning to 

this issue early in tl-is Congress. H.R 1301 is a slightly changed version of the bill 

that passed the Hou;;e in the last Congress. H.R. 5044. "hich the National Coalition 

for Heritage :\reas !:upponed "ith the exception of the source of the fi.mding. which 

\.vas identified 3..." th~! Historic Preservation Fund. lhis fund is inappropriate as a sole 

source of suppon for a program that extends well bevond historic preservation in its 

goals and objectives. H.R 1280 in general streamlines and refmes H.R 5044. 

remaining faithful to the basic concept negotiated last year. There are only fi ve 

significant difl'erenc-!5 berween the two, \\hich this testimony addresses at a later poir.t. 

The National Coalit.on for Heritage Areas. which "as founded two years ago. is an 

open membership organization "ith more than 100 organizations represented among 

our members. Our point of view is from the "bonom up." that is. we seek to suppon 

effons that are in many cases well underway in communities and some states to 

recognize. celebrate and enhance special historic and natural places in this country. 

We do this not only b~· working to infonn Congress abotn our concerns. but by 

surve:ing our membership. sharing informatiorL and creating opportunities for our 

members to kam fr·Jm one another. Our members are already hard at work in many 

BreondJ Barrell communities around this nation. working together to create new opportunities for 

Nomil1dtm~C.m''' irrrrCIIaireducation. community development. and steward<:ihip. Some represent areas already 

Shelley i\I.!S!rJn 

Exautil'f D1 rc.-t(>r 
49 

named as "national heritage corridors"; others are working ~th the National Park Service or their 

state or commtmity leaders to bring this new approach to other special places. They are educators. 

folklife specialists. parks and recreation planners, historic preservation expertS. naturalists, volunteers. 

public administrators, elected officials, and civic leaders of all kinds. We believe our members 

represent a dividend from a generation of conservation leaders, homegrown and practical in their 

approaches to the needs of their communi ties. 

First, and speaking now more generally, \\hat are the conditions io many collllllllllities Chat have led us 

to Ibis point today? We believe that effOrtS in many places, generically known as "heritage areas." but 

which may instead be called "urban cultural parks" or "heritage corridors," are a oatwal outgrowth of 

the increasing ability in many commuoities to protect and develop special resoun:es. As these 

commtmities have gained experience Y.ith such programs as Main Street revitalization, rail-trail 

conversions, adaptive re-use of historic buildings, creation of visitors' centers and museums. stream 

cleanups. commtmity folk festivals, and other successful means of revitalizing and celebrating special 

commtmiry assets. they !Ja,·e sought to rnak£ greater use of these assets for ecooomic betterment of 

their citizens. 

Moreover, as the nwturing of a commtmity's tmique resources begins to pay dividends, the "big 

picture" begins to emerge in such places, as people begin to ask questions about their local history and 

geography: ".'.Ym: did our commtmiry grow and become as it did?" The answer to such a qUestion in 

these places can be fascinating. Special landscapes around this nation are not simply a product of 

history. but of natural resources, and the interaction of different kinds of people - from African 

American to Swedish, from Thai to Latino to Native American to English, Russian and 

French -- ~th the land as they sought to earn their living, raise families, and create communities 

under the conditions they found on this continent. 1be story of bow these places were settled, grew 

and changed in response to the overall AmeriC30 story of tecboological change, explor.llioo, war, 

politics, and ecooomic development is a story Chat knowledgeable communities want to explore and 

celebrate. 

1be benefits of celebrnting a commuoity's beritage and the organizing Ibis requires are many: greater 

understanding of the diverse populations who remain in these plaCes, learning about civic traditions 

and the building of civic trust aroong diverse leaders - from environmental activists to members of the 

Olamber of Commerce to church groups to high school principals - shared civic pride manifested in 

successful joint projects, educating and involving the youth of the commtmity, attracting and hosting 

tourists who seek authentic American history and experience, improving recreation opportunities and 

other conditions for the people who live in these places. We believe that the open-ended nature of the 

organizing that has taken place to date has given these communities just enough structure and just 

enough permission to invent their own new leadership patterns. They are reaching out across 

commtmity lines. across disciplines like education and economic development, and creating a healthy 

new "small-p" political vitality at the community level. 

HR 1280 and HR 1301 respond to \\hat is already awakening in these special places. Both defme a 

mtique approach in creating a limited federal role Chat flllllliD the lead provided by commmtity action. 

The National Coalition, in fact, was formed to assure that the federal role in any nationally organized 

program \vould be responsive to the experience and experimentation that is to be found in many 

localities and larger regions. and those few states ~th statewide programs. This is oot a program 

solely for resoun:e protection. Nor is any extensive poblic ownership of land or federal regulation 

expected to flow from recognition of a 'National Heritage Area." Rather; the basic idea here is that 

those places that desire such recognition be offered appropriate levels of federal attention and suwort 
50 

We bdie,·e it is imponant first to explain our \iew of the fedel'lll role in herimge areas h is a 

multiple role, potentially involving: 

o federal recognition as a signal honor; 

o national promotion and international marketing; 

o creation of unifonn or recognizably national signage; 

o maintenance of a fair and open pro~ess that leads to designation; 

o maintenance of recognized standards throughout federal involvement: 

o technical assistance (including training. infonnation-sharing, and other educational activities); 

o alignment of federal agencies under existing authorities to recognize and support community 

values inherent in heritage areas and their management; and 

o funding that both leverages other funding (private and public) and also expects adherence to 

standards. 

Overall. we want a program that expresses the national interest by stimulating local and state 

leadership. both pri,ate and public. 

Briefly, the process that this legislation advances reflects existing experience. Overall, there are two 

basic sets of expectations for any heritage area: (I) That these places have special historic, nalund, 

and cultur.ll resoun:es and eWcalional and recrealional oppol'lllllilies, and (2) that these places will 

enter into a voluntary process for achieving feder.d recognition and managing the resources and public 

offerings based on those resources. (By public offerings, we mean programs for both residents and 

visito~: recreational developmen~ small business development such as retail and hospital icy 

opportunities, interpretation and education related to associated geographic and historic·themes, 

linkages via trails and roadways to move visito~ through an area, and the like.) To be a "National 

Heritage Area," then, a given place must not only have special resources, but be prepared to develop 

and manage these resources for the benefit of residents and visito~ . 

The process itself is a simple one. Fim, an interested communi!)' can apply to the Secretary of the 

Interior. through a program to be called th<: National Heritage Areas Partnership Program, for technical 

assistance to conduct a fezil:ility siUdy. This srudy examines the resources in light of criteria - both 

bills have virtually the same criteria - consi~ effects on various partners, and identifies possible 

boundaries. themes, and ways of organizing willing partners. The idea for this srudy is to gather 

enough infonnation for the public and all affected parties effectively to consider the proposition that 

the communi!)' or region become a heritage area Following up on the feasibili!y srudy, if sufficient 

resource quality and public support is evident, willing partners fonn "" agnoement among themsel,·es, 

called a compact, also with public participllion and technical assistance from the national program 

This compact will set forth the partners' goals and objectives, finalize the boundary, and identify the 

lead agency, called the "management entity" (\\fuch might be a regional government, an existing or 

new nonprofit organization or quasi-public agency, or a federal commission), and outline the state's 

role. Only after the study and the compact are completed will it be possible for a place to become a 

National Heritage Area 

Coogtess itself is required to name any gi•·en heritage area. Places seeking recognition as a National 

Heritage Area must forward to the Secretary the results of the feasibilicy srudy and a copy of the 

compact, along with a sl:llemenl of fOAIIO\'ai from lbe Governor or Governors involved The approval 

of local governments is also required. Th: Secretary then relays this infonnation, together with 

appropriate comments, to the Congress for actiort 

3 
51 

Following favorable action by the Congress, the National Heritage Area continues to be eligible to 

receive assistance from the national program for a nwnber of year.;- a total of 13 in H.R. 1280. The 

fm;t task for the l'iational Heritage Area .,.;n be to create a management plan, guided by the feasibility 

srudy and compact. Public participation and consideration of existing plans and programs are required 

in both bills, although H.R. 1280 is more explicit in more places about public participation. Under 

H.R. 1280, federal plans mUst be considered, giving federal agencies the opportunity to participate in 

the development of the management plan. This management plan will guide the activities of the 

managing entity for the area and fedeml agencies contemplating action that "ill affect a National 

Heritage Area must consider the management plan and consult with the Governor. This represents a 

fair expectation that the right hand and the left hand of the federal government will be coordinated 

with respect to federal investments in heritage areas. 

If the National Heritage Area fails to uphold the standards and expectations set forth in this bill. the 

Secretary is pennined to "ithhold assistance and in an extreme case, to withdraw the designation after 

notice is given to Congress. 

We would like to comment briefly on one modest alternative to this process. In our original work 

with the committee last year, we urged that the management plan be developed in advance of 

Congressional designation. Our thinking is that we want sufficient lead time for all affected parties to 

Wlderstand what they are asking for before approaching the Congress for this recognition, for we do 

not want to see either the time of the Congress or further federal investment wasted. You may recall 

that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as written, follows the process of "srudy, designate, plan." 

Lately, requests to Congress for these designations have actually followed local development of a plan. 

~ch allows evetyone locally to understand what they are getting into. H.R. 1280 and H.R 1301 

reflect a'wreness of this practice, but offer a retinernent in the fonn of the compact. Instead of 

developing a full-blown plan prior to recognition, involved communities and partners are asked to 

work out their commitments in the compact. We will be willing to work with the committee if it is 

deemed advisable to ask that a management plan be prepared before Congressional involvement, but 

we suggest that the practice of, in essence, diY.idi!Ji the planning into a compact before designation. 

and a fmal plan afterward, is an appropriate compromise. Actually creating a plan prior to 

designation can take more time and investment than may be necessary or advisable, given the fmancial 

limits to this program. 

H.R 1280 appropriates a total of$8 million doUm to support the national program. This is the same 

level of technical assistance that is called for in H.R 1301, with the same mat bing requirement, no 

more than 75 percent from the federal government, at least 25 percent from the area. We believe this 

is an adequate level of support for this program and believe the choice of tr ;hnical assistance over 

development funding is the proper strategy to support leadership at the local level and should fulfill 

our expectations for the federal role as described above. In one of the major differences between the 

two bills, H.R. 1301 allows use of these fimds for grants as well as technical assistance. In view of 

the reductions in force at Interior planned over the next several years, we would hope that all fimding 

can be used flexibly, so that success of the program is not reliant on the size of Interior's workforce. 

Another major difference between the two bills is that H.R. 1301 supplies fi.mding to support the 

operations of management entities recognized by Congress (an unspecified amount in total but limited 

to $250,000 per year per area) and further provides $14.5 million for implementation of heritage area 

plans. Naturally enough, H.R 1301's higher fi.mding armunts appear vety attractive, and we wouldn't 

be unhappy v.ith a compromise betv.een the tv.'O bills. We look to the committee for reconciliation of 

this major difference. and recognize concerns expressed on all sides for the cost of this program in an 

4 
52 

era of reduced federal spending. We su.egest. howev·er. that the appropriate way 10 consider the 

difference is to decide \\Tiat is honestlv :·equired to make this a successful program with all of its 

benefits. 

lhere are three other differences between these two ~lis we should mention brieflv. The most 

obvious difference. in fact. is that H.R 1301 names specific areas for srudy or designation. subject to 

certain conditions (It also addresses a need 10 adjust the terms of the Blackstone River Valley 

National Heritage Area blll we prefer the proposal that has been introduced in the Senate. We have 

taken no positions on new designations. preferring to concentrate on obtaining a fair national program 

blll we are concerned that existine h~rit;,ee areas be treated well as the standard-bearers for this 

rno\ em~nt.) The two other di ffe ~nces l;t\\een these two bills are more technical in nature: 

H.R 1280 requires the Secretar)'s approv·al of the compact only. "hile H.R. 1301 requires such 

approval for both the compact and the management plan. And while both require a modest lev·eJ of 

review of federal actions that \\UU!d affect a recognized area each approaches the review in a light! ~ 

diflerent way. H.R 1301 has the Secretary and the management entity involved in consultation: 

H.R. 1280 ha> the Governor and the management plan involved. 

1he Olalition suggests two changes for.tm!! bills before you toda~ · First. we strongly believe that 

economic aspirntions for the 1\alional lkritage Area should be defmed by the partners who develop 

the rnarl!lgemcnt plan. In describing v.h~t a management plan mus: include, both bills call for policies 

for the management of resources and recreational opportunities "in a manner consistent v.ith the 

support o( appropriate and compatible e<:onomic viability." We believe that the management plan 

should also be required to define \\Tiat "appropriate and compatible economic viability" actually means 

to the panners in the National Heritage Area -- rather than leave the interpretation up to others outside 

the process. We suggest the following language: 

[insert after line 12, page 13:] ''(C) Jdenrificction of sustaind;/e economic developmenr 

need,. including heritage tourism support services auf pi enning, smdl business 

opportunities, resoun::e restoraicn auf revitdi=ction. the conrimv::tion of troditiond 

/auf z«es, inframuctwe deve/opmenr. heritage area mcrketing auf promotion, auf 

W<!J''S to address the conrim<ing sustainability of the mawgemenr enrity." 

We further suggest mo'ing the requirement that local governments consent to the inclusion of private 

property "ithin a proposed National Heritage Area to the section that lists "conditions for designation." 

Ths change will elevate the consent of local governments to the same level as the approval of the 

Governor. and identifies the appropriate time to secure local government approval following full public 

panicipation and development of agreements in the compact. Ths language is essentially an 

amendment made to H.R 5044 on the fl oor last year, and one v.hich in principle the National 

Coalition supports as being consistent v.ith the intent of the compact. We believe, however, that in 

both H.R 1280 and H.R 1301. this lan~ge is inappropriately placed in the list of criteria for a 

heritage area. 

Once again. we thank you for this opportunity to share our vie"; on H.R. 1280 and H.R 1301. In 

closing. the National Coalition believes that this legislation achieves an appropriate balance in 

providing for a parmership among private and public panies at the local. state and national levels to 

preserve some of the nation's most disttnctive and special places for the enjoyment of their residents 

and to welcome visitors from around th! nation and the world. 
53 

JJJJllJJJJJJJIJJJJJJJJJJJJJJr.r.fJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ. 

National Trust fur Historic Preservation 

l "'iS .; _\\a ss achu~eu s Avenue, N.\\'. 

Wa shington, D.C. 20036 

;202 ; 673-4000 I FAX [202; 673--+038 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD K. NORTON, JR. 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY 

THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

H.R.1280 - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1995 

H.R. 1301 - AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS ACT OF 1995 

KARCH 28, 1995 

T./:, :;::";'•:: ,, :.:::· S.::: -:: .:! T;:;-: :,. ~ !-!:.:, !:\· l'!: 

d::·t•,• ,c· _~ .. ' ! J < : C! .; ;.,:' :: ~. .•::.• · • . . t,.., . 4 .. < • • 

•:::-: o·::: :.•·.:::· 
54 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1280, 

the Technical Assistance Act of 1995, and H.R. 1301, the American 

Heritage Areas Act of 1995. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation strongly supports 

federal legislation that, in partnership with state and local 

government and the private sector, will serve to recognize, 

protect, and provide opportunities to learn about and understand our country's heritage. Equally important, the National Trust 

believes that federal egislation is necessary at this time for 

several reasons. The interest in and enthusiasm for our history 

and cultural, the buil1: environment, and working industrial and 

rural landscapes continues to gather momentum for all the right 

reasons. The vitality of the heritage movement provides cause for 

great optimism for those who believe that a sense of our history 

fosters civic responsibility. Thus, we need to define with 

precision the federal rc>le in a National Heritage Area program. We 

also must establish a rational, systematic, and equitable process 

for Congressional designation of National Heritage Areas and for 

providing targeted federal assistance to the state and local 

partners in the program. 

The heritage moveme,nt thus presents important policy questions 

that all of us who care about preserving, protecting, and using our natural resources, our National Park System, and our history and 

culture should address now - whether we serve in federal, state or local government or with private enterprise or non-profit 

organizations. Financial resources at all levels of government are limited. We need to think carefully about which levels of 

government should have primary responsibility for specific 

functions. Both H. R. 1280 and H.R. 1301 represent major steps 

forward in establishinCJ a National Heritage, Area policy and in 

fostering the necessary federal, state, and local government and 

public-private partnership. The National Trust looks forward to 

working with the Subcomr1i ttee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

in shaping the final legislation. 

The National Trust for :llistoric Preservation and Heritage Areas 

The mission of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 

is "to foster an appreciation of the diverse character and meaning 

of our American cultural heritage and to preserve and revitalize 

the livability of our c ommunities by leading the nation in savinq 

America's historic environments." Congress has assigned to the 

National Trust, in both the 1949 Act granting our charter and in 

the National Historic .Preservation Act, a very central role i::1 

education, public involvement, and financial and technical 

assistance to organizations and individuals working on historic 

l 
55 

preservation. In that role, the National Trust has become a committed advocate for heritage areas because we have seen their 

tremendous success success measured in restored buildings, 

heavily used and widely enjoyed educational and interpretative 

programs, increased tourism whose benefits remain in the local 

community, new private capital invested, new businesses thriving 

and new jobs created, and people actively engaged in improving the 

quality of life in their community. 

For example, the National Trust's Main Street Center, a program that provides technical assistance to revitalize downtowns 

in some 870 communities in 40 states, established in 1991 the first 

linear Main Street program in the Illinois & Michigan National 

Canal Heritage Corridor with three demonstration communities. 

Since the program's establishment, nearly $10 million of public and 

private funds have been reinvested in those communities, with a net 

gain of 51 businesses and 150 full-time jobs. Our Heritage Tourism 

Program has worked in heritage areas in Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, 

Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Texas, among others, to develop strong 

tourism programs. And our Rural Heritage Program has provided 

technical assistance to many rural heritage areas, as communities 

seek to protect valuable open space and establish greenways. The 

National Trust is an active member of the National Coalition for 

Heritage Areas. 

Based on our experience with heritage areas and our experience 

with the National Main Street Center, which has been working now for 15 years, the National Trust offers the following observations as a framework for federal heritage area legislation. 

(1) Heritage areas are different from National Parks, National 

Monuments, National Recreation Areas. Heritage areas embrace 

very different resources and different combinations of 

resources; they have different purposes and goals. People 

live, work, play, and travel in heritage areas. Thus, 

heritage areas present different management and interpretation 

challenges, and a different relationship between federal and 

state and local agencies. Developing and managing heritage 

areas requires the on-going close co-ordination of state and 

local government officials, planning agencies, educators, 

architects, and business leaders. 

(2) The broad based support for heritage areas mirrors the 

broad based desire for a more prominent role for local 

government. As Elizabeth Watson, Chair of the National 

Coalition for Heritage Areas points out in her testimony, 

support for heritage areas is a "bottom up" phenomenon. 

However, locally heritage organizations have recognized the 

need for partnerships with state and federal government. 

Also, since heritage areas do not conform to political 

boundaries, successful heritage area programs have necessarily 

involved regional and inter-state organizations. 

2 
56 

( 3) Heritage areas respond to the need to integrate <lnd 

reconcile natural and historic resource protection with 

sustainable economic activity. Successful heritage area programs intentionally enlist the participation of all 

interests and sectors in planning and management. 

(4) Heritage areas respond to local communities desire to 

maintain and promo·~e their individual character and ident:l ty 

and to resist beinq overwhelmed with homogeneous sprawl. As a report prepared by Governor Wilson's California Resource 

Agency, the Bank of America, and the Greenbelt Alliance 

recognized recently in Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth 

to Fit the New California, "unfettered sprawl will make the 

state less competitive, burden taxpayers with higher costs, 

degrade the env ironment, and lower the quality of life for 

every Californian .. " Restoring buildings and preserving 

natural and cultural heritage sustain a community's special 

character, as well as enhance economic activity. 

(5) Like most ne·w enterprises, the beginning is the most 

difficult period in the creation of viable heritage areas. Organizing and involving the diverse public and private 

interests is e xtremely labor intensive. "Seed" support, in 

the form of technical assistance and start up funds, is 

critical. 

The Federal Role in National Heritage Areas 

Heritage areas mus1: originate from and be sustained by stat e, 

regional and local efforts. However, the National Trust strongly 

supports a targeted role for the federal government in National 

Heritage Area creation and designation. Given the historic and 

continuing mobility of our population, heritage areas and tho=ir 

historic, cultural, scenic, and recreation resources possess true 

national significance. These nationally significant resourc es 

deserve federal support. Federal designation carries an imprimatur 

that is important for national and international education and marketing. In many instances, particularly in the western stat•=s, 

heritage areas and corridors adjoin or pass through federal public 

lands, and consequently the federal land management agencies are necessary partners. The federal government can serve as a clearinghouse for technical expertise and information so that: 

lessons learned in one heritage area can be transmitted to other s. 

H.R. 1280 - Technical Assistance Act of 1995 

We endorse the efficient and orderly process and structure set 

forth in H.R. 1280 for the creation of National Heritage Areas -

the targeted federal involvement in the form of technical ass istance, the primacy of state and local government, and t he 

opportunities for public involvement in the feasibility study 

preparation, compact development, and management plan preparation. 

These elements of H. R. 1280 address the on-the-ground realities of 

3 
57 

heritage areas and heritage corridors that are in progress today. 

With respect to the "Duties of Other Federal Agencies," as provided for in Section 9(b), we recommend that federal agencies 

conducting activities directly affecting any National Heritage Area 

should also be required to consult with the Secretary as well as the Governor. We also recommend that, in addition to the direct 

technical assistance, the Secretary be given the authority to make 

grants to units of government and designated management entities to 

prepare feasibility studies and compacts for approval by the 

Secretary in accordance with the criteria and conditions provided 

for in Section 5(c) and (d) and Section 6. 

H.R. 1301 - The American Heritage Areas Act of 1995 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation supported this 

legislation when it was introduced in the 103rd Congress with the 

exception of the provisions in Section 111 that provided that 

funding for the heritage program come from the Historic 

Preservation Fund established by the National Historic Preservation 

Act. Because heritage areas provide for protection, use, and 

management of a diverse array of cultural, natural, scenic, and 

recreational resources, as well as historic resources, funding for 

the National Heritage Areas Program should not come from the 

Historic Preservation Fund. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the National 

Trust supports federal heritage legislation as essential to 

preserving the nation's natural and cultural resources. We look 

forward to working with you and the subcommittee toward this 

worthwhile goal. 

4 
58 

104TH CONGRESS H R 1280 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To establish guidelines for the designation of National Heritage Areas, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21 , 1995 

Mr. HEFLEY (for himself and Mr. TORKILDSE!\") introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To establish guidelines for the designation of National 

Heritage Areas, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Technical Assistance 

5 Act ofl995". 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that8 (1) certain areas of the United States represent 

9 the diversity of the national character through the 

10 interaction of natural processes, distinctive land-
59 

2 

1 scapes, cultural traditions, and economic and social 

2 forces that have combined to create a particular pat3 tern of human settlement and activity; 

4 (2) in these areas, natural, historic, or cultural 

5 resources, or some combination thereof, combine to 

6 form a cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape aris7 ing from patterns of human activity shaped by geog8 raphy; 

9 (3) these areas represent the national experi10 ence through the physical features that remain and 

11 the traditions that have evolved in the areas; 

12 (4) continued use and adaptive reuses of the 

13 natural and cultural fabric within these areas by 

14 people whose traditions helped to shape the land15 scapes enhance the significance of the areas; and 

16 (5) the complexity and character of these areas 

17 distinguish them and call for a distinctive system of 

18 recognition and management. 

19 SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. 

20 The purposes of this Act are21 (1) to recognize that the natural, historic, sce22 nic, and cultural resources and recreational opportu23 nities of the United States represent and are impor24 tant to the great and diverse character of the Na25 tion, and that these resources and opportunities 

•HR 1280 IH 
60 

3 

must be wisely managed so they may be passed on 

2 to future generations; 

3 (2) to recognize that combinations of such re4 sources and opportunities, as they are geOb'Taphically 

5 assembled and thematically related, form areas that 

6 provide unique frameworks for understanding the 

7 historical, ~~ultural, and natural development of com8 munities and their surroundings; 

9 (3) to encourage appropriate partnerships 

10 among Federal agencies, State and local govcrn11 ments, nonprofit organizations, and the p1·ivatc sec12 tm·, or combinations thereof, to conserve and man13 age those resources and opportunities; 

14 (4) to encourage within these areas a broad 

15 range of economic opportunities which enhance the 

16 quality of life for present and future generations; 

17 (5) to authorize the Seeretary of the Interior to 

18 provide technical assistance to State and local gov19 ernments and private nonprofit organizations, or 

20 combinations thereof, to study and promote the po21 tential for conserving and interpreting these areas; 

22 and 

23 (G) to prescribe the process by which areas may 

24 be designated as National Heritage Areas and the 

•HR 1280 IH 
61 

4 

1 standards according to which areas may be assessed 

2 for eligibility for such designation. 

3 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

4 For purposes of this Act: 

5 (1) COMPACT.-The term "compact" means a 

6 compact described in section 6(a)(2). 

7 (2) FEASIBILITY STUDY.-The term "feasibility 

8 study" means a study described in section 6(a)(1). 

9 (3) INDIAN TRIBE.-The term "Indian tribe" 

10 means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or 

11 other organized group or community, including any 

12 Alaska Native village or regional corporation as de13 fined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Na14 tive Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 

15 which is recognized as eligible for the special pro16 grams and services provided by the United States to 

17 Indians because of their status as Indians. 

18 (4) MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The term "manage19 ment plan" means a plan described in section 

W 6(a)(3). 

H (5) NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.-The term 

~2 "National Heritage Area" means a place designated 

:3 by the Congress where natural, cultural, and historic 

4 resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally dis5 tinctive landscape arising from patterns of human 

90-778 0 - 95 - 3 
62 

5 

1 activity shaped by geography. These patterns make 

2 National Heritage Areas representative of the na3 tional experience through the physical features that 

4 remain and the traditions that have evolved in the 

5 areas. Continued use of National Heritage areas by 

6 people whose traditions helped to shape the land7 scapes enhances their significance. 

8 (6) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior. 

10 (7) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-The term "tech11 nical assistance" includes preparation of plans, com12 pacts, resource inventories, and feasibility studies 

13 and professional guidance provided by the Secretary. 

14 (8) UNIT OF GOVERNMENT.-The term "unit of 

15 government" means the government of a State or 

16 Commonwealth, a political subdivision of a State or 

17 Commonwealth, or an Indian tribe. 

18 SEC. 5. NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PR0-

19 GRAM. 

20 (a) ESTABLISHliiENT.-In order to conserve nation21 ally distinctive natural, historic, scenic, and cultural re22 sources, and to provide opportunities for conservation, 

23 education, and recreation through recognition of and as24 sistance to areas containing such resources, there is here25 by established within the Department of the Interior aNa-
63 

6 

1 tional Heritage Areas Partnership Program, which shall 

2 assist the Secretary in carrying out this Act. 

3 (b) GENERAL AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.-In ac4 cordance with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is 

5 authorized6 (1) to evaluate, in accordance with the criteria 

7 established in subsection (c), areas nominated under 

8 this Act for designation as National Heritage Areas; 

9 and 

10 (2) to advise State and local governments, non11 profit organizations, and other appropriate entities 

12 regarding suitable methods of recognizing and con13 serving thematically and geographically linked natu14 ral, historic, and cultural resources and recreational 

15 opportunities. 

16 (c) CRITERIA.-To be eligible for designation as a 

17 National Heritage Area, an area shall meet each of the 

18 following criteria: 

19 (1) AssEMBLAGE OF RESOURCES.-The area 

20 shall be an assemblage of natural, historic, or cul21 tural resources that22 (A) together represent distinctive aspects 

23 of American heritage worthy of recognition, 

24 

25 

conservation, interpretation, and continuing 

use; and 
7 

1 (B) are best managed as such an assem2 blage, through partnerships among public and 

3 private entities. 

4 (2) TRADITIONS, CUSTOMS, BELIEFS, OR 

5 FOLKLIFE . ....,..The area shall reflect traditions, cus6 toms, beliefs, or folklife, or some combination there7 of, that are a valuable part of the story of the Na8 tion. 

9 (3) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL, CULTURAL, 

10 OR HISTORIC FEATURES.-The area shall provide 

11 outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, cul12 tural, or historic features, or some combination 

13 thereof. 

14 (4) RECREATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPOR15 TUNITIES.-The area shall provide outstanding rec16 reational and educational opportunities. 

17 (5) THKMES AND INTEGRITY OF RESOURCES.-

18 The area shall have an identifiable theme or themes, 

19 and resources important to the theme or themes 

20 shall retain integrity capable of supporting interpre21 tation. 

22 (6) SUPPORT.-Residents, nonprofit organiza23 tions, other private entities, and governments within 

24 the proposed area shall demonstrate support for des-
65 

8 

1 ignation of the area and for management of the area 

2 as appropriate for such designation. 

3 (7) AGREEMENTS.-The principal organization 

4 and units of government supporting the designation 

5 shall be willing to commit to agreements to work in 

6 partnership to implement the compact for the area. 

7 (8) CONSISTENCY WITH ECONOMIC VIABIL8 ITY.-The compact shall be consistent with contin9 ued economic viability in the affected communities. 

lO (9) CONSENT OF LOCAL GOVERmfENTS.-No 

tt- privately owned property shall be included within the 

12 boundaries of the area unless the government of the 

13 county, city, or town in which the property is located 

14 agrees to be so included and submits notification of 

15 such agreement to the Secretary. 

16 (d) CONDITIONS FOR DESIGNATION.-An area may 

17 be designated as a National Heritage Area only by an Act 

18 of Congress. The Congress may designate an area as a 

19 National Heritage Area only after each of the following 

20 conditions is met: 

21 (1) SUBl\IISSION OF STUDY, COMPACT, AND 

22 STATEMENT OF APPROVAL TO SECRETARY.-An en23 tity requesting National Heritage Area designation 

24 for the area submits to the Secretary25 (A) a feasibility study and compact; and 
66 

9 

1 (B) a statement, from the Governor of 

2 each State in which the proposed National Her3 itage Area lies, that such Governor approves of 

4 the requested National Heritage Area designa5 tion. 

6 (2) APPROVAL AND SUBMISSION BY SEC7 RETARY.-The Secretary approves, pursuant to sec8 tion 6(b), the compact referred to in paragraph (1) 

9 and submits the feasibility study for the area and 

10 the compact to the Congress together with any com11 ments that the Secretary deems appropriate regard12 ing a preferred action. 

13 SEC. 6. FEASmiLITY STUDIES, COMPACTS, AND MANAGE· 

14 MENT PLANS. 

15 (a) CONTENTS AND REQUIREl\rENTS.-

16 (1) FEASIBII"ITY· STUDIES.-Each feasibility 

17 study submitted under this Act shall include suffi18 cient information to determine whether an area has 

19 the potential to meet the criteria referred to in sec20 tion 5(e). E:ach such feasibility study shall be pre21 pared with public participation. Each such feasibility 

22 study shall include, but need not be limited to, each 

23 of the following: 

24 (A) A description of the natural, historic, 

25 and cultural resources and recreational opportu-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

67 

10 

nities presented by the area, including an assessment of the quality and degree of integrity 

of, the availability of public access to, and the 

themes represented by such resources and opportunities. 

(B) An assessment of the interest of and 

impact upon potential partners, units of government, nonprofit organizations, and other private 

entities, including property owners. 

(C) A description of tentative boundaries 

for a National Heritage Area proposed to beestablished in the area. 

(D) Identification of a possible management entity for a National Heritage Area proposed to be established in the area. 

(2) COMPACTS.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-A compact submitted 

under this Act shall include information relating to the objectives and management of an 

area proposed for designation as a National 

Heritage Area. Such information shall include, 

but not be limited to, each of the following: 

(i) A delineation of the boundaries of 

the proposed National Heritage Area. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

11 

(ii) A discussion of the goals and objeetives of the proposed National Heritage 

Area, including an explanation of the approach, proposed by the partners referred 

to in clause (iv), to conservation and interpretation of resources. 

(iii) An identification and description 

of the management entity that will administer the proposed National Heritage Area. 

(iv) A list of the initial partners to be 

involved in developing and implementing 

the management plan for the proposed National Heritage Area, and a statement of 

the financial commitment of the partners. 

(v) A description of the role of the 

State or States in which the proposed National Heritage Area is located. 

(B) PREPARATION OF AND ACTIONS 

CALLED FOR IN CmiPACT.-

(i) PREPARATION.-The compact shall 

be prepared with public participation. 

(ii) ACTIOJ:\8.-Actions called for m 

the compact shall be likely to be initiated 

within a reasonable time after designation 

of the proposed National Heritage Area 
69 

12 

1 and shall ensure effective implementation 

2 of the State and local aspects of the com3 pact. 

4 (3) l\L\NAGE:\IEKT PLA:N"S.-A management 

5 plan submitted under this Act for a National Herit6 age Area shall present comprehensive recommenda7 tions for the conservation, funding, management, 

8 and development of the area. The plan shall be pre9 pared with public participation. The plan shall take 

10 into consideration existing Federal, State, county, 

11 and local plans and involve residents, public agen12 cies, and private organizations in the area. The plan 

13 shall include a description of actions that units of 

14 government and private organizations are rec15 ommended to take to protect the resources of the 

16 area. The plan shall specifY existing and potential 

17 sources of funding for the conservation, manageIS ment, and development of the area. The plan also 

19 shall include the following, as appropriate: 

20 (A) An inventory of the resources con21 tained in the National Heritage Area, including 

22 a list of property in the area that should be 

23 conserved, restored, managed, developed, or 

24 maintained because of the natural, cultural, or 
70 

13 

1 historic significance of the property as it relates 

2 to the themes of the area. 

3 (B) A recommendation of policies for re4 source management that consider and detail the 

5 application of appropriate land and water man6 agement techniques, including (but not limited 

7 to) the development of intergovernmental coop8 erative agreements to manage the historical, 

9 cultural, and natural resources and the rec10 reational opportunities of the area in a manner 

11 consistent with the support of appropriate and 

12 compatible economic viability. 

13 (C) A program, including plans for res14 toration and construction, for implementation 

15 of the management plan by the management 

16 entity specified in the compact for the area and 

17 specific commitments, for the first 5 years of 

18 operation of the plan, by the partners identified 

19 in the compact. 

20 (D) An analysis of means by which Fed21 eral, State, and local programs may best be co22 ordinated to promote the purposes of this Act. 

23 (E) An interpretive plan for the National 

24 Heritage Area. 

25 (b) APPROVAl~ AKD DISAPPROVAL OF CmiPACTS.-
71 

14 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary, in consulta2 tion with the Governors of each State in which the 

3 relevant National Heritage Area, or proposed are&, 

4 is located, shall approve or disapprove every compact 

5 submitted under this Act not later than 90 days 

6 after receiving such compact. 

7 (2) DISAPPROVAL AND REVISIONS.-If the Sec8 retary disapproves a compact submitted under this 

9 Act, the Secretary shall advise the submitter, in I 

10 writing, of the reasons for the disapproval and shall 

11 make recommendations for revisions of the compact. 

12 The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a pro13 posed revision to such a compact within 90 days 

14 after the date on which the revision is submitted to 

15 the Secretary. 

16 SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT ENTITIES. 

17 (a) DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.-The man18 agement entity for a National Heritage Area shall do each 

19 of the following: 

20 (1) MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The management 

21 entity shall develop and submit to the Secretary a 

22 management plan not later than 3 years after the 

23 date of the designation of the area as a National 

24 Heritage Area. 
72 

15 

1 (2) PRIORITIES.-The management entity shall 

2 give priority to the implementation of actions, goals, 

3 and policies set forth in the compact and manage4 ment plan for the area, including5 (A) assisting units of government, regional 

6 planning organizations, and nonprofit organiza7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

tions-

(i) in conserving the National Heritage Area; 

(ii) in establishing and maintaining 

interpretive exhibits in the area; 

(iii) in developing recreational opportunities in the area; 

(iv) in increasing public awareness of 

and appreciation for the natural, historical, 

and cultural resources of the area; 

(v) in the restoration of historic buildings that are located within the boundaries 

of the area and relate to the themes of the 

area; and 

(vi) in ensuring that clear, consistent, 

and environmentally appropriate signs 

identifying access points and sites of interest are put in place throughout the area; 

and 
73 

16 

1 (B) consistent with the goals of the man2 agement plan, encouraging economic viability in 

3 the affected communities by appropriate means. 

4 (3) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS OF· LOCAL 

5 GROUPS.-The management entity shall, in develop6 ing and implementing the management plan for the 

7 area, consider the interests of diverse units of gov8 ernment, businesses, private property owners, and 

9 nonprofit groups within the geographic area. 

10 (4) PUBLIC !IIEETII'\GS.-The management en11 tity shall conduct public meetings at least quarterly 

12 regarding the implementation of the management 

13 plan for the area. 

14 (b) DISQUALIFICATION FOR FEDERAL FliNDING.-If 

15 a management plan regarding a National Heritage Area 

16 is not submitted to the Secretary as required under sub17 section (a)(l) within the time specified in such subsection, 

18 the National Heritage Area shall cease to be eligible for 

19 technical assistance under this Act until such a plan re20 garding the National Heritage Area is submitted to the 

21 Secretary. 

22 (c) PROHIBITION OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROP23 ERTY.-A mamigement entity for a National Heritage 

24 Area may not use Federal funds received under this Act 

25 to acquire real prope1t:r or any interest in real property. 
74 

17 

1 (d) DURATION OF ELIGilliLITY FOR TECHNICAL M2 SISTANCE.-A management entity for a National Heritage 

3 Area shall be eligible to receive technical assistance from 

4 funds appropriated pursuant to this Act for a 13-year pe5 riod beginning on the day on which the National Heritage 

6 Area is designated. 

7 SEC. 8. WITHDRAWAL OF DESIGNATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.-The National Heritage Area des9 ignation of an area shall continue unless10 ( 1) the Secretary determines that11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(A) the National Heritage Area no longer 

meets the criteria referred to in section 5(c); 

(B) the parties to the compact approved in 

relation to the ~rea under section 6(b) are not 

in compliance with the terms of the compact; 

(C) the management entity of the area has 

not made reasonable and appropriate progress 

in developing or implementing the management 

plan for the area; or 

(D) the use, condition, or development of 

the area is incompatible with the criteria referred to in section 5(c) or with the compact 

approved in relation to the area under section 

6(b); and 
75 

18 

1 (2) after making a determination referred to in 

2 paragraph (1), the Secretary submits to the Con3 gress notification that the National Heritage Area 

4 designation of the area should be withdrawn. 

5 (b) PUBLIC HEARING.-Before the Secretary makes 

6 a determination referred to in subsection (a)(1) regarding 

7 a National Heritage Area, the Secretary or a designee 

8 shall hold a public hearing within the area. 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

(c) TIME OF WITHDRAWAL OF DESIGNATION.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-The withdrawal of the National Heritage Area designation of an area shall become final 90 legislative days after the Secretary 

submits to the Congress the notification referred to 

in subsection (a)(2) regarding the area. 

(2) LEGIS~TIVE DAY.-For purposes of this 

subsection, the term "legislative day" means any 

calendar day on which both Houses of the Congress 

. . are m sessiOn. 

19 SEC. 9. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES. 

20 (a) DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY.-

21 (1) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-

22 (A) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may 

23 provide technical assistance to units of govern24 ment and private nonprofit organizations re25 garding feasibility studies and compacts and, 
76 

19 

l upon request of the management entity for the 

2 relevant National Heritage Area, regarding 

3 management plans and their implementation. 

4 (B) PROIIIBITION OF CERTAIN REQUIRE5 MENTS.--The Secretary may not, as a condition 

6 of the award of technical assistance under this 

7 section, require any recipient of such technical 

8 assistance to enact or modify land use restric9 tions. 

10 (2) DETERllliNATIONS REGARDING ASSISTII ANCE.-The Secretary shall decide which National 

12 Heritage Areas shall be awarded technical assistance 

13 and the amount of the assistance. Such decisions 

14 shall be based on the relative degree to which each 

15 National Heritage Area effectively fulfills the objec16 tives contained in the management plan for the area 

17 and achieves the purposes of this Act. Such deci18 sions shall give consideration to projects which pro19 vide a greater leverage of Federal funds. 

20 (3) OVERSIGHT OF HERITAGE AREAS WITH EX21 PIRED ELIGIBILITY.-The Secretary shall inves22 tigate, study, and monitor the welfare of all National 

23 Heritage An as whose eligibility f01· technical assist24 ance under this title has expired and shall report to 
77 

20 

1 the Congress periodically regarding the condition of 

2 such National Heritage Areas. 

3 (4) PROVISION OF INFORl\lATION.-ln coopera4 tion with other Federal agencies, the Secretary shall 

5 provide the general public with inf01·mation regard6 ing the location and character of National Heritage 

7 Areas. 

8 (b) DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.-Any 

9 Federal entity conducting any activity directly affecting 

10 any National Heritage area shall consider the potential ef11 feet of the activity on the management plan for the area 

12 and shall consult with the Governor of the State or Com13 monwealth containing the area with respect to the activity 

14 to minimize the adverse effects of the activity on the area. 

15 SEC. 10. LACK OF EFFECT ON LAND USE REGULATION. 

16 (a) LACK OF EFFECT ON AUTHORITY OF GOVERN17 MENTS.-Nothing in this Act shall be constmcd to modify, 

18 enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal, State, or 

19 local governments to regulate any use of land as provided 

20 for by law or regulation. 

21 (b) LACK OF ZOKIKG OR LAKD USE POWERS OF EN22 TITY.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to grant 

23 powers of zoning or land usc to any management entity 

24 for a National Heritage Area. 
78 

21 

1 SEC. 11. FISHING AND HUNTING SAVINGS CLAUSE. 

2 (a) NO DIMINISHMENT OF STATE AUTHORITY.-The 

3 designation of a National Heritage Area shall not diminish 

4 the authority of the affected State or Commonwealth to 

5 manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fish6 ing and hunting within such Area. 

7 (b) No CONDITIONING OF APPROVAL AND AsSIST8 ANCE.- The Secretary may not make limitations on fish9 ing, hunting, or trapping a condition for the approval of 

10 a compact or the determination of eligibility for technical 

11 assistance under this Act, and neither the Secretary nor 

12 any other Federal agency may make such limitations a 

13 condition for the receipt, in connection with the National 

14 Heritage Area status of an area, of any other form of as15 sistance from the Secretary or such agencies. 

16 SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby authorized to be 

18 appropriated for teehnical assistance pursuant to section 

19 9(a), and the administration of such assistance, annually 

20 not more than $8,000,000, to remain available until ex21 pended. 

22 (b) PERCENT OF COST.-Technical assistance under 

23 this Act for a feasibility study, compact, or management 

24 plan may not exceed 75 percent of the cost for such study, 

25 compact, or plan. 
79 

22 

1 (c) LIMITATION ON TOTAL FUNDING FOR EACH 

2 AREA.-Not more than a total of $1,000,000 may be 

3 made available under this section to each National Herit4 ageArea. 

5 (d) LIMITATION ON ANNUAL FUNDING.-The 

6 amount of Federal funding made available under this sec7 tion for a National Heritage Area for a fiscal year may 

8 not exceed $150,000. 

9 SEC. 13. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITIES. 

10 The authorities contained in this Act shall expire on 

11 September 30 of the 15th fiscal year beginning after the 

12 date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 SEC. 14. REPORT. 

14 The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, every 5 

15 years while the authorities contained in this Act remain 

16 in force, a report on the status and accomplishments of 

17 the National Heritage Areas Partnership Program as a 

18 whole. 

19 SEC. 15. SAVINGS PROVISION. 

20 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to expand or 

21 diminish any authorities contained in any law that des22 ignates an individual National Heritage Area or Corridor 

23 before the date of the enactment of this Act. 

0 
80 

104TH CONGRESS H R 130 I 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To establish the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 1995 

Mr. VENTO (for himself, Mr. REGULA, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. COYNE, Mr. 

SAWYER, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. REED, 

Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MOLLOHA.'I and Mr. HOKE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To establish the American Heritage Areas Partnership 

Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION I. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITI,E.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "American Heritage Areas Act of 1995". 

6 (b) TABU~ OF CO:-.'TENTS.-The table of contents for 

7 this Act is as follows: 

&'<'· I. Short title and table of contents. 

& .. ,. 2. Defi nitions. 
Sec. 10 l. Short title. 

Sec. 102. Congressional findinj1:!1. 

Sec. 103. Statement of purpose. 

Sec. 104. Definitions. 

81 

2 

Sec. 105. American Heri~ Areas Partnership Program. 

Sec. 106. lo'easihility studieo;, compacts, management plans, and early actions. 

Sec. I 07. Management entities. 

Sec. 108. Withdmwal of designation. 

Sec. 109. Duties and authorities of l<'ederdlagencies. 

Sec. 110. Lack of eff~'Ct on land use regulation. 

&'(,. 111. Authorization of appropriations. 

Sec. 112. Expimtion of authoritieo;. 

&>c. 113. Report. 

Sec. 114. s..,;nj1:!1 prO\ision. 

Sc<•. 20 I. American Coal llcrita!-'C Area. 

&'C. 202. I<;s.-.cx Ameri<'llll Heritage Area. 

&'C. 20:J. Hudson River Valley Ameri<'lm Heri~ Area. 

&'(•. 204. Ohio & I<;rie Canal American Heritage Area. 

Sec. 20il. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Amcril'~lll Heritage Area. 

&~,. 206. StL'('I Industry American Heritage Area. 

&'<,. 207. Wheeling Ameri<•an Heritage Area. 

TITLE 11l-STUDIES IU;GAHDil\G POTI<;:'\TIAL A:\II<;JUCA.."\ 

HI<;HITAGE AHEAS 

&'C. :JOJ. Ohio Hi,·er Corridor. 

&c. :J02. !<'ox and Lower Wisconsin River Corridors. 

&'<'· 303. :'\orthem I<'rontier. 

TITLE IV-BLACKSTO:'\E IUVIm VALLEY :'\AT!Ol\AL IIEIUTA<m 

COHHIDOH A~IE:'\IHIE:'\TS 

&'<~- 401 . llouJ,daries, (!omntissinn, and rcvisiml of ,,)at•. 

&•c. 402. Implementation of plan. 

&'C. 40:J. Author·ization of appropriations. 

TITLE V-BRA~IWI<;LL :'\ATIOXAL IIISTOHIC DISTRICT 

&·•·· ;)()!. Bramwdl Xational llistnric Distr·i•·t.. 

TITLE VI-SOrTHWESTEH:'\ I'!<;X:-<SYLVAXIA A:\mHICAX 

m;HITA<lE AH!<;A A~n;X!niEXTS 

&••·· 601. Short titk•. 

&><'. 602. Desi!-"'tation nf Southwestern l'enns.dvania Amcri<'llll Heritage Area. 

&•c. (jO:l. Power-s nf the <·onnnission. 

&•<·. (i04. l<'ederal pm1i<·ir•atinn. 

St'('. ()():}. ( 'ntt~'1't.'ssimml on•rsi~rl,t. 

&~·. 6(Hi. Anthor·ization of appmpr·iatinm;. 

&T. (iOi. Path of Jlntl-"''t•ss. 
82 

3 

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 For purposes of this Act: 

3 (1) The term "compact" means a compact de4 scribed in section 106(a)(2). 

5 (2) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

6 of the Interior. 

1 TITLE I-AMERICAN HERITAGE 

8 AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

9 SEC. Uti. SHORT TITLE. 

10 This title may be cited as the "American Heritage 

11 Areas Partnership Program Act of 1995". 

12 SEC. 102. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. 

13 The Congress finds that14 ( 1) certain areas of the United States represent 

15 the diversity of the national character through the 

16 interaction of natural processes, distinctive land17 scapes, cultural traditions, and economic and social 

18 forces that have combined to create a particular pat19 tern of human settlement and activity; 

20 (2) in these areas, natural, historic, or cultural 

21 resources, or some combination thereof, combine to 

22 form a cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape aris23 ing from patterns of human activity shaped by gcog24 raphy; 
83 

4 

1 (3) these areas represent the national ex:peri2 ence through the physical features that remain and 

3 the traditions that have evolved in the areas; 

4 ( 4) continued use and adaptive reuses of the 

5 natural and cultural fabric within these areas by 

6 people whose traditions helped to shape the land7 scapes enhance the significance of the areas; 

8 ( 5) despite existing Federal programs and exist9 ing efforts by States and localities, the natural, his1 0 to ric, and cultural resources and recreational oppor11 tunities in these areas are often at risk; and 

12 (6) the complexity and character of these areas 

13 distinguish them and call for a distinctive system of 

14 recognition, protection, and partnership manage15 ment. 

16 SEC. 103. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. 

17 The purposes of this title are--

18 (1) to recognize that the natural, historic, and 

19 cultural resources and recreational opportunities of 

20 the United States represent and are important to 

21 the great and diverse character of the Nation, and 

22 that these resources and opportunities must be 

23 guarded, preserved, and wisely managed so they may 

24 be passed on to future generations; 
84 

5 

(2) to recognize that combinations of such re2 sources and opportunities, as they are geographically 

3 assembled and thematically related, form areas that 

4 provide unique frameworks for understanding the 

5 historical, cultural, and natural development of the 

6 community and its surroundings; 

7 (3) to preserve such assemblages that are wor8 thy of national recognition, designation, and assist9 ance, and to encourage linking such resources within 

10 such areas through greenways, corridors, and trails; 

11 ( 4) to encourage appropriate partnerships 

12 among Federal agencies, State and local govern13 ments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sec14 tor, or combinations thereof, to preserve, conserve, 

15 and manage those resources and opportunities, ac16 commodate economic viability, and enhance the qual17 ity of life for the present and future generations of 

18 the Nation; 

19 ( 5) to authorize Federal financial and technical 

20 assistance to State and local governments and pri21 vate nonprofit organizations, or combinations there22 of, to study and promote the potential for conserving 

23 and interpreting these areas; and 

24 (6) to prescribe the process by which, and the 

25 standards according to which, prospective American 
85 

6 

1 Heritage Areas may be assessed for eligibility and 

2 included in the American Heritage Areas Partner3 ship Program established by this title. 

4 SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS. 

5 For purposes of this title: 

6 (1) .A."'ERICAN HERITAGE AREA.-The term 

7 "American Heritage Area" means an area so des8 ignated under this title. 

9 (2) INDIAN TRIBE.-The term "Indian tribe" 

10 means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or 

11 other organized group or community, including any 

12 Alaska Native village or regional corporation as de13 fined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Na14 tive Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 

15 which is recognized as eligible for the special pro16 grams and services provided by the United States to 

17 Indians because of their status as Indians. 

18 (3) TECIIl\"ICAL ASSISTA:\"CY.~ -The term "tech19 nical assistance" means any guidance, advice, help, 

20 or aid, other than financial aid. 

21 . (4) UXIT OF GOVI<JHX:\iK\'T.-The term "unit of 

22 government" means the government of a State, a 

23 political subdivision of a State, or an Indian tribe. 
86 

7 

SEC. 105. AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSIDP PR0-

2 GRAM. 

3 (a) ESTABLISIDiE.:\T.-In order to preserve nation4 ally distinctive natural, historic, and cultural resources, 

5 and to provide opportunities for conservation, education, 

6 and recreation through recognition of and assistance to 

7 areas containing such resources, there is hereby estab8 lished within the Department of the Interior an American 

9 Heritage Areas Partnership Program, which shall consist 

10 of American Heritage Areas designated under subsection 

11 (d). 

12 (b) GE.:\ERAJ, AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.-ln ac13 cordance with the purposes of this title, the Secretary is 

14 authorizedIS (1) to evaluate, m accordance with the criteria 

16 established in subsection (c), areas nominated under 

17 this title for designation as American Heritage 

18 Areas; 

19 (2) to advise State and local governments, non20 profit organizations, and other appropriate entities 

21 regarding suitable methods of recognizing and pre22 serving thematically and geographically linked natu23 ral, historic, and cultural resources and recreational 

24 opportunities; and 

25 (3) to consider any American Heritage Area, 

26 designated under this or any other Act, for nomina-
87 

8 

tion to the World Heritage List if the Secretary de2 termines that such area meets the qualifications for 

3 such nomination. 

4 (c) CHITERIA.-To be eligible for designation as an 

5 American Heritage Area, an area shall meet each of the 

6 following criteria: 

7 (1) AsSI<DIBI~QI<j (W RESOUHCES.-The area 

8 shall be an assemblage of natural, historic, or cul9 tural resources that1 0 (A) together represent distinctive aspects 

11 of American heritage worthy of recognition, 

12 preservation, interpretation, and continuing use; 

13 and 

14 (B) are best managed as such an assem15 blage, through partnerships among public and 

16 private entities, and by combining diverse and 

17 sometimes noncontiguous resources and active 

18 communities. 

19 (2) TRADITIOXS, CCSTG:\18, BELIEf'S, OR 

20 I<'OLKLIFI<~.-The area shall reflect traditions, cus21 toms, beliefs, or folklife, or some combination there22 of, that are a valuable part of the story of the 

23 Nation. 

24 (3) COXSEHVATIOX OJ.' :'\ATURAL, CULTGRAL, 

25 OH HISTOHIC I<'EATUBES.-The area shall provide 
88 

9 

1 outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, cul2 tural, or historic features, or some combination 

3 thereof. 

4 ( 4) RECHEATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPOR5 TUNITIES.-The area shall provide outstanding rec6 reational and educational opportunities. 

7 (5) THEMES AND INTEGHITY OF HESOURCES.-

8 The area shall have an identifiable theme or themes, 

9 and resources important to the identified theme or 

I 0 themes shall retain integrity capable of supporting 

II interpretation. 

12 (6) SUPPOHT.-Residents, nonprofit organiza13 tions, other private entities, and governments within 

14 the proposed area shall demonstrate support for des15 ignation of the area and for management of the area 

16 as appropriate for such designation. 

I7 (7) AGRE:EMENTS.-The principal organization 

18 and units of brovernment supporting the designation 

19 shall be willing to commit to agreements to work in 

20 partnership to implement the management plan of 

21 the area. 

22 (8) COKSISTENCY WITH ECONOMIC VIABIL23 ITY.-The proposal shall be consistent with contin24 ued economic viability in the affected communities. 
89 

10 

1 (9) CONSENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.-No 

2 county, city, or town shall be included within the 

3 boundaries of the area unless the government of 

4 such county, city, or town agrees to be so included 

5 and submits notification of such agreement to the 

6 Secretary. 

7 (d) CONDITIONS FOR DESIGNATION.-An area may 

8 be designated as an American Heritage Area only by an 

9 Act of Congress or by the means provided in title II. Ex1 0 cept as otherwise provided in title II, the Congress may 

11 designate an area as an American Heritage Area only 

12 after each of the following conditions is met: 

13 (1) SUBMISSION OF STUDY AND COMPACT TO 

14 SECRETARY.-An entity requesting American Herit15 age Area designation for the area submits to the 

16 Secretary a feasibility study and compact meeting 

17 the requirements of section 106(a). The comments 

18 of the Governor of each State in which the proposed 

19 American Heritage Area lies, or a statement by the 

20 entity that such Governor has failed to comment 

21 within a reasonable time after receiving the study 

22 and compact, accompanies such submittal to the 

23 Secretary. 

24 (2) APPROVAL AND SUBMISSION BY SEC25 RETARY.-The Secretary approves, pursuant to sec-
90 

11 

1 tion 106(b), the feasibility study and compact re2 ferred to in paragraph (1) and submits the study 

3 and compact to the Congress together with any com4 ments that the Secretary deems appropriate regard5 ing a preferred action. 

6 (e) RELATION TO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC 

7 PLAcEs.-The act of designation of an American Heritage 

8 Area shall not be deemed to signify that such American 

9 Heritage Area is included on, or eligible for inclusion on, 

10 the National Register of Historic Places, as established 

11 in accordance with section 101 of the National Historic 

12 Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a). Designation of an 

13 American Heritage Area shall not preclude the American 

14 Heritage Area or any district, site, building, structure, or 

15 object located within the American Heritage Area from 

16 subsequently being nominated to, or determined eligible 

17 for inclusion on, the National Register. 

18 SEC. 108. FEASmiLITY STUDIES, COMPACfS, MANAGEMENT 

19 PLANS, AND EARLY AcrJONS. 

20 (a) CONTENTS AND REQUIREMENTS.-

21 (1) FEASIBILITY STUDIES.-Each feasibility 

22 study submitted under this title shall include suffi23 cient information to determine whether an area has 

24 the potential to meet the criteria referred to in sec-
91 

12 

1 tion 105(c). Such information shall include, but need 

2 not be limited to, each of the following: 

3 (A) A description of the natural, historic, 

4 and cultural resources and recreational opportu5 nities presented by the area, including an as6 sessment of the quality and degree of integrity 

7 of, the availability of public access to, and the 

8 themes represented by such resources and op9 portunities. 

10 (B) An assessment of the interest of poten11 tial partners, including units of government, 

12 nonprofit organizations, and other private enti13 ties. 

14 (C) A description of tentative boundaries 

15 for an .American Heritage Area proposed to be 

16 established in the area. 

17 (D) Identification of a possible manageIS ment entity for an American Heritage Area 

19 proposed to be established in the area. 

20 (E) An inventory of the amount of land in 

21 the area owned by public, private, and private 

22 nonprofit entities, respectively. 

23 (2) COMPACTS.-(A) A compact submitted 

24 under this title shall include information relating to 

25 the objectives and management of an area proposed 
92 

13 

1 for designation as an American Heritage Area. Such 

2 information shall include, but need not be limited to, 

3 each of the following: 

4 (i) A delineation of the boundaries of the 

5 proposed American Heritage Area. 

6 (ii) A discussion of the goals and objectives 

7 of the proposed American Heritage Area, in8 eluding an explanation of the proposed ap9 proach to conservation and interpretation and a 

10 general outline of the protection measures com11 mitted to by the partners referred to in clause 

12 (iv). 

13 (iii) An identification and description of 

14 the management entity that will administer the 

15 proposed American Heritage Area. 

16 (iv) A list of the initial partners to be in17 volved in developing and implementing the man18 agement plan referred to in paragraph (3) for 

19 the proposed American Heritage Area, and a 

20 statement of the financial commitment of the 

21 partners. 

22 (v) A description of the role of the State 

23 or States in which the proposed American Her24 itage Area is located. 
93 

14 

1 (B)(i) The compact shall be prepared with pub2 lie participation. 

3 (ii) Actions called for in the compact shall be 

4 likely to be initiated within a reasonable time after 

5 designation of the proposed American Heritage Area 

6 and shall ensure effective implementation of the 

7 State and local aspects of the compact. 

8 (3) MAXAGEMENT PLANS.-A management 

9 plan submitted under this title for an American Her1 0 itage Area shall present comprehensive recommenda11 tions for the conservation, funding, management, 

12 and development of the area. The plan shall take 

13 into consideration existing State, county, and local 

14 plans and involve residents, public agencies, and pri15 vate organizations in the area. It shall include a de16 scription of the actions recommended to be taken, to 

17 protect the resources of the area, by units of govern18 ment and private organizations. It shall specify ex19 isting and potential sources of funding for the pro20 tection, management, and development of the area. 

21 The plan also shall include the following, as appro22 priate: 

23 (A) A recommendation of policies for re24 source management that consider and detail the 

25 application of appropriate land and water man90-778 0 - 95 - 4 
94 

15 

agement techniques, including (but not limited 

2 to) the development of intergovernmental coop3 erative agreements to protect the historical, cul4 tural, and natural resources and the rec5 reational opportunities of the area in a manner 

6 consistent with the support of appropriate and 

7 compatible economic viability. 

8 (B) A program, including plans for res9 toration and construction, for implementation 

I 0 of the management plan by the management 

11 entity :;;;pecified in the compact referred to in 

12 paragraph (2) and specific commitments, for 

13 the first 5 years of operation of the plan, by the 

14 partners identified in the compact. 

15 (C) An analysis of means by which Fed16 era!, State, and local programs may best be co17 ordinated to promote the purposes of this title. 

18 (D) An interpretive plan for the American 

19 Herita1~e Area. 

20 (4) EARLY ACTIOJ\S.-After designation of an 

21 American Heritage Area but prior to approval of the 

22 management plan for that area, the Secretary may 

23 provide technical and financial assistance for early 

24 actions that are important to the theme of the area 

25 and that protect resources that would be in immi-
95 

16 

nent danger of irreversible damage without such 

2 early actions. 

3 (b) APPROVAL At'\;D DISAPPROVAL OF COMPACTS AND 

4 MANAGEME~T PLANS.-

5 (1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary, in consulta6 tion with the Governors of each State iu which the 

7 relevant American Heritage Area, or proposed area, 

8 is located, shall approve or disapprove every compact 

9 or management plan submitted under this title not 

10 later than 90 days after receiving such compact or 

II management plan. Prior to approving the compact 

I2 or plan, the Secretary shall consult with the AdviI3 sory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance 

I4 with section 106 of the National Historic PreservaI5 tion Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). 

16 (2) DISAPPROVAl" AND REVISIONS.-lf the SecI7 retary disapproves a compact or management plan 

I8 submitted under this title, the Secretary shall advise 

I9 the submitter, in writing, of the reasons for the dis20 approval and shall make recommendations for revi2I sions of the compact or plan. The Secretary shall ap22 prove or disapprove a proposed revision to such a 

23 compact or plan within 90 days after the date on 

24 which the revision is submitted to the Secretary. 
96 

17 

(3) AMENDMENTS TO MANAGEMENT PLANS.-

2 The Secretary shall review substantial amendments 

3 to management plans for American Heritage Areas. 

4 Funds appropriated pursuant to this title may not 

5 be expended to implement such amendments until 

6 the Secretary approves the amendments. 

7 ( 4) No REQUIREMENT FOR LAND USE REGULA8 TION AS CONDITION FOR APPROVAL.-No provision 

9 of this title shall be construed to require any change 

10 in land use regulation as a condition of approval of 

11 a compact, management plan, or revision of a com12 pact or management plan by the Secretary. 

13 SEC. 107. MANAGEMENT ENTITIES. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.-

15 (1) RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDS.-Manage16 ment entities that are designated in compacts ap17 proved under section 1 06(b) for American Heritage 

18 Areas are authorized to receive Federal funds in 

19 support of cooperative partnerships to prepare and 

20 implement the management plans regarding the 

21 American Heritage Areas and to otherwise perform 

22 the functions contemplated in this title. 

23 (2) ELIGIBILI'{'Y'.-To be eligible for d~igna24 tion as the manageNent entity of an American Her-
97 

18 

1 itage Area, a unit of government or private nonprofit 

2 organization must possess the legal ability to---

3 (A) receive Federal funds for use in pre4 paring and implementing the management plan 

5 for the area; 

6 (B) disburse Federal funds to other units 

7 of government or other organizations for use in 

8 preparing and implementing the management 

9 plan; 

10 (C) account for all Federal funds so re11 ceived or disbursed; and 

12 (D) sign agreements with the Federal Gov13 ernment. 

14 (3) MEMBERSHIP.-A management entity for 

15 an American Heritage Area should, to the fullest ex16 tent possible, consist of diverse governmental, busi17 ness, and nonprofit groups within the geographic 

18 area of the American Heritage Area. 

19 (b) AUTIIOHITIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.-The 

20 management entity of an American Heritage Area may, 

21 for purposes of preparing and implementing the manage22 ment plan for the area, use Federal funds made available 

23 under this title-
98 

19 

(1) to make grants and loans to States, political 

2 subdivisions thereof, private organizations, and other 

3 persons; 

4 (2) to enter into cooperative agreements with 

5 Federal agencies; and 

6 (3) to hire and compensate staff. 

7 (c) DUTIES OF M.ANAGE:\iENT ENTITY.-The man8 agement entity for an American Heritage Area shall do 

9 each of the following: 

10 (1) MA:-.iAGE:VIENT PLAl'\.-The management 

11 entity shall develop, and submit to the Secretary for 

12 approval, a management plan described in section 

13 106(a)(3) ·within 3 years after the date of the des14 ignation of the area as an American Heritage Area. 

15 (2) PRIORITIES.-The management entity shall 

16 give priority to the implementation of actions, goals, 

17 and policies set forth in the compact and manage18 ment plan 1·eferred to in section 106(a), including19 (A) assisting units of government, regional 

20 planning organizations, and nonprofit organiza21 tions--

22 (i) in preserving the American Herit23 age Area; 

24 (ii) in establishing and maintaining 

25 interpretive exhibits in the area; 
99 

20 

(iii) in developing recreational oppor2 tunities in the area; 

3 (iv) in increasing public awareness of 

4 and appreciation for the natural, historical, 

5 and cultural resources of the area; 

6 (v) in the restoration of historic build7 ings that are located within the boundaries 

8 of the area and relate to the themes of the 

9 area; and 

10 (vi) in ensuring that clear, consistent, 

11 and environmentally appropriate signs 

12 identifying access points and sites of inter13 est are put in place throughout the area; 

14 and 

15 (B) consistent with the goals of the man16 agement plan referred to in section 106(a)(3), 

17 encouraging economic viability in the affected 

18 communities by appropriate means. 

19 (3) Cox~mmRATIO:-.i OF INTERESTS OJ<' LOCAL 

20 GROUPS.-The management entity shall, in develop21 ing and implementing the management plan referred 

22 to in section 106(a)(3), consider the interests of di23 verse governmental, business, and nonprofit groups 

24 within the geographic area. 
100 

21 

(4) Pt:BIJIC :\IEETI:\'GS.-The management en2 tity shall conduct public meetings at least quarterly 

3 regarding the implementation of the management 

4 plan referred to in section 106(a)(3). 

5 (5) St:BYIISSIO:\' OF CHA:\'GES 1:\' PLA:\'.-The 

6 management entity shall submit any substantial 

7 changes to the management plan referred to in sec8 tion 106(a)(:3) (including any increase of more than 

9 20 percent in the cost estimates for implementation 

10 of the managem.ent plan) to the Secretary for the 

11 approval of the Secretary. 

12 (6) A.'\~.JUAL REPORT.-The management entity 

13 shall, for any fiscal year in which it receives Federal 

14 funds under this title or in which a loan made by 

15 the entity with Federal funds under section 

16 107(b)(l) is outstanding, submit an annual report to 

17 the Secretary setting forth its accomplishments, its 

18 expenses and income, and the entities to which it 

19 made any loans and grants during the year for 

20 which the r eport is made. 

21 (7) COOPERATIO:"' WITH AliDITS.-The manage22 ment entity shall, for any fiscal year in which it re23 ceives Federal funds under this title or in which a 

24 loan made by the entity with Federal funds under 

25 section 107(b)(l) is outstanding, make available for 
101 

22 

audit by the Congress, the Secretary, and appro2 priate units of government all records and other in3 formation pertaining to the expenditure of such 

4 funds and any matching funds, and require, for all 

5 agreements authorizing expenditure of Federal funds 

6 by other organizations, that the receiving organiza7 tions make available for such audit all records and 

8 other information pertaining to the expenditure of 

9 such funds. 

10 (8) LIABILITY FOR ~OA~S.-The management 

11 entity shall be liable to the Federal Government for 

12 any loans that the management entity makes under 

13 section 107(b)(l). 

14 (d) DISQUALIFICATIO:-: FOR FEDERAL Fu:-;DI:\"0.-If 

15 a management plan regarding an American Heritage Area 

16 is not submitted to the Secretary as required under sub17 section (c)(l) within the time specified in such subsection, 

18 the American Heritage Area shall cease to be eligible for 

19 Federal funding under this title until such a plan regard20 ing the American Heritage Area is submitted to the Sec21 retary. 

22 (e) PROHIBITIO:-: OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROP23 ERTY.-A management entity for an American Heritage 

24 Area may not use Federal funds received under this title 

25 to acquire real property or interest in real property. No 
102 

23 

provision of this title shall prohibit any management entity 

2 from using Federal funds from other sources for their per·· 

3 mitted purposes. 

4 (f) DURATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL As·· 

5 SISTAl'ICE.-

6 (1) IN GENERAL.-A management entity for an 

7 American Heritage Area shall be eligible to receive 

8 funds appropriated pursuant to this title for a 10-

9 year period beginning on the day on which the 

10 American Heritage Area is designated, except as 

11 provided in paragraph (2). 

12 (2) EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY.-The eligi13 bility of a management entity for funding under this 

14 title may be extended, by the Secretary, for a period 

15 of not more than 5 years after the 10-year period 

16 referred to in paragraph (1), if17 (A) the management entity determines 

18 that the extension is necessary in order to carry 

19 out the purposes of this title and notifies the 

20 Secretary of such determination not later than 

21 180 days prior to the end of the 10-year period 

22 referred to in paragraph (1); 

23 (B) the management entity, not later than 

24 180 days prior to the end of the 10-year period 

25 referred to in paragraph ( 1), presents to the 
103 

24 

Secretary a plan of its activities for the period 

2 of the extension, including provisions for becom3 ing independent of the funds made available 

4 pursuant to this title; and 

5 (C) the Secretary, after consulting with the 

6 Governor of each State in which the American 

7 Heritage Area is located, approves such exten8 sion of eligibility. 

9 (3) LACK OF EFFECT OF EXTENSION ON FUND10 lNG LIMITATIONS.-An extension provided under 

11 this subsection shall not be construed as waiving any 

12 limitation on funds provided pursuant to this title. 

13 (g) PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.-The 

14 management entity for an American Heritage Area shall 

15 publish procedures to ensure that the rights of owners of 

16 private property are protected. Such procedures shall in17 elude a process to provide information to the owners of 

18 private property with respect to obtaining just compensa19 tion due as a resnlt of a taking of private property under 

20 the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 

21 States. 

22 SEC. 108. WITHDRAWAL OF DESIGNATION. 

23 (a) l:'\ GENERAL.- The American Heritage Area des24 ignation of an area shall continue unless25 (1) the Secretary determines that-
104 

25 

(A) the American Heritage Area no longer 

2 meets the criteria referred to in section 105(c); 

3 (B) the parties to the compact approved in 

4 relation to the area under section 106(b) are 

5 not in compliance with the terms of the com6 pact; 

7 (C) the management entity of the area has 

8 not made reasonable and appropriate progress 

9 in developing or implementing the management 

10 plan approved for the area under section 

11 106(b); or 

12 (D) the use, condition, or development of 

13 the area is incompatible with the criteria re14 ferred to in section 105(c) or with the compact 

15 approved in relation to the area under section 

16 106(b); and 

17 (2) after making a determination referred to in 

18 paragraph (1), the Secretary submits to the Con19 gress notification that the American Heritage Area 

20 designation of the area should be withdrawn. 

21 (b) PuBijiC HEARING.-Before the Secretary makes 

22 a determination referred to in subsection (a)(l) regarding 

23 an American Heritage Area, the Secretary or a designee 

24 shall hold a public hearing within the area. 

25 (c) TIME OF WITHDRAWAij OF DESIGNATION.-
105 

26 

(1) IN GE!"\ERAL.-The withdrawal of the 

2 American Heritage Area designation of an area shall 

3 become final 90 legislative days after the Secretary 

4 submits to the Congress the notification referred to 

5 in subsection (a)(2) regarding the area. 

6 (2) LEGISLATIVE DAY.-For purposes of this 

7 subsection, the term "legislative day" means any 

8 calendar day on which both Houses of the Congress 

9 are in session. 

10 SEC. 109. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGEN· 

11 CIES. 

12 (a) DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY.-

13 (1) GRAl\TS.-(A) The Secretary may make 

14 matching grants to provide assistance regarding fea15 sibility studies and compacts described in section 

16 106(a) and, upon request of the management entity 

17 for the relevant American Heritage Area, regarding 

18 management plans and early actions described in 

19 section 106(a) and capital projects and improve20 ments undertaken pursuant to such management 

21 plans. The Secretary may make grants under this 

22 section to units of government, and, in consultation 

23 with affected units of government, to private non24 profit organizations. In awarding grants under this 

25 section, the Secretary shall be guided by the criteria 
106 

27 

for eligibility for designation referred to m section 

2 105(c). 

3 (B) The Secretary may not, as a condition of 

4 the award of a grant under this section, require any 

5 recipient of such a grant to enact or mod if)' land usc 

6 restrictions. 

7 (2) TECII:\"ICAL ASSISTA:\"CE.-(A) The Scc8 retary may provide technical assistance to units of 

9 government and private nonprofit organizations re1 0 garding feasibility studies and compacts described in 

11 section 106(a) and, upon request of the management 

12 entity for the relevant American Heritage Area, re13 garding management plans and early actions de14 scribed in section 106(a) and capital projects and 

15 improvements undertaken pursuant to such manage16 ment plans. In providing the technical assistance, 

17 the Secretary shall be guided by the criteria for eli18 gibility for designation referred to in section 105(c). 

19 (B) The Secretary may elect to provide all or 

20 part of the technical assistance authorized by this 

21 subsection through cooperative agTeements v.rith 

22 units of government and private nonprofit organiza23 tions whose missions and resources can contribute 

24 substantially to the purposes of this title. 
107 

28 

(3) OTHER ASSISTAJ\CE.-Nothing in this title 

2 shall be deemed to prohibit the Secretary or units of 

3 government from providing technical or financial as4 sistance under any other provision of law. 

5 (4) PRIORITIES FOR ASSISTA~CK-ln assisting 

6 an American Heritage Area, the Secretary shall give 

7 priority to actions that assist in8 (A) conserving the significant natural, his9 toric, and cultural resources which support the 

10 themes of the American Heritage Area; and 

11 (B) providing educational, interpretive, and 

12 recreational opportunities consistent with the 

13 resources and associated values of the American 

14 Heritage Area. 

15 (5) DETER:\ll~ATIO:\S RJ<XlARDI~G ASSIST16 CE .-The Secretary shall decide which American 

17 Heritage Areas shall be awarded technical and fi18 nancial assistance and the amount of the assistance. 

19 Such decisions shall be based on the relative degree 

20 to which each American Heritage Area effectively 

21 fulfills the objectives contained in the management 

22 plan for the area, achieves the purposes of this title, 

23 and fulfills the criteria referred to in section 105(c) 

24 and shall give consideration to projects which pro25 vide a gTeater leverage of Federal funds. 
108 

29 

(6) NO:\'··FEDERALLY OW:\ED PROPERTY.-The 

2 Secretary is authorized to spend Federal funds di3 rectly on nonfederally owned property to further the 

4 purposes of this title, giving priority to assisting 

5 units of government in appropriate treatment of dis6 tricts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed 

7 or eligible fo:r listing on the National Register of 

8 Historic Places. 

9 (7) A.'\Xl."AL HEPOitT.-The Secretary shall 

10 submit an annual report to the Congress regarding 

II the American Heritage Areas Partnership Progmm. 

I2 Each report shall includeI3 (A) the number, amount, and recipients of 

I4 any gTants provided by the Sec1·ctary under this 

I5 title and the nature of any technical assistance 

I6 or early action provided under this title; 

17 (B) a desc1·iption of the status and concliI8 tion of, and Federal funding provided under 

19 this Aet to, each American Heritag·e Area; 

20 (C) a description of the areas nominated 

21 for the American Heritage Partnership Pro22 gnun; 

23 (D) the re<•ommendatiom; of the Secretary 

24 regarding areas to be desig11ated by the Con25 gTess as American I Icritage Areas; ami 
109 

30 

(g) the status of the implementation of all 

2 contractual agreements entered into by tlw Sec3 retary under this title. 

4 (8) 0VEHSIGII'I' ()}<' IIEHIT.\OE AlmAS \VI'I'Il EX5 PIHED Et..rmmLITY.-The Secretary shall ill\"es6 tigate, study, and continually monitor the welfare of 

7 all American Heritage Areas whose eligibility fm· 

8 Federal funding under this title has expired and 

9 shall report to the Congnss periodically regarding 

10 the condition of such American } le1·itage Areas. 

11 (9) PHOVI~IO:"\ OF I:"\I<'OlOIATIO:'-:.-Iu coopem12 tion \\~th other F ederal ag·encies, the Sem·et ary shall 

13 prm id~~ the genm·al public with information regard14 ing the !oration and character of components of the 

15 Amerieau Heritage Areas Partnership Probrram. 

16 (10) Ptwm·t.oA'I'ro:-.: m ' mmn.A1'HL\'~.-Tb e 

17 Srcreta1·y shall promulgate such reg11l ations as arP 

18 necessary to earry out the purposes of this title. 

19 (b) DFriE~ OF FIWEH,\L E:-.:'I'I'I'IE~.-Any l•'ederal 

20 entity eondueting or supp01ting adivities within an AmPr21 iean Heritagt> A.rea, and any uuit of g·overmnent acting· 

22 pursuant to a gnwt of 1:<\•dentl funds or a l:<'edl.'ral pPrmit 

23 or agreenwnt and eonduct.ing or supporting sneh a(•ti\·it.ics, 

24 shall, to the rnaximnm extent practieable--
110 

:n 

( 1) consult with the Secretary and the manage2 ment entity for the .American Heritage Area with re3 spect to such acti,'ities; and 

4 (2) cooperate with the Secretary and the manS agcment entity in the c~a rryin g out of the duties of 

6 the Secretary and the management entity under this 

7 title, and coordinate such activities to mnmmze any 

8 real or potential adverse impact on an American 

9 H eritage Area. 

10 SEC. 110. LACK OF EFFECT ON LAND USE REGULATION. 

II (a) I.JA('K OF EI<'FE<'T 0:"\ At.TIIOHITY OF GovEH:"\-

12 :\IE:"\TS.-Nothing in this title shall be construed to mod13 ify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of F ederal, State, 

14 and local governments to rehrulate any use of land as proIS vided for by current law m· reg-ulation. 

16 (b) I.JA('K oF Z0:"\1:"\(; OH LA:"\D UsE PowEHs OF E:"\-

I7 TITY.-Nothing in this title shall be construed to gTallt 

18 powers of zoning- or land use to any management entity 

I9 for an American Heritage Area. 

20 (c) MA:"\ \UE:\H~:"\'1' Plu\:"\ AVAILABILITY TO LO('AL 

2I GO\ ~H:"\ :\ IE :"\Ts.-Any rnanagernent plan refe1Ted to in 

22 section 10()(a) and submitted to the Secretary by the man23 agement entity for an Ame1·ican Heritage Area shall be 

24 made available to the loeal govemments having jurisdic2S tion on·r land use <C~glilations affeding the American ller-
111 

32 

itage Area for the use of the local governments in updating 

2 their growth management plans and in the event that such 

3 governments desire to amend current land use legislation 

4 as they may deem appropriate and in accordance with 

5 their legal authority. 

6 SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 (a) FI<~ASIBILITY ST,..:DIES, Cm.rPACTS, M.A:'\AGE8 :VIB:'\T PLA:'\S, A:'\D EARLY ACTIONS.-From the amounts 

9 made available to carry out the National Historic Preser10 vation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), there is authorized 

II to be appropriated to the Secretary, for grants and tech12 nical assistance pursuant to section 109(a) and the admin13 istration of such grants and assistance, annually not more 

14 than $8,000,000, to remain available until expended, with 

15 the following conditions: 

16 (1) PEHCENT <W COST.-No grant under this 

17 title for a feasibility study, compact, management 

18 plan, or early action may exceed 75 percent of the 

19 cost, to the grantee, for such study, compact, plan, 

20 or early action. 

21 (2) STt:DIES.-The total amount of Federal 

22 funding under this title for feasibility studies for a 

23 proposed American Heritage Area may not exceed 

24 $100,000. 
112 

33 

(3) CQ:\IPACTS.-The total amount of Federal 

2 funding under this title for compacts for a proposed 

3 American Heritage Area may not exceed $150,000. 

4 (4) EARLY ACTIO:-\ GRA:-\TS.-The total amount 

5 of Federal funding under this title for early action 

6 grants for an American Heritage Area may not ex7 ceed $250,000. 

8 (5) M.A:>:AGEME:-\'1' PLA:-\8.-The total amount 

9 of Federal funding under this title for management 

10 plans for an American Heritage Area may not ex11 ceed $150,000. 

12 (b) MA:-.:AGKVIE:\"T E:\"TITY OPEHA'l'IO:\"S.-

13 (1) 0Pt:RATI:\"G COSTS.-From the amounts 

14 made available to carry out the National Historic 

15 Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), there is 

16 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, for 

17 each management entity of an American Heritage 

18 Area, not more than $250,000 annually for the oper19 ating costs of such management entity pursuant to 

20 section 107. 

21 (2) COST SHAHE.-The Federal contribution 

22 under this title to the operations of any management 

23 entity of an American Heritage Area shall not ex24 ceed 50 percent of the annual operating costs of the 

25 entity. 
113 

34 

(c) PLAX hiPLE:\IE:'\TATIO:'\.-From the amounts 

2 made aYailable to carry out the National Historic Preser3 Yation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), there is authorized 

4 to be appropriated to the Secretary, for grants and tech5 nical assistance for the implementation of manag·ement 

6 plans for designated American Heritage Areas and the ad7 ministration of such grants and assistance, not more than 

8 $14,500,000 annually, to remain available until e:-..-pended, 

9 \\ith the follo\\ing conditions: 

10 (1) PERC':E:'\T OP C'OST.-No grant under this 

11 title for implementation of a management plan may 

12 exceed 50 percent of the cost to the grantee of the 

13 implementation. 

14 (2) PERCE:'\T OF Fl":'\DI:'\G FOR EACH AREA.-

15 Not more than 10 percent of the annual appropria16 tion for this subsection shall be made available, m 

17 any 1 year, to each American Heritage Area. 

18 (3) TOTAL Pl":'\DI:'\G FOR EACH AREA.-Not 

19 more than a total of $10,000,000 may be made 

20 available under this subsection to each American 

21 Heritage Area. 

22 (4) AGHEE:'IIE:'\TS.-Any payment made under 

23 this subsection shall be subject to an agreement that 

24 conversion, use, or disposal of the project so assisted 

25 for purposes contrary to the purposes of this title, 
114 

35 

as determined by the Secretary, shall result in a 

2 right of the United States to the greater of3 (A) reimbursement of all funds made avail4 able for such project; and 

5 (B) the proportion of the increased value 

6 of the project attributable to such funds, as de7 termined at the time of such conversion, use, or 

8 disposal. 

9 (d) LDIIT.A'l'IO~ 0~ A.\IOl"~TS FOH TECH~ICAI.. As· 

10 SISTA~CE.-The amount of Federal funding made avail11 able under this section for technical assistance for an 

12 American Heritage Area for a fiscal year may not exceed 

13 $150,000. 

14 SEC. 112. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITIES. 

15 The authorities contained in this title shall expire on 

16 September 30 of the 25th fiscal year beginning after the 

17 date of the enactment of this title. 

18 SEC. 113. REPOR1'. 

19 The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, every 5 

20 years while the authorities contained in this title remain 

21 in force, a report on the status and accomplishments of 

22 the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program as a 

23 whole. 
115 

36 

SEC. 114. SAVINGS PROVISION. 

2 Nothing in this title shall be construed to expand or 

3 diminish any authorities contained in any law designating 

4 an individual National Heritage Area or Corridor before 

5 the date of the enactment of this title. 

6 SEC. 115. FISIDNG AND HUNTING SAVINGS CLAUSE. 

7 (a) No DIMINISHMENT 01<' STATE AUTIIOIU'l'Y.-The 

8 designation of an American Heritage Area shall not dimin9 ish the authority of the affected State or States to manage 

10 fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and 

11 hunting within such Area. 

12 (b) No CO?\DITIONI\'G 01<' APPROVAL A\'D ASSIST13 AXCE.-Limitations on fishing, hunting. or trapping may 

14 not be made a condition for the approval of a compact 

15 or management plan, the provision of assistance for early 

16 actions pursuant to section 106(a)( 4), the determination 

17 of eligibility for Federal funds, or the receipt, in connec18 tion with the American Heritage Area status of an area, 

19 of any other form of assistance from the Secretary or 

20 other Federal agencies. 

21 TITLE II-DESIGNATION OF 

22 AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS 

23 SEC. 201. AMERICAN COAL HERITAGE AREA. 

24 (a) Co:--:mmSSIOXAL FIXDIXGS.-The Congress finds 

25 that-
116 

37 

(1) the 1·ise of American industry in the late 

2 19th and 20th centuries led to tremendous growth 

3 in the Appalachian coal fields, creating an area of 

4 national historic significance in terms of its conS tributions to the industrial revolution, architecture, 

6 culture, and diversity; 

7 (2) within the Appalachian coal belt, the coal 

8 mined in southern West Virginia and in southwest9 ern Virginia produced some of the purest and most 

10 sought-after coal in the Nation, and the region asso11 ciated with this coal contains a rich cultural herit12 age; 

13 (3) the influx of labor needed to mine coal in 

14 this region created a diverse community of African 

15 Americans from the south, recent immigrants from 

16 southern and southeastern Europe, Americans from 

17 northern mining areas, and native Appalachians; 

18 ( 4) it is in the national interest to preserve and 

19 protect physical remnants of the late 19th and early 

20 20th century rise of American industry for the edu21 cation and benefit of present and future generations; 

22 and 

23 ( 5) there is a need to provide assistance to the 

24 preservation and promotion of the vestiges of the 
117 

38 

coal heritage of Appalachia that have outstanding 

2 cultural, historic, and architectural value. 

3 (b) STATK.\1E:\T OF PU{POSE.-The purposes of this 

4 section are to preserve and interpret, for the educational 

5 and inspirational benefit of present and future genera6 tions, certain lands and structures with unique and sig11ifi7 cant historical and cultural values associated with the coal 

8 mining heritage of southern West Virginia and southwest9 ern Virginia. 

10 (c) DI<~SIG:\ATI0:\

11 (1) 1:\ m~:\EHAL.-U pon publication by the 

12 Secretary in the Federal Register of notice that a 

13 compact meeting the requirements for a compact 

14 under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the 

15 Secretary under the procedures referred to in section 

16 106(b), there is hereby designated the American 

17 Coal Heritage Area (hereinafter· in this section re18 fcrred to as the "Heritage Area"). 

19 (2) Co;-.rPACT.-'l'he Secretary may not require, 

20 as a condition of approving· a compact submitted 

21 pursuant to this section regarding the Her·itage 

22 Area, that both the State of West Virginia and the 

23 Commonwealth of Virginia sign the compact. 

24 (d) BOl':\DAHms.-The Heritage Area shall be com25 posed of the lands genemlly depicted on the map entitled 
118 

39 

"Coal Industry National Heritage Area", numbered 

2 CMNHA-80,008, and dated August 1994. The map shall 

3 be on file and available for public inspection in the office 

4 of the Dit·ector of the National Park Service. 

5 (e) AD:\11\"ISTRATIO\".-The Heritage Area shall be 

6 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

7 Partnership Program and shall be considered for all pur8 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

9 submission requirement of section 107(c)(l) and the pro1 0 visions of section 108, to have been designated an Amer11 ican Heritage Area under section 105(d) on the date on 

12 which the Heritage Area is designated under subsection 

13 (c) of this section. 

14 SEC. 202. ESSEX AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA. 

15 (a) Co\"GHESSIO\"AL FI\"DI\"GS.-The Congress finds 

16 that17 

18 

19 

20 

(1) Essex County, Massachusetts, was host to 

a series of historic events that influenced the course 

of the early settlement of the United States, its 

emergence as a maritime power, and its subsequent 

21 industrial development; 

22 (2) the North Shore of Essex County and 

23 Merrimack River valley contain examples of signifi24 cant early Amet·ican architectm·e and significant 

25 Federal-period architecture, many sites aud build-
119 

40 

ings associated with the establishment of the mari2 time trade in the United States, the site of the 

3 witchcraft trials of 1692, the birthplace of successful 

4 iron manufacture, and the establishment of the tex5 tile and leather industries in and around the cities 

6 of Peabody, Beverly, Lynn, Lawrence, and Haver7 hill; 

8 (3) Salem, Massachusetts, has a rich heritage 

9 as one of the earliest landing sites of the English 

10 colonists, the first major world harbor for the Unit11 ed States, and an early thriving hub of American 

12 industries; 

13 ( 4) the Saugus Iron Works National Historic 

14 Site is the site of the first sustained, intewated iron 

15 works in Colonial America, and the technology em16 ployed at the Iron Works was dispersed throughout 

17 the Colonies and was critical to the development of 

18 industry and technology in America; 

19 (5) the Salem Maritime National Historic Site 

20 contains nationally significant resources that explain 

21 the manner in which the Nation was settled, its evo22 lution into a maritime power, and its development as 

23 a major industrial force, and the story told at the 

24 Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works National 

25 Historic Sites would be g~·eatly enhanced through 
120 

41 

1 the interpretation of significant theme-related re2 sources in Salem and Saugus and throughout Essex 

3 County; 

4 (6) partnerships between the private and public 

5 sectors have been created and additional partner6 ships will be encouraged to preserve the rich cultural 

7 heritage of the region, which will stimulate cultural 

8 awareness and preservation and economic develop9 ment through tourism; and 

10 (7) the resident and business communities of 

11 the region have formed the Essex Heritage Ad Hoc 

12 Commission for the preservation, interpretation, pro13 motion, and development of the historic, cultural, 

14 and natural resources of the area and are investing 

15 significant private funds and energy to develop a 

16 plan to preserve the nationally significant resources 

17 of Essex County. 

18 (b) PCHPOSES.-The purposes of this section are--

19 ( 1) to designate the Essex American Heritage 

20 Area in order to recognize, preserve, promote, inter21 pret, and make available for the benefit of the public 

22 the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the 

23 North Shore and lower Merrimack River valley in 

24 Essex County, Massachusetts, which encompass the 

25 8 primary themes of the Salem Maritime National 
121 

42 

1 Historic site and Saugus Iron Works National His2 toric site (the histories of early settlement and in3 dustry, maritime trade, and textile and leather man4 ufacturing); and 

5 (2) to provide a management framework to as6 sist the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its 

7 units of local government in the development and 

8 implementation of an integrated cultural, historical, 

9 and land resource management program in order to 

10 retain, enhance, and interpret the significant values 

11 of the lands, waters, and structures located in the 

12 district. 

l3 (c) DESIG~ATION -Upon publication by the Sec14 retary in the Federal Register of notice that a compact 

15 regarding the Heritage Area and meeting the require16 ments for a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been ap17 proved by the Secretary under the procedures referred to 

18 in section 106(b), there is hereby designated the Essex 

19 American Heritage Area (hereinafter in this section re20 ferred to as the "Heritage Area"), within the county of 

21 Essex in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

22 (d) BommARIES.-The Heritage Area shall be com23 prised of the lands generally depicted on the map num24 bered NAR-51-80,000 and dated August 1994. The map 
122 

43 

1 shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 

2 office of the Director of the National Park Service. 

3 (e) ADMINISTRATION.-The Heritage Area shall be 

4 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

5 Partnership Probrram and shall be considered for all pur6 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

7 submission requirement of section 107(c)(l) and the pro8 visions of section 108, to have been designated an Amer9 ican Heritage Area under section 105(d) on the date on 

10 which the Heritage Area is designated under subsection 

11 (c) of this section. 

12 SEC. 203. IRJDSON RIVER VALLEY AMERICAN HERITAGE 

13 AREA. 

14 (a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.-The Congress finds 

15 that16 (1) the Hudson River Valley between Yonkers, 

17 New York, and Troy, New York, possesses impor18 tant historical, cultural, and natural resources, rep19 resenting themes of settlement and migration, trans20 portation, and commerce; 

21 (2) the Hudson River Valley played an impor22 tant role in the military history of the American 

23 Revolution; 

24 (3) the Hudson River Valley gave birth to im25 portant movements in American art and architecture 
123 

44 

1 through the works of Andrew Jackson Downing, Al2 exander Jackson Davis, Thomas Cole, and their as3 sociates, and played a central role in the recognition 

4 of the esthetic values of landscape and the develop5 ment of an American esthetic ideal; 

6 (4) the Hudson River Valley played an impor7 tant role in the development of the iron, textile, and 

8 collar and cuff industries in the 19th century, exem9 plified in surviving structures such as the Harmony 

10 Mills complex at Cohoes, and in the development of 

11 early men's and women's labor and cooperative orga12 nizations, and is home of the first women's labor 

13 union in the United States and the first women's 

14 secondary school in the United States; 

15 (5) the Hudson River Valley, m its cities and 

16 towns and its rural landscapes17 (A) displays exceptional surviving physical 

18 resources illustrating these themes and the so19 cial, industrial, and cultural history of the 19th 

20 and early 20th centuries; and 

21 (B) includes numerous national historic 

22 sites and landmarks; 

23 (6) the Hudson River Valley is the home of the 

24 traditions associated with Dutch and Huguenot set25 tlements dating to the 17th and 18th centuries, was 
124 

45 

the locus of characteristic American stories such as 

2 "Rip Van Winkle" and the "Legend of Sleepy Ilol3 low", and retains physical, social, and cultural cvi4 dence of these traditions and the traditions of other 

5 more recent ethnic and social groups; 

6 (7) the State of New York has established a 

7 stmcture, in the Hudson River Greenway Commu8 nities Council and the Greenway Conservancy, for 

9 the Hudson River Valley communities to join to1 0 gether to preserve, conserve, and manage these re11 sources and to link them through trails and other 

12 means; and 

13 (8) the Heritage Area Committee jointly estab14 lished by the Hudson River Valley Greenway Com15 munities Council and the Greenway Conservancy 

16 (agencies established by the State of New York in its 

17 Hudson River Greenway Act of 1991) is expected to 

18 be the management entity for an American Heritage 

19 Area established in the Hudson River Valley. 

20 (b) STATEME::\'T OF Pl"I{POHE.-The purposes of this 

21 section are--

22 (1) to recogmze the importan,~e of the history 

23 and resources of' the Hudson H.iver Valky to the 

24 Nation; 
125 

46 

(2) to assist the State of New York and the 

2 communities of the Hudson River Valley in preserv3 ing and interpreting these resources for the benefit 

4 of the Nation; 

5 ( 3) to maintain agricultural viability and pro6 ductivity in the region; and 

7 ( 4) to authorize Federal financial and technical 

8 assistance to serve these purposes. 

9 (c) DESIG~ATIO~.-Upon publication by the Sec1 0 retary in the Federal Register of notice that a compact 

11 regarding the Heritage Area and meeting the require12 ments for a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been ap13 proved by the Secretary under the procedures referred to 

14 in section 106(b), there is hereby designated the Hudson 

15 River Valley American Heritage Area (hereinafter in this 

16 section referred to as the "Heritage Area"). 

17 (d) Bot;~DARIES.-

18 (1) h GEXERAL.-Except as otherwise pro19 vided in paragraph (2), the Heritage Area shall be 

20 comprised of the lands generally depicted on the 

21 map entitled "Hudson River Valley National Herit22 age Area", numbered P50-8002, and dated August 

23 1994. The map shall be on file and available for 

24 public inspection in the office of the Director of the 

25 National Park Service. 

•HR 1001 m 

90-778 0 - 95 - 5 
126 

47 

(2) LOCAL AGREEMENT TO J!'{CLUSION.-Each 

2 of the following counties, cities, and towns in the 

3 State of New York shall not be included within the 

4 boundaries of the Heritage Area unless the governS ment of such county, city, or town agrees to be so 

6 included and submits notification of such agreement 

7 to the Secretary: 

8 (A) The counties of Greene and Columbia. 

9 (B) Any city or town within the county of 

l 0 Greene or Columbia. 

11 (C) The counties of Rensselaer and 

12 Dutchess. 

13 (D) Any city or town (except the town of 

14 Hyde Park) within the county of Rensselaer or 

15 Dutchess and located entirely within the 22d 

16 Congressional District of New York. 

17 (e) .ADMINISTRATIO!'\.-The Heritage Area shall be 

18 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

19 Partnership Program and shall be considered for all pur20 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

21 submis~n requirement of section 107(c)(l) and the pro22 visions of section 108, to have been designated an Amer23 ican Heritage Area under section 105(d) on the date on 

24 which the Heritage Area is designated under subsection 

25 (c) of this section. 

•HR 1301 m 
127 

48 

SEC. 204. OWO & ERIE CANAL AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA. 

2 (a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.-The Congress finds 

3 that4 

5 

6 

( 1) the Ohio & Erie Canal, which opened for 

commercial navigation in 1832, was the first inland 

waterway to connect the Great Lakes at Lake Erie 

7 with the Gulf of Mexico via the Ohio and Mississippi 

8 Rivers and was a part of a canal network in Ohio 

9 that was one of the most extensive and successful 

10 systems in America during a period in history when 

11 canals were essential to the growth of the Nation; 

12 (2) the Ohio & Erie Canal spurred economic 

13 growth in the State of Ohio that took the State from 

14 near bankruptcy to a position as the third most eco15 nomically prosperous State in the Union in just 20 

16 years; 

17 (3) a 4-mile section of the Ohio & Erie Canal 

18 was designated a National Historic Landmark in 

19 1966 and other portions of the Ohio & Erie Canal 

20 and many associated structures have been placed on 

21 the National Register of Historic Places; 

22 (4) in 1974, 19 miles of the Ohio & Erie Canal 

23 were declared nationally significant, under National 

24 Park Service new area criteria, in the designation of 

25 the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area; 

•HR 1901 IH 
128 

49 

1 (5) the National Park Service found the Ohio 

2 & Erie Canal nationally significant in a 197 5 study 

3 entitled "Suitability/Feasibility Study, Proposed 

4 Ohio & Erie Canal"; and 

5 (6) a 1993 Special Resource Study of the Ohio 

6 & Erie Canal Corridor, conducted by the National 

7 Park Service and entitled "A Route to Prosperity", 

8 has concluded that the corridor is eligible to become 

9 a National Heritage Corridor, an affiliated unit of 

10 the National Park System. 

11 (b) STATE:\fE:\T OF PURPOSE.-The purposes of this 

12 section are--

13 (1) to preserve and interpret for the educational 

14 and inspirational benefit of present and future gen15 erations the unique and significant contributions to 

16 the national heritage of certain historic and cultural 

17 lands, waterways, and structures within the 87 -mile 

18 Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor between Cleveland and 

19 Zoar; and 

20 (2) to provide a management framework to as21 sist the State of Ohio and its political subdivisions 

22 in developing and implementing a management plan 

23 for the area and developing policies and programs 

24 that will preserve, enhance, and interpret the cul-

•DR 1301 m 
129 

50 

1 tural, historical, natural, recreational, and scenic re2 sources of the corridor. 

3 (c) DgsiGNATION.-Upon publication by the Sec4 retary in the Federal Register of notice that a compact 

5 regarding the Heritage Area and meeting tht require6 ments for a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been ap7 proved by the Secretary under the procedures referred to 

8 in section 106(b), there is hereby designated the Ohio & 

9 Erie Canal American Heritage Area (hereinafter in this 

10 Act referred to as the "Heritage Area"). 

11 (d) BOUNDARIES.-The Heritage Area shall be com12 posed of the lands that are generally the route of the Ohio 

13 & Erie Canal from Cleveland to Zoar, Ohio, as depicted 

14 in the 1993 National Park Service Special Resources 

15 Study, "A Route to Prosperity". The specific boundaries 

16 shall be those specified in the management plan submitted 

17 under subsection (e). The Secretary shall prepare a map 

18 of the area which shall be on file and available for public 

19 inspection in the office of the Director of the National 

20 Park Service. 

21 (e) ADMINISTRATION.-The Heritage Area shall be 

22 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

23 Partnership Program and shall be considered for all pur24 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

25 submission requirement of section 107(c)(l) and the pro-

·H'R 1ao1 m 
130 

51 

visions of section 108, to have been designated an Amer2 ican Heritage Area under section 105(d) on the date on 

3 which the Heritage Area is designated under subsection 

4 (c) of this section. 

5 (f) MANAGE:\1El\"T EKTITY.-Upon petition, the Sec6 retary is authorized to recognize a coalition consisting of 

7 the following persons as the management entity, for pur8 poses of title I, for the Ohio & Erie Canal American Herit9 age Area: 

10 (1) The Superintendent of the Cuyahoga Valley 

11 National Recreational Area. 

12 (2) 2 individuals submitted by the Governor of 

13 Ohio, who shall be representatives of the Directors 

14 of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and 

15 the Ohio Historical Society. 

16 (3) 8 individuals submitted by the county com17 missioners or county chief executive of the Ohio 

18 counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark, and 

19 Tuscarawas, including20 (A) from each county, 1 representative of 

21 the planning offices of the county; and 

22 (B) from each county, 1 representative of 

23 a municipality in the county. 

oim 1301 m 
131 

52 

1 ( 4) 3 individuals submitted by the county or 

2 metropolitan park boards of the Ohio counties of 

3 Cuyahoga, Summit, and Stark. 

4 ( 5) 1 individual with knowledge and experience 

5 in the field of historic preservation, submitted by the 

6 Director of the National Park Service. 

7 (6) 1 individual with knowledge and experience 

8 in the field of historic preservation, submitted by the 

9 Ohio Historic Preservation Officer. 

10 (7) 1 individual who is a director of a conven11 tion and tourism bureau within the area, submitted 

12 by the Director of the Ohio Department of Travel 

13 and Tourism. 

14 (8) 4 individuals, who shall include 1 represent15 ative of business and industry from each of the 

16 counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark, and 

17 Tuscarawas, submitted by the Greater Cleveland 

18 Growth Association, the Akron Regional Develop19 ment Board, the Stark Development Board, and the 

20 Tuscarawas County Chamber of Commerce. 

21 (g) A.;;;siSTANCE.-The Secretary may provide to pub22 lie and private entities within the Heritage Area (including 

23 the management entity for the Heritage Area) technical, 

24 financial, development, and operational assistance. Assist25 ance provided under this subsection shall be provided on 

•HR t_aot rn 
132 

53 

a reimbursable basis through the Cuyahoga Valley N a2 tional Recreation Area. 

3 SEC. 205. SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATI'LEFIELDS AMERICAN 

4 HERITAGE~ 

5 (a) CONGIU:SSIONAL FI:\"DI:\GS.-The Congress finds 

6 that7 ( 1) there are situated in the Shenandoah Valley 

8 in the Commonwealth of Virginia the sites of several 

9 key Civil War battles; 

10 (2) certain sites, battlefields, structures, and 

11 districts in the Shenandoah Valley are collectively of 

12 national sig11ificance in the history of the Civil War; 

13 (3) in 1990 the Congress enacted legislation di14 recting the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a 

15 comprehensive study of significant sites and strue16 tmes associated with Civil War battles in the Shen17 andoah Valley; 

18 (4) the study, which was completed in 199~~, 

19 found that many of the sites within the Shenandoah 

20 Valley possess national significance and retain a 

21 high degree of historical integrity; 

22 ( 5) the preservation and interpretation of these 

23 sites will make an important contribution to the un24 derstanding of the heritage of the United States; 

•HR 1301 IH 
133 

54 

1 (6) the preservation of Civil War sites within a 

2 regional framework requires cooperation among local 

3 property owners and Federal, State, and local gov4 ernment entities; and 

5 (7) partnerships between Federal, State, and 

6 local governments and their regional entities, and 

7 the private sector, offer the most effective opportuni8 ties for the enhancement and management of the 

9 Civil War battlefields and related sites in the Shen1 0 andoah Valley. 

11 (b) STATE:.\IEl'<T OF PURPOSE.-The purposes of this 

12 section are13 (1) to preserve, conserve, and interpret the leg14 acy of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley; 

15 (2) to recognize and interpret important events 

16 and geographic locations representing key Civil War 

17 battles in the Shenandoah Valley, including those 

18 battlefields associated with the Thomas J. (Stone19 wall) Jackson campaign of 1862 and the decisive 

20 campaigns of 1864; 

21 (3) to recognize and interpret the effect of the 

22 Civil War on the civilian population of the Shen23 andoah Valley during the war and postwar recon24 struction period; and 

•IIR 1301 IH 
134 

55 

( 4) to create partnerships among Federal, 

2 State, and local governments and their regional enti3 ties, and the private sector, to preserve, conserve, 

4 enhance, and interpret the nationally significant bat5 tlefields and 1·elated sites associated with the Civil 

6 War in the Shenandoah Valley. 

7 (c) DI<~SIG:\"A'I'IO:\".-Upon publication by the Sec8 retary in the Federal Register of notice that a compact 

9 regarding the Heritage Area and meeting the requiretO ments for a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been ap11 proved by the Secretary under the procedures referred to 

12 in section 106(b), there is hereby designated the Shen13 andoah Valley Battlefield American Heritage Area (here14 inafter in this section referred to as the "Heritage Area"). 

15 (d) BOUl':DARms.-The Heritage Area shall be com16 posed of the areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia gen17 erally depicted on the map entitled "Shenandoah Valley 

18 National Heritage .Area", numbered SVNHA-80,006, and 

19 dated August 1994. The map shall be on file and available 

20 for public inspection in the office of the Director of the 

21 National Park Service 

22 (e) ADMI:\"ISTRATIO;>-;.-The Heritage Area shall be 

23 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

24 Partnership Program and shall be considered for all pur25 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

•HR 1301 m 
135 

56 

1 submission requirement of section 107(c)(1) and the pro2 visions of section 108, to have been designated an Amer3 ican Heritage Area under section 105(d) on the date on 

4 which the Heritage Area is designated under subsection 

5 (c) of this section. 

6 SEC. 206. STEEL INDUSTRY AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA. 

7 (a) CO:\"GRESSIO:\"AL FINDINGS.-The Congress finds 

8 that9 (1) the industrial and cultural heritage of 

10 southwestern Pennsylvania, including the city of 

11 Pittsburgh and the counties of Allegheny, Beaver, 

12 Fayette, Greene, Washington, and Westmoreland, 

13 related directly to steel and steel-related industries, 

14 is nationally significant; 

15 (2) these industries include steel-making, iron16 making, aluminum, specialty metals, glass, coal min17 ing, coke production, machining and foundries, 

18 transportation, and electrical industries; 

19 (3) the industrial and cultural heritage of the 

20 steel and related industries in this region includes 

21 the social history and living cultural traditions of the 

22 people of the region; 

23 ( 4) the labor movement of the region played a 

24 significant role in the development of the Nation, in25 eluding both the formation of many key unions, such 

•IIR ilJot Dl 
136 

57 

1 as the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) 

2 and the United Steel Workers of America (USWA), 

3 and crucial struggles to improve wages and working 

4 conditions, such as the Rail Strike of 1877, the 

5 Homestead Strike of 1892, and the Great Steel 

6 Strike of 1919; 

7 ( 5) there are significant examples of cultural 

8 and historic resources within this 6-county region 

9 that merit the involvement of the Federal GoverntO ment to develop programs and projects, in coopera11 tion with the Steel Industry Heritage Task Force, 

12 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and other local 

13 and governmental bodies, to adequately conserve, 

14 protect, and interpret this heritage for future gen15 erations while providing opportunities for education 

16 and revitalization; and 

17 (6) the Steel Industry Heritage Task Force 

18 would be an appropriate management entity for a 

19 Heritage Area established in the region. 

20 (b) STATEMENT 01<' PURPOSE.-The purposes of this 

21 section are--

22 ( 1) to foster a close working relationship be23 tween all levels of government. the private sector, 

24 and the local communities in the steel industry re25 gion of southwestern Pennsylvania and empower the 

•HR t3ot m 
137 

58 

1 communities to conserve their heritage while con2 tinuing to pursue economic opportunities; and 

3 (2) to conserve, interpret, and develop the his4 torical, cultural, natural, and recreational resources 

5 related to the industrial and cultural heritage of the 

6 6-county steel industry region of southwestern Penn7 sylvania. 

8 (c) DESIG:\'ATIO:\.-Upon publication by the Sec9 retmy in the Federal Register of notice that a compact 

10 regardiug the Heritage Area and meeting the require11 meuts for· a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been ap12 proved by the Secretary under the procedures referred to 

13 in section lOfi(b), there is hereby designated the Steel In14 dustry American Heritage Area (hereinafter in this section · 

15 referTed to as the "Heritage Area"). 

16 (d) BOCC\'DAHIJ.JS.-'rhe Heritage Area shall be com17 p\)Sed of the lands generally depicted on the map entitled 

18 "The Steel Industry American Heritage Area", numbered 

19 SINHA-80,007, and dated August 1994. The map shall 

20 be on file and available for public inspection in the office 

21 of the Director of the National Park Service. 

22 (c) AD:\II:\ISTRA'l'IOC\'.-'l'he Heritage Area shall be 

23 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

24 Partnership Program and shall be considered for all pur25 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

•HR't301 IH 
138 

59 

1 submission requirement of section 107{c)(l) and the pro2 visions of section 108, to have been designated an .Amer3 ican Heritage Area under section 1 05{ d) on the date on 

4 which the Heritag·e Area is designated under subsection 

5 {c) of this section. 

6 SEC. 207. WHEELING AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA. 

7 {a) CO:"<GRgS810::-.iAL FI::-.iDI:"<GK-1'lte Congress finds 

8 that9 {1) Wheeling, West Virginia, awl its vicinity 

I 0 possess important historical, eultnral, and natur·al 

II resources, representing major heritage themes of 

I2 transportation, commerce, industry, and Victorian 

13 culture in the United States; 

14 (2) the city of Wheeling played an important 

I5 part in the settlement of the Nation by serving as 

16 the western terminus of the National Road in the 

17 early 1800's, by serving as the Crossroads of Amer18 ica throughout the 19th century, by serving as one 

19 of the few major inland ports in the United States 

20 in the 19th century, and by hosting the establish·· 

21 ment of the Restored State of Vir·ginia, and later the 

22 State of West Virginia during the CiYil War· years; 

23 {3) the city of Wheeling was the first capital of 

24 the new State of West Virginia, during the dewlop25 ment and maintenance of many industries crucial to 

•HR 1301 m 
139 

60 

the expansion of the Nation, including iron, steel, 

2 and textile manufacturing, boat building, glass man3 ufacturing, and stogie and chewing tobacco manu4 facturing, many of which are industries that 

5 continue to play an important role in the Nation's 

6 economy; 

7 ( 4) the city of Wheeling has retained its na8 tiona) heritage themes with the designations of the 

9 old custom house, now Independence Hall, as a Na1 0 tiona) Historic Landmark, with the designation of 

11 the historic suspension bridge as a National Historic 

12 Landmark, with 5 historic districts, and with many 

13 individual properties in the Wheeling area listed on 

14 or eligible for nomination to the National Register of 

15 Historic Places; and 

16 ( 5) the heritage themes and number and diver17 sity of the remaining resources of Wheeling should 

18 be appropriately retained, enhanced, and interpreted 

19 for the education, benefit, and inspiration of the 

20 people of the United States. 

21 (b) STATJ<~lVIEN1' OF PCRPORE.-The purposes of this 

22 section are23 (1) to recogmze the special importance of the 

24 history and development of the \Vheeling, West Vir25 g-inia, area in the cultural heritag·e of the Nation; 

~HR 1301 IH 
140 

61 

(2) to provide a framework to assist the city of 

2 Wheeling and other public and private entities and 

3 individuals in the appropriate preservation, enhance·· 

4 ment, and interpretation of resources in the WheelS ing area that are emblematic of the contributions of 

6 Wheeling to the cultural heritage of the Nation; and 

7 (3) to allow for limited ~'ed ral, State, and local 

8 capital contributions for planning and infrastructure 

9 investments to create the Wheeling American Herit10 age Area, in partnership with the State of West Vir11 ginia, the city of Wheeling, West Virginia, and their 

12 designees, and to provide for an economically self13 sustaining American Heritage Area that will not be 

14 dependent on Federal assistance beyond the initial 

15 years nece~;sary to establish the American Heritage 

16 Area. 

17 (e) DERIG:\ATIOX.-Upon publication by the See18 retary in the Federal Register of notice that a compact 

19 regarding the Heritage Area and meeting the require20 ments for a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been ap21 proved by the Secretary under the procedures refened to 

22 in section 106(b), there is hereby designated the Wheeliug· 

23 American Heritage .Area (hereinafter in this Act referred 

24 to as the "Heritage Area") in the State of West Virginia. 

•HR 1301 1H 
141 

62 

(d) Bm;~DARil<~S.-The Heritage Area shall be com2 posed of the lands generally depicted on the map entitled 

3 "Boundary Map, Wheeling American Heritag·e Area, West 

4 Virginia", numbered WHNA-80,005, and dated August 

5 1994. The map shall be on file and available for public 

6 inspection in the office of the Director of the National 

7 Park Service. 

8 (e) Amn~ISTRATIO~.-The Heritage Area shall be 

9 considered to be part of the American Heritage Areas 

10 Partnership Program and shall be considered for all pur11 poses, including but not limited to the management plan 

12 submission requirement of section 107(c)(1) and the pro13 visions of section 108, to have been designated an Amer14 ican Heritage Area under section 105(d) on the date on 

15 which the Heritage Area is designated under subsection 

16 (c) of this section. 

17 (f) Al'TIIOlU7.:ATIO~ 01<' APPHOPRIATIO:'\S.-

18 (1) I~ GE:\EHAL.-There is authorized to be 

19 appropriated to carry out this section not more 

20 than21 (A) $5,000,000 for capital projects; 

22 (B) $1,000,000 for planning and studies; 

23 and 

24 (C) $500,000 for technical assistance . 

• mtisot m 
142 

63 

(2) LI:VIITATIO~S.-(A) Funds made available 

2 pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph 

3 (1) for a capital project or for planning and studies 

4 regarding a project shall not exceed 50 percent of 

5 the total costs of the capital project or project, re6 spectively. 

7 (B) Funds made available under this section or 

8 any other Federal law for the Heritage Area or the 

9 Wheeling National Heritage Area (including the 

IO Wheeling project) may not exceed $6,500,000 in the 

II aggregate. 

I2 (3) NOT gLJGIRLE FOH n ;:'\DS l::'\DEH TITLE 

I3 I.-No funds may be appropriated under title I for 

14 puqJoses of the Heritage Area. 

I5 TITLE III-STUDIES REGARDING 

I6 POTENTIAL AMERICAN HERI7 ITAGE AREAS 

I8 SEC. 301. OHIO RIVEit CORRIDOR. 

I9 (a) Co:'\GRESSIO~AL FI~DI~Gs.-'l'he CongTess finds 

20 that_:_ 

21 (1) the amenities and resources of the Ohio 

22 River, which flows through 6 States from its head23 waters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its 

24 confluence with the Mississippi River and comprises 

25 a chain of commercial, industrial, historical, archae-

•HR 1301 IH 
143 

64 

ological, natural, recreational, scenic, wildlife, urban, 

2 rural, cultural, and economic areas, are of major sig3 nificance and importance to the Nation; 

4 (2) the national interest is served by5 (A) preserving, protecting, and improving 

6 such amenities and resources for the benefit of 

7 the people of the United States; and 

8 (B) improving the coordination between all 

9 levels of government in the Ohio River Corridor; 

10 (3) the preservation, protection, and improve11 ment of such amenities and resources are failing to 

12 be fully realized despite efforts by the States 

13 through which the Ohio flows, political subdivisions 

14 of such States, and volunteer associations and pri15 vate businesses in such States; 

16 ( 4) existing Federal agency programs are offer17 ing insufficient coordination to State and local plan18 ning and regulatory authorities to provide for re19 source management and economic development in a 

20 manner that is consistent with the protection and 

21 public use of the amenities and resources of the Cor22 ridor; and 

23 ( 5) the Pederal Government should assist in the 

24 coordination, preservation, and interpretation activi25 ties of public and private entities with respect to the 

•HR lSOl IH 
144 

65 

1 significant amenities and resources associated with 

2 the Ohio River. 

3 (b) STUDY OP OHIO RIVER CORRIDOR.-

4 (1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 2 years after 

5 the date on which funds are made available to carry 

6 out this section, the Secretary shall complete a study 

7 on the suitability and feasibility of designating the 

8 Ohio River corridor, from its headwaters in the 

9 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its confluence 

10 with the Mississippi River, as an American Heritage 

11 Area. 

12 (2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.-On completion of 

13 the study required by subsection (a), the Secretary 

14 shall submit a report describing the results of the 

15 study to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

16 House of Representatives and the Committee on En17 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate. 

18 SEC. 302. FOX AND LOWER WISCONSIN RIVER CORRIDORS. 

19 (a) CONGRESSIONAL FI~DINGS.-The Congress finds 

20 that21 

22 

23 

(1) the Fox-Wisconsin waterway is famous as 

the discovery route of Marquette and Joliet; 

(2) as the connecting route between the Great 

24 Lakes and the Mississippi River, the waterway was 

25 critical to t.he opening of the Northwest Territory 

•IIR 1361 lll 
145 

66 

1 and served as a major artery in bringing commerce 

2 to the interior of the United States and providing 

3 a vital communication link for early explorers, mis4 sionaries, and fur traders; 

5 ( 3) within the Fox and Lower Wisconsin River 

6 corridors are an abundance of historic and archae7 ological sites and structures representing early Na8 tive Americans, European exploration, and 19th-cen9 tury transportation and settlement; and 

10 ( 4) the unique aspects of the waterway, from 

11 the heavily developed portions of the Fox River to 

12 the pristine expanses of the Lower Wisconsin River, 

13 should be studied to determine the suitability and 

14 feasibility of the waterway for designation as an 

15 American Heritage Area. 

16 (b) STUDY OF Fox-WISCONSIN RIVER CORRIDORS.-

17 (1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 2 years after 

18 the date on which funds are made available to carry 

19 out this section, the Secretary shall complete a study 

20 on the suitability and feasibility of designating the 

21 Fox and Lower Wisconsin River corridors in the 

22 State of Wisconsin as an American Heritage Area. 

23 (2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.-On completion of 

24 the study referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary 

25 shall submit a report describing the results of the 

•HR 130J m 
146 

67 

1 study to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

2 House of Representatives and the Committee on En3 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate. 

4 SEC. 303. NORTHERN FRONTIER. 

5 (a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.-The Congress finds 

6 that7 

8 

(1) the area comprising Tryon County, in the 

Mohawk Valley of the State of New York, and the 

9 Country of the Six Nations (Iroquois Confederacy), 

10 known during the American Revolutionary War pe11 riod as the "Northern Frontier", offers excellent op12 portunities to study a little known or understood as13 pect of the American Revolution-the frontier expe14 rience; 

15 (2) the Northern Frontier territory was ex16 tremely valuable to both sides of the American Revo17 lutionary War and was contested because of its geo18 political, military, agricultural, transportation, and 

19 commercial attributes; 

20 (3) because a complex social, economic, and po21 litical society was emerging on the Northern Fron22 tier, the Continental Congress established the North23 ern Indian Department to conduct affairs there, and 

24 the English made the area, and its Indian popu-

•BR 1801 m 
147 

68 

1 lation, the centerpiece of the English strategy to 

2 split the colonies; 

3 (4) due to the struggle to control the Northern 

4 Frontier, privation and hardship were inflicted upon 

5 nearly all who lived there, a diverse mix of ethnic 

6 and racial groups willingly and unwillingly thrust 

7 into the struggle for independence, leaving many 

8 dead, homeless, orphaned, or dislocated by the end 

9 of the hostilities; 

10 (5) the tensions on the Northern Frontier 

11 reached such a pitch that hostilities erupted, pitting 

12 neighbors, families, tribes, and clans against each 

13 other, and led to a bloody, savage, and destructive 

14 battle; 

15 (6) new interpretations and interdisciplinary 

16 studies of this human drama are not only necessary, 

17 but timely because of the abundant supply of assets 

18 in the area, including sites, buildings, celebrations, 

19 folklore, and collections, many safely preserved and 

20 many at risk; and 

21 (7) if these Northern Frontier assets can be 

22 thematically related and portrayed for the education 

23 and enjoyment of Americans and foreign visitors, an 

24 important and often overlooked chapter in the heritollli 1801 m 
148 

69 

1 age of the Nation will be displayed for the benefit 

2 and edification of all peoples. 

3 (b) STUDY.--

4 (1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 2 years after 

5 the date on which funds are made available to carry 

6 out this section, the Secretary shall complete a study 

7 on the suitability and feasibility of designating 

8 Tryon County, in the Mohawk Valley of the State of 

9 New York, and the Country of the Six Nations (lro10 quois Confederacy) as an American Heritage Area. 

11 (2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.-On completion of 

12 the study referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary 

13 shall submit a report describing the results of the 

14 study to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

15 House of Representatives and the Committee on En16 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate. 

11 TITLE IV-BLACKSTONE RIVER 

18 VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE 

19 CORRIDOR AMENDMENTS 

20 SEC. 401. BOUNDARIES, COMMISSION, AND REVISION OF 

21 PLAN. 

22 (a) BOUNDARIES.-Seetion 2(a) of the Act entitled 

23 "An Act to establish the Blackstone River Valley Nati6nal 

24 Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island", 

25 approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 

olllltallll 
149 

70 

1 Stat. 3625), is amended by striking the first sentence and 

2 inserting the following new sentence: "The boundaries 

3 shall include the lands and waters generally depicted on 

4 the map entitled 'Blackstone River Valley National Herit5 age Corridor Boundary Map', numbered BRV-80-80,011, 

6 and dated May 2, 1993.". 

7 (b) COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP.-(!) Section 3 of the 

8 Act entitled "An Act to establish the Blackstone River 

9 Valley National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and 

10 Rhode Island", approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 

11 99-647; 100 Stat. 3625), is amended12 (A) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol13 lows: 

14 "(b) MEMBERSHIP.-(!) The Commission shall be 

15 composed of 19 members, appointed as follows: 

16 "(A) the Director of the National Park Service, 

17 or a designee, ex officio; 

18 "(B) 5 individuals appointed by the Secretary 

19 after consideration of recommendations from the 

20 Governor of Rhode Island; 

21 "(C) 5 individuals appointed by the Secretary 

22 after consideration of recommendations from the 

23 Governor of Massachusetts; 

•HR 1001 m 
150 

71 

1 "(D) 4 individuals appointed by the Secretary 

2 to represent the interests of local government in the 

3 State of Rhode Island; and 

4 "(E) 4 individuals appointed by the Secretary 

5 to represent the interests of local government in the 

6 State of Massachusetts. 

7 "(2) A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in 

8 the manner in which the original appointment was made."; 

9 and 

10 (B) in subsection (c), by inserting immediately 

11 before the period at the end the following: ", but 

12 may continue to serve until a successor has been 

13 appointed". 

14 (2) Paragraph (1) shall take effect upon the expira15 tion of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the 

16 enactment of this Aet. 

17 {c) REVISION OF PLAX.-Section 6 of the Act enti18 tied "An Act to establish the Blackstone River Valley N a19 tiona) Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Is20 land", approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 

21 100 Stat. 3625), is amended by adding at the end the 

22 following new subseetion: 

23 "(d) REVISIOX OF PLAX.-(1) Not later than 1 year 

24 after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 

25 Commission shall revise the Cultural Heritage and Land 

•HR 1301 IH 
151 

72 

1 Management Plan submitted under subsection (a) and 

2 shall submit the revised plan to the Secretary and the Gov3 ernors of Massachusetts and Rhode Island for approval 

4 under the procedures referred to in subsection (b). The 

5 revision shall address any change in the boundaries of the 

6 Corridor that occurs after the submission of the plan re7 quired by subsection (a) and shall include a natural reS source inventory of areas or features that should be pro9 tected, restored, or managed because of the natural and 

10 cultural significance of the areas or features. 

11 "(2) No changes other than minor boundary revisions 

12 may be made in the plan approved under subsection (b) 

13 and revised under paragraph (1) of this subsection, unless 

14 the Secretary approves such changes. The Secretary sha.ll 

15 approve or disapprove any proposed change in the plan, 

16 except minor revisions, in accordance with subsection 

17 (b).". 

18 (d) TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.-Section 7 of the 

19 Act entitled "An Act to establish the Blackatone River 

20 Valley National Heritage Corridor iQ Massachusetts and 

21 Rhode Island", approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 

22 99-647; 100 Stat. 3630), is amended to read as follows: 

23 "TERMINATION OF COM~ISSION 

24 "SEC. 7. Th~ Commission shall terminate on Decem25 her 31, 2003.". 

•HillSOl IH 
152 

73 

SEC. 402. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN. 

2 Section 8(c) of the Act entitled "An Act to establish 

3 the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor 

4 in Massachusetts and Rhode Island", approved November 

5 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 Stat. 3630), is amend6 ed to read as follows: 

7 "(c) hiPLE.ME:'\TATIOX.-(1) To assist in the imple8 mentation of the Cultural Heritage and Land Manage9 ment Plan, submitted and revised under section 6, in a 

10 manner consistent with the purposes of this Act, and to 

11 assist in the preservation and restoration of structures on 

12 or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of His13 toric Places, the Secretary is authorized to provide funds 

14 for projects in the Corridor that exhibit national signifi15 cance or provide a wide spectrum of historic, recreational, 

16 environmental, educational, or interpretive opportunities, 

17 without regard to whether the projects are in public or 

18 private ownership. Applications for funds under this sec19 tion shall be made to the Secretary through the Commis20 sion. Each such application shall include the recommenda21 tion of the Commission and its findings regarding the 

22 manner in which the project proposed to be funded will 

23 further the purposes of this Act. 

24 "(2) The Commission shall not be eligible for funds 

25 under this section unless it submits to the Secretary an 

26 application that includes-

•HR t3(n m 
153 

74 

"(A) a 10-year development plan including the 

2 resource protection needs and projects critical to 

3 maintaining or interpreting the distinctive character 

4 of the Corridor; and 

5 "(B) specific descriptions of any projects that 

6 have been identified and of the participating parties, 

7 roles, cost estimates, cost-sharing, or cooperative 

8 agreements necessary to carry out the development 

9 plan. 

10 "(3) Funds made available pursuant to this sub11 section for any project shall not exceed 50 percent of the 

12 total cost of such project. 

13 " ( 4) In making funds available under this subsection, 

14 the Secretary shall give priority to projects that attract 

15 greater non-Federal than Federal funding. 

16 "(5) Any payment made under this subsection for the 

17 purposes of conservation or restoration of real property 

18 or of any structure shall be subject to an agreement19 "(A) to convey a conservation or preservation 

20 easement to the Department of Environmental Man21 agement or to the Historic Preservation Commis22 sion, as appropriate, of the State in which the real 

23 property or structure is located; or 

24 "(B) that upon conversion, use, or disposal of 

25 the real property or structure for purposes contrary 

•IIR 1acn m 
154 

75 

1 to the purposes of this Act, the recipient of the pay2 ment, or the successors or assigns of the recipient, 

3 shall pay to the United States the greater of4 "(i) the total of all Federal funds made 

5 available for conservation or restoration of the 

6 real property or structure, reduced pro rata 

7 over the useful life of the improvements funded; 

8 and 

9 "(ii) the increased value attributable to 

10 such funds, as determined at the time of the 

11 conversion, use, or disposal. 

12 "(6) The determination that, for purposes of para13 graph (5)(B), a conversion, use, or disposal has been car14 ried out contrary to the purposes of this Act shall be solely 

15 within the disct:etion of the Secretary.". 

16 SEC. 403. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

17 Section 10 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish 

18 the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor 

19 in Massachusett ~ and Rhode Island", approved November 

20 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 Stat. 3630), is 

21 amended22 (1) m subsection (a), by striking "$350,000" 

23 and inserting "$500,000"; and 

24 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as 

25 follows: 

... 

•DR 1101 m 
155 

76 

"(b) DEVELOP:\IEXT Frxos.-There is authorized to 

2 be appropriated to carry out section 8 for fiscal years be3 ginning after September 30, 1994, not more than 

4 $5,000,000 in the aggregate, to remain available until 

5 expended.". 

6 TITLE V-BRAMWELL NATIONAL 

7 HISTORIC DISTRICT 

8 SEC. 501. BRAMWELL NATIONAL WSTORIC DISTRICT. 

9 (a) COXGRESSIOXAL FIXDIXGS.-The Congress finds 

10 that11 (1) the coal mining heritage of southern West 

12 Virginia is of historical and cultural significance; 

13 (2) the town of Bramwell, West Virginia, pos14 sesses remarkable and outstanding historical, cul15 . tural, and architectural values relating to the coal 

16 mining heritage of southern West Virginia; and 

17 (3) it is in the national interest to preserve the 

18 unique character of the town of Bramwell, West Vir19 ginia, and to enhance the historical, cultural, and ar20 chitectural values associated with its coal mining 

21 heritage. 

22 (b) STATE:\IEXT OF PL"RPOSE.-The purpose of this 

23 section is to encourage the preservation, restoration, and 

24 . interpretation of the historical, cultural, and architectural 

25 values of the town of Bramwell, West Virginia. 

•HR 1ae1 m 
156 

77 

(c) DESIGXATIO:'\.-In order to preserve, protect, re2 store, and interpret the unique historical, cultural, and ar3 chitectural values of Bramwell, West Virginia, there is 

4 hereby designated the Bramwell National Historic District 

5 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Historic 

6 District"). The Historic District shall consist of the lands 

7 and interest therein within the corporate limits of the town 

8 of Bramwell, West Virginia. 

9 (d) COOPERATIVE AGREE:\IE:'\TS.-

10 (1) h GE:'\ERAL.-The Secretary is authorized 

II . to enter into cooperative agreements with the State 

I2 of West Virginia, or any political subdivision thereof, 

I3 to further the purposes of the Historic District. 

I4 (2) RATIO OF :'\0:'\-l<'EDEHAL I<T:'\DS.-Funds 

I5 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 

I6 the purposes of this subsection shall be expended in 

I7 the ratio of 1 dollar of Federal funds for each dollar 

18 contributed by non-Federal sources. With the apI9 proval of the Secretary, any donation of land, serv20 ices, or goods from a non-Federal source, fairly val2I ued, may be considered as a contribution of dollars 

22 from a non-Federal source for the purposes of this 

23 subsection. 

24 (3) AGREK\IE:'\TS REGARDI:'\G PAY:\IE:'\TS.-Any 

25 payment made by the Secretary pursuant to a coop-

•HR 1301 m 
157 

78 

erative agreement under this subsection shall be sub2 ject to an agreement that conversion, use, or dis3 posal of the project so assisted for any purpose con4 trary to the purpose of this section, as determined 

5 by the Secretary, shall result in a right of the Unit6 ed States to the greater of7 (A) reimbursement of all funds made avail8 able to such project; or 

9 (B) the proportion of the increased value 

10 of the project attributable to such funds, as dell termined at the time of the conversion, use, or 

12 disposal. 

13 (e) AUTHORIZATIO:\ OF APPROPRIATIOl'\8.-There is 

14 authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out this 

15 section. 

16 TITLE VI-SOUTHWESTERN 

11 PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN 

1s HERITAGE AREA AMEND19 MENTS 

20 SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE. 

21 This title may be cited as the "Southwestern Penn22 sylvania American Heritage Area Amendments Act". 

•BR 1301 Of 

90-778 0 - 95 - 6 
158 

79 

SEC. 602. DESIGNATION OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVA2 NIA AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA. 

3 The Act entitled "An Act to establish in the Depart4 ment of the Interior the Southwestern Pennsylvania Herit5 age Preservation Commission, and for other purposes", 

6 approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new title: 

8 "TITLE III-SOUTHWESTERN 

9 PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN 

10 HERITAGE AREA 

11 "SEC. 301. DESIGNATION. 

12 "There is hereby designated the Southwestern Penn13 sylvania American Heritage Area, which shall be com14 prised of the region in southwestern Pennsylvania de15 scribed in section 101(a). 

16 "SEC. 302. CLASSIFICATION. 

17 "The Southwestern Pennsylvania American Heritage 

18 Area shall not be considered to be an American Heritage 

19 Area for purposes of the American Heritage Areas Part20 nership Program Act of 1994 or the American Heritage 

21 Areas Partnership Program established by section 105(a) 

22 of such Act.". 

23 SEC. 603. POWERS OF COMMISSION. 

24 Section 103(h)(3) of the Act entitled "An Act to es25 tablish in the Department of the Interior the Southwest26 ern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, and 

•BR laOl ill 
159 

80 

1 for other purposes", approved November 19, 1988 (102 

2 Stat. 4618), is amended by inserting "or an appropriate 

3 private nonprofit organization exempt from income taxes 

4 under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

5 1986," after "public agency,". 

6 SEC. 604. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION. 

7 Section 105 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish 

8 in the Department of the Interior the Southwestern Penn9 sylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other 

10 purposes", approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 

11 4618), is amended to read as follows: 

12 "SEC. 106. PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION. 

13 "(a) REVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE MA:\lAGEMENT 

14 PLAN AND SCOPE AND COST DOCUMENT.-(1) The Com15 mission shall revise, to carry out this title in a manner 

16 that provides for limited Federal involvement, the manage17 ment plan developed before the date of the enactment of 

18 this section. The Commission shall also revise the scope 

19 and cost document developed before the date of the enact20 ment of this section to reflect the total cost of each project 

21 proposed for approval under this section and the Federal 

22 portion of such cost. Both the management plan and the 

23 scope and cost document shall be submitted to the Sec24 retary for approval. 

•BR 1ao1 m 
160 

81 

"(2) T11e Secretary shall approve or disapprove any 

2 management plan or scope and cost document submitted 

3 under paragraph ( 1) not later than 90 days after receiving 

4 such plan or document. If the Secretary disapproves the 

5 submitted management plan or scope and cost document, 

6 the Secretary shall advise the Commission in writing of 

7 the reasons therefor and shall make recommendations for 

8 revisions in the plan or document. The Secretary shall ap9 prove or disapprove a proposed revision to such a plan 

lO or document within 90 days after the date on which the 

11 proposed revision is submitted to the Secretary. 

12 "(b) LOA:\S, Giv\:\TS, A:\D TECH:\ICAL ASSISTA:\CE 

13 Usr~G FEDERAl. Fc:-;-ns.-The Commission may not 

14 make loans or grants involving Federal funds under sec15 tion 104 except as provided in this subsection. The Scc16 retary may provide a loan, a grant, or technical assistance, 

17 for the purpose described in section 104, pursuant to an 

18 application made to the Secretary through the Commis19 sion in accordance with procedures required by the Sec20 retary. Each such application shall include the findings 

21 of the Commission regarding the manner in which the pro22 posed loan, grant, or technical assistance 'vill further the 

23 purpose of this Act. Each such application shall also in24 elude the recommendations of the Commission 1·egarding 

25 the proposed loan, grant, or technical assistance. The Sec-

•HR 1301 m 
161 

82 

1 retary may approve such an application only if the Federal 

2 funds provided pursuant to the application will be used 

3 in a manner that is generally consistent with Federal law 

4 relating to the type of project or activity to be funded, 

5 as determined by the Secretary. Federal funds made avail6 able for loans or grants pursuant to section 104 or this 

7 subsection may be used to provide for the preservation or 

8 restoration of historic properties in an amount not to ex9 ceed $100,000 for each project so assisted. 

10 "(c) USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.-(1) Federal funds 

11 made available under this Act with respect to projects may 

12 be made available only for projects that are consistent with 

l3 the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties pro14 mulgated by the Secretary. 

15 "(2) Federal funds made available under this Act 

16 after the date of the enactment of this section with respect 

17 to a project may be used only for planning and design 

18 with respect to the project, except that such funds may 

19 be used to complete construction commenced before such 

20 date regarding Saltsburg Canal Park or West Overton 

21 Village. 

22 "(3) The total amount of Federal assistance provided 

23 under this section for a project in any fiscal year may not 

24 exceed 20 percent of the total amount of Federal funds 

-•HR. 1301 IH 
162 

83 

1 made available for that fiscal year for the Southwestern 

2 Pennsylvania National Heritage Area. 

3 "( 4) Federal funds made available under this title 

4 with respect to a project may not exceed 50 percent of 

5 the total costs of the project. In making such funds avail6 able, the Secretary shall give consideration to projects that 

7 provide a greater leverage of Federal funds. Any payment 

8 made under section 104 or 105 shall be subject to an 

9 agreement that conversion, use, or disposal of the project 

10 so assisted for any purpose contrary to the purpose of this 

11 Act, as determined by the Secretary, shall result in a right 

12 of the United States to the greater of13 "(A) compensation for all funds made available 

14 with respect to such project; and 

15 "(B) the proportion of the increased value of 

16 the project attributable to such funds, as determined 

17 at the time of such conversion, use, or disposal. 

18 "(5) No Federal funds made available to carry out 

19 this Act for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 

20 1995, may be used to provide operational or maintenance 

21 support >vith respect to any building, site, or structure 

22 that is not owned by the Federal Government, except the 

23 Railroaders Memorial Museum, Saltsburg Canal Park, 

24 and West Overton Village. Such funds for the Railroaders 

25 Memorial Museum, Saltsburg Canal Park, and West 

•HR t:lot m 
163 

~4 

Overton Village may not exceed $200,000 annually, in the 

2 aggregate. 

3 "(6) No Federal funds made available to carry out 

4 this Act may be used for the construction of any visitor 

5 center, interpretive center, or museum, except West 

6 Overton Village. 

7 "(7) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove the 

8 use of Federal funds made available pursuant to this title 

9 within 30 days after application for such funds by the 

10 Commission.". 

11 SEC. 605. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. 

12 Section 104(b) of the Act entitled "An Act to estab13 lish in the Department of the Interior the Southwestern 

14 Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, and for 

15 other purposes", approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 

16 4618), is amended17 ( 1) in the first sentence, by inserting "and to 

18 the CongTess" after "Secretary"; and 

19 (2) by inserting after the first sentence the fol20 lowing: "Funds made available for a fiscal year to 

21 carry out this Act may not be obligated for that fis22 cal year until the report required for the preceding 

23 fiseal year by the preceding sentence is submitted to 

24 the Congress.". 

•HR 130l iH 
164 

85 

SEC. 606. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 Title I of the Act entitled "An Act to establish m 

3 the Department of the Interior the Southwestem Penn4 sylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other 

5 purposes", approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 

6 4618), is amended by adding at the end the following new 

7 section: 

8 "SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

9 "There are authorized to be appropriated to the 

10 Secretary to carry out this Act the following: 

11 "(1) For each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 

12 and 1998, $1,000,000 for planning and design, 

13 $1,600,000 for construction, $600,000 for grants 

14 and loans, and $400,000 for the operations of the 

15 Commission. 

16 "(2) For that portion of fiscal year 1999 that 

17 occurs before the Commission ceases to exist under 

18 section 104(e), $250,000 for planning and design, 

19 $400,000 for construction, $150,000 for grants and 

20 loans, and $100,000 for the operations of the Com21 mission.". 

22 SEC. 607. PATH OF PROGRESS. 

23 Title II of the Act entitled "An Act to establish in 

24 the Department of the Interior the Southwestern Penn25 sylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other 

•HR 1ao1. m 
165 

86 

1 purposes", approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 

2 4618), is amended as follows: 

3 (1) By amending the heading of the title to 

4 read as follows: 

5 ''TITLE II-PATH OF PROGRESS". 

6 (2) By amending section 201 to read as follows: 

7 "SEC. 201. IDENTIFICATION OF ROUTE. 

8 "In order to provide for public appreciation, edu9 cation, understanding, and enjoyment of certain nationally 

I 0 and regionally significant sites in Southwestern Penn11 sylvania which are accessible by public roads, the Sec12 retary, with the concurrence of the agency having jurisdic13 tion over such roads, may provide signs, interpretive mate14 rials, and other informational devices for a vehicular tour 

15 route, commonly known as the 'Path of Progress Heritage 

16 Route'.". 

11 TITLE VII-BUY AMERICAN 

18 POLICY 

19 SEC. 701. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND 

20 PRODUCTS. 

21 (a) 8E:\"HE OF TilE CO:\"<lHEHS.-lt is the sense of the 

22 CongTess that, to the 1-'Teatest extent practicable, all equip23 ment awl produets purchased '"ith funds made available 

24 under this Act should be Ame1·ican-made. 

•HR 1301 IH 
166 

87 

(b) NOTICB REQCIRK\IE:\'T.-ln usmg funds made 

2 available under this Act to provide financial assistance to, 

3 or enter into any contract with, any entity, the Secretary, 

4 to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to the en5 tity a notice deseribing the statement made by the Con6 gress in subsection (a). 

0 

•HR 1301 IH 
167 

THE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC 

P.O. Box 7S, Stony Creek, New York 12878 - Sl8f696-S748 

'1M rieftt 

~ 

tD """'prirNJU propmg i.s ":fwuiammtDI ~ fru"""' tfrat 

perst1Nilli«rty """prrmrotu ~prosperity. 

Tes'tirnony of 

Carol W. LaGrasse 

Technical Assistance Act of 1995 

to Establish a 

National Heritage Areas Partnership Program 

March 2a, 1995 

This Congress is about reining ir. Government. It is no 

accident that the same people who are working for regulatory 

reform also stand for tax and spending cuts, which mean less 

government . 

It is the magnitude and power of government that give rise 

to government abuse. 

For people concerned across the country with property 

rights, the National Park Service is the oldest and most established 

agent of maltreatment of property owners. 

The National Park Service is a giant agency that administers 

lands totalling 81 million acres in 21 separate menagement categories 

from National Parks to National Rivers. In addition, the Park 

Service extends influence over ten more categories from UN Biosphere 

Reserves amounting to 51 million acres in the US to 9,000 miles 

of National Trails. These additional categories of Park Service 

influence often lead to National Park status, but at any rate, 

are always forces leading to more regulatory control. The 

National Heritage Areas Program comes under this category of 

progr~~s that would lead to additional regulatory control and 
168 

THE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC 

March 28, 1995 

possibly to inclusion i n an actual National Park Service 

administrative unit. The program is a subterfuge. 

The property rights movement would like to see the 

National Park Service narrowed in scope and its funding reduced. 

We do not support the <lxtension of Park Service powers to 100 

and more new National Heritage Partnership Areas that could 

encompass counties along river beds in much of the east and 

midwest. 

The pork barrel that would go to each Congressional 

District is a mere bit of pottage that will take a toll on 

our birthright of freedom. In its ~lay 1993 report on the Scope 

and Cost of America's I ndustrial Heritage Project, the General 

Accounting Office has already faulted one of the pioneering 

Heritage Areas for lack of clear definition of the scope --

the "number, size, and cost" -- of the included projects, 

leading to a cost overrun from an original taxpayer expenditure 

of a predicted $63 million to an actual $355 million. 

Anything can qualify for inclusion in the program, 

even with the lengthy r equirements in the modified bill being 

submitted this year by the Committee on Resources. The bill 

refers only to the costs external to the National Park Service 

in its funding of $1,000,000 per Heritage Area and places no 

restrictions on the internal costs of the Heritage Program, 

which would include la:rge internal costs, considering it 

is a "technical assist ~nce" effort. 

- 2 -
169 

THE PROPERTY RJGHTS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC 

March 28, 1995 

While the Contract for America is underway to downsize 

government and cut away the regulatory juggernut, it is especially 

ironic for Congress to take up the increased scope of such an 

oversized, overextended agency. To increase the scope of 

the National Park Service is a betrayal of the voters' ·.tre.st 

and of the vision of the Contract with America. 

The Park Service's treatment of rural people runs counter 

to its image. It squeezes landowners into selling by threatening 

them and using eminent domain. It subverts rural culture by 

denying real history and destroying communities. It even subverts 

religious tradition by closing access to cemeteries. It has 

singlehandedly destroyed the self-sufficient gold mining way 

of life in Alaska's new and expanded National Parks by regulatory 

abuse without compensation , and bankrupted the miners. 

This agency is so preoccupied with power that it had a man 

arrested in leg irons in Montana for riding in a car in Alaska 

on the old Denali Highwasy without a permit. 

The National Park Service is a major player in the elite 

movement to greenline rural America to the detriment of country 

and village people. Its model Heritage program, the Blackstone 

Heritage Area in Rhode Island and Massachusetts was criticized 

by New York sportsmen for cutting out the use of the corridor 

by all sportsmen except hikers. 

Rural people do not need or desire the National Park 

Service for "technical assistance" for preservat.ion or the Park 

Service's version of "planning~" Rural America is not clamoring 

for compacts between new regional greenways and the National Park 

Service. 

- 3 -
170 

Other Editon Say 

Montana Miner Faces Jail, Leg Irons 

After Dispute With· NPS In Alaska 

(Editor's Note: The following story is reprinted from The Alaska Miner concerning 

the experiences of Steve Hicks, a member of 

the Montana Mining Association. The MMA 

currently is reviewing transcripts of the case in 

Mr. Hicks' behalf.) 

By Rose Rybachek 

Alaska Miners Association 

Recently, the newspapers carried a story 

about geologist Steve Hicks beir.g handcuffed, 

fitted with leg-irons and dragged to jail in 

Billings, Montana, for driving on a highway in 

Denali National Park without a permit. Shades 

of Gestapoism! Since when is it a crime to drive 

on a state-owned highway in Alaska? Well, 

evidently since the Park Service decided it was! 

As most of you know, the Denali highway 

was deeded to the State of Alaska by the federal 

government, therefore, it is a state-owned highway. The incident with Hicks started on a Satur· 

day night last July. Hicks found out that neither 

his name, nor the name of the miner he was 

representing in Kantishna, were on the list to 

use the Denali park road. The Park Service 

wanted Hicks to return during business hours 

on Monday to obtain a permit. Not wanting 

to waste precious time, Hicks drove on to 

Kantishna. 

Three days later, and apparently after much 

discu!:sion v .. ·:!h;~ :r.c ~g~nc;.·, the National Park 

Service issued Hicks a ticket for "engaging in an 

activity subject to a permit without first obtaining a permit." The ticket carried a maximum 

$500 fine and/or six months in jaiL 

Hicks returned to his home in Montana and 

allegedly wrote to the court, informing them 

that he was in Montana, and could not afford to 

come back to Alaska for triaL Being undaunted 

in its duty to prosecute dangerous criminals, 

and in its warped idea of what constituted a 

dangerous criminal, the Park Service had Hicks 

arrested in Montana. Hicks was offered a 

settlement, but was willing to stick up for the 

rights of free people to access their property, 

and stand triaL After listening to the evidence, 

the court fined Hicks $200.00. 

What right does the federal government 

have to restrict travel of citizens on a stateowned highway? In particular, when people 

have in-holdings, isn't the right of access 

guaranteed? The court stated that the ownership of the highway and right of access might be 

an issue, but it could not be raised in an 

enforcement case. Perhaps it is time that the 

issue is raised on its own merits. Why must 

people wishing to access their property in 

Kantishna be subjected to continual harassment by the federal government? Why must an 

honest citizen be hand-cuffed, fitted with leg 

irons, thrown in jail and extradited to Alaska for 

driving on a state highway? When will the federal government concentrate on real criminals 

instead of those trying to make an honest living? 

These questions must be answered soon, if 

we are to remain a free people. ~ 

i 

~HALL-PERRY ·Iiiii .... .._ ..... "" .. .,;" ................... ., • Joh~ Deere 

•GrOYe 

• Oynapac 

• p~~':'!! 

• Kolberg 

CONTRACT OAILUNG DtVISKlN 

HOATHWf:ST zdve eox •oa 2tlt2GllfiEI'IT ROAD E 

01'15 OACHAAOS. WAII021 

(501tt2'1-r..n 

Bus. Phone (406)259·5536 

WATS (800) 23H420 

FAX (406) 259-5270 

GfOTECHMICAL DRILLING 6. SOit. 

SAMPUNG•OIAMONO COA( 

Dft1LUHG..SUAF.t.CE & U,..OEA· 

OAOUNO•SEAVICES IN WA. OA, M t 

1.0. WY. UT. CO & AK 

FAJ.:t26-M711 
171 

Carol W. LaGrasse 

Property Rights Foundation of America 

P.O. Box 75 

Stony CreeK, NY 12878 

D~ar Ms. LaGrasse: 

711 North C 

Livingston, MT 59047 

March 16, 1995 

Instead of a long narrative letter concerning my ticKet 

for driving through Denali National ParK without a permit, 

I'll just list things in a chronological order. If you would 

1 ik~ more detailed information or confirmation of any of the 

following items, I •vould be more than happy to supply it. 

1 . In 1 985 a c our t i n j u n c t i on shuts down m i n i n g i n the 

Kantishna Mining District within Denali National ParK. It is 

hi qh 1 y 1 iKe 1 y that NPS personne 1 provided the env i ronmen ta 1 

organizations with the information on how the NPS could be 

~-ued and thus shut dovm mining. 

2. ln July of 1986 I was hired as a geologist by the AlasKa 

Regional Office of the NPS to perform validity examinations of 

mining claims in Kantishna. It was my job to determine if the 

claims were valid or not. If the claims were determined to be 

valid, then supposedly the miners could mine the claims if 

they were able to jump through all the endless hoops. 

3. I was the lead geologist in Kantishna for the NPS for the 

summers of 86, 87, and 88. The rest of the year I had an 

offical NPS duty station in Livingston, Montana where I worKed 

on th~ mineral reports on a part time basis. 

4. In February 1989 I was subpoened by two Kantishna miners 

to testify in their court case in Anchorage. The ParK Service 

had charged the miners with operating an off road vehicle <D-6 

Catl on their mining claims without a permit. After the court 

case I visited my NPS mineral co-worKers at the ParK Service 

regional office. A couple of them thought I was too helpful 

to the miners and thouoht I should have played dumb and not volunteered so much information. 
172 

S. Aft"'" th"' tl'ial I was n"'ver invihd back for mol'"' fi"'ld 

woi'K and was officially t"'rminated from my t"'mporary job in 

August 1990. The l'eason for the tel'mination was lack of work 

yet two yeal's aqo my fol'mer boss explained the slow pl'ogl'ess 

on getting validity reports done because of an excessive 

WOI'kload. 

6. Around May of 1990 I started h"'lping one of the Kantishna 

mining claimants. 

7. Spl'ing of 199 1 I slart cool'dinating with NPS geologists to 

be t•resent on some f<d.ntishnd. min i ng cldims .i:iS th•? c~aimJ nl:"'s 

r-epresentativ~ dur·inq validity a.n.s. It is common ~ra.cti ce 

when validity e ;:: am:. ar-e conducted to in•Ji b: the min in~ 

claimant or l1i5 Ppresenl~tiue to be prese11t durinq th0 

e x am i n at i on s . 

8. On July 6, 1991 <Satul'day night) I was a passenQer with my 

two ho?lper·s when W(' ento?r·o?d Denuli Nati.:mal Pad: . w.- first 

tried to oblain a road tl'avel pel'mi t at Pal'k Headqual'ters but 

it was closo?d. At milo? 14 at the o?nd of th ~ pau e d road is a 

Pal'k S"'rvice gual'd. W"' •tn~p"'d th"'re about 12 minutes tr y ing 

tu obtain a road travel permit but m;:~ namr~ or~ th•.' cla.im-~.-d:•;. I 

was representing ""'-s not c•n the 1 i st. Fr·t· ~u"'n t 1 )' NPS 

1s1anagemen t !-":~el)s par,..~ rangers un i r.formed. In 1991 h\J(I uf th:? 

claimants I •·\'as represer.ting had uwned Ko.1d:ishnc.. r.lc..ims since 

1964. Th~ Par k S~rvic~ qua~d told us to ~eturn to Park 

headquarters Monday through F1 · iday dul'ing businPSS hours to 

obtain a per·1oit. I said we h.:td a legal r-ight of acc:~:..s a.r1d 

w~r~ going to Kantishna with or without a ue1·mi t. 

9. Ranger Thompson V.Jd.:· infor-med b y r·at.Ji o th:'lt my· helqer- s and 

I we>re tl'ave>l i ng the road without a p~rmi t. Twi c~ \hat n i <;~ht 

Ranger· Tho1npson pullel-1 uver· our· vehicle but no tic!~~t~ ... we!"· .. ~ 

issued. On Jul y 9 Rctng(·r Thomp"i-on along with two cthC'J~ ar-1ncd 

ang~r s issue me l~ ticket. Th~ verbatum cllar ~e WdS 

"Et,yaging in an a.ctivily subject lo perm it without fir·st 

obtdining a oermit <Road Travei P~.?f'mi~ " ! was told th.:i t th(' 

maximum fine for this violaliur1 was S500 and 01~ s i x month s in 

jail. Tht? ticket w.as d.lso unusu a l in th.:tt it in r: 1tJCh:-d...:;. 

mandator y court "-PIJ~arance for Auqust 30, 1991. It is 

important to not<- that D<-nal i Pal'k manaQE'h><>nt instruct<-d 

Thomwson to ti cl< el rne> and how to '""it~ th.- ticl<et. (court 

transcript fol' pl'oofl. 

10. Aftel' r-.-turninq to Montan a near· the ~lld of Jul y I wro t<' 

to tho federal maqi strate in Fai rb.J.nl-:s eve, c:,d t im•~ -~-) ._\nd 1:r i ~d 

to get the ridi~ulous charges droppQd. I ne>ver r~cPived a 

l'esponse fran t h P magistrate. 

II. I arran(,led to mak~ my initial cou1· t aL>pQal·anc <: by 

t~l~phune whe1> I pleado?J not ~uilt y The trial Jat@ was s~ t 

cC .,;,d./, /,. Cdwp(< 

h. ... J...I:.J r_.//y "'' ,...__., 

() !' ,;..)-J ;,;;~ A /1>"'-

t,..._,, ;;, • 1-4.- ~ "-
173 

ticket for an undetermined amount under $100 rf l wou1a prea.a 

gui 1 ty. I said something to the effo?ct that I might accept two cents and an apology from the ParK Service. I found out 

twu years later this really irritated the attorney alonq with 

letters to the FairbanKs and Anchorage papers where I stated 

how th~ U.S. Attorney tried to intimidate m~ by saying I would 

be arrested if I didn't show up for trial. On the morning of 

the trial I faxed the magistrate and said that I would not be 

in court. It is this failure to appear that triggered an 

arrest warrant. 

12. On September 24, 91 two U.S. Marshals arrested me at my 

home in Livingston, Montana. I was fi tt"d •·Ji th handcuffs 

attached to a chain around my waist and hauled to jai 1 in 

Billings, Montana 120 miles away. I complained that this was 

not necessary since they Knew what my ticKet was for and I 

didn't have any other criminal record. <The Marshals operate 

by the booK and are not allowed to think for themselves.) 

13. On September 25 the Marshals transported me to a. federal 

magistrate in Billings after I was fitted with the above 

handcuffs, belly chain, and this time leg irons. After 

sitting in a holding cell, more fingerprints and photos, I had 

a short appearance b~fore the maqistrate. The magistrate wds 

wondering what is going on and why the ParK service wanted to 

tr'ansport me back to AlasKa for· driving through a park without 

a permit. The magistrate wanted to find out more information 

but only from other government employees. My bond was set at 

5500 but I did not post it and I was returned to jail 

s!1ackeled as above. 

1·4. On Septt>mber 26 it '"-'as another r'c,und trip from the jail 

ton .. , fedt>r'al magistrate compl•Jt~ "-Jith l'>Q irons, belly 

cha. ins, a.nd handcuffs. The return trip is.- significant because 

tl1e magistrate had released me on my prrnnise to apprear back 

"' Bi 11 i ngs on October' I for transport to Fairbanks. It set>ms 

as though the messdge from the justice department is uo not 1ne~s t,.o.,t i th tlte feds. 

!5. On October 1 reoc•rted bacl< to Bi 11 ings '"i th two small 

suitcases for the trip to FairbanKs with two U.S. Marshals. 

The marshals made the comment "Why didn't you just qet a permit? This is crazy transporting you all the way io 

Fairbanks." They were also upset that the magistrate allowed 

me to travel with suitcases. I did make the trip to Fairbanks 

without handcuffs. 

16. Stayed in jail overniqht in FairbanKs. On October 2 I 

went before the federal ma~istrate. My transport between the 

court h <.•u se and the j a i 1 i s "'i t h the han de u f f s, be 1 1 y c h a i n , 

"'"·-' /._5 ,J-_,,, e .. ·~ ,,._ A ,, <-·--~ ;;t,'.P "'..!'4,.. z. ~/ .J~.,. r"le.-J..-.,? 
174 

17. I repres~nt<.>d myself in court for the two day trial. I 

hau asK~d for a jury trial but was denied one. Even thouoh 

showed I had an undisputed legal right of access as the · 

claimant ' s rep~esentative, the magist~ate finds me guilty 

since I didn ' t obtain a permit as the regulations state even though I tried to obtain a permit and was refused one. The 

magistrate is a 1 i ttle concerned that I wasn't the driver of 

the vehicle but the federal p~osecuting attorney explains that 

I was the only one that had authority to travel the road and 

the other two people with me were just my helpers. 

18. At the end of my trial, a very colorful Joe Vogler that 

had twice run for governor and had a strong dis! iKe for the 

federal government said "You would have received more justice 

in a whorehouse with the madam as the judge.• 

19. An attorne y took my appeal pro bono to the District Court 

but w~ lost. Since di~trict judoes ar~ th~ ones that hir• the 

magistrates, it does not looK good when they overrule their 

magistrates. 

20. appealed the distr i ct court ' s decision prose but lost 

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Would I do it aga i n? Yes, without question. What the 

P~r k Service counts on is i 11dividuals not fighting bac~ 

because the>' Kno•o most peo~· 1 e wi 11 taKe the easy way out and 

pa:o/ ti•<· fin'?. What this do<>s i~ simply give the NPS mor .. 

power a.nd pr·ec i dent and then when a person comes along that 

stand~. up for their r· igilts, the NPS tries to maKe th is 

ndi ~ .oi d•Jal out 1 ike some K ind o-f radical. 

O•>e pr·ob l err"''ith dealing with ti1e feds is that it is 

difficult to get a jur y trial for minor cases. If I had a 

j u,·· ::-· in Fair-banks. most l i !<t:?l y the- ju-stice dep.:k,...tment would 

not e ve n had wanted to prosecute the case. 

If I can provide you with more details or documentation, 

feel free to write or call me a C406l 222-1707. 

Sincerel>·, 

/ kc- 1/ ~ Steve Hie~ 
Working together 

along the corridor 

to protect 

Agricu lture 

Agri-business 

Industry 

Land owners 

Local economies 

Local government 

Recreation 

River users 

Small businesses 

Timbering 

as well as 

Culture 

Flora and fauna 

Heritage 

Scenic beauty 

M ISSISSIPPI RIVER 

S:dM£82 CGillllbGIE. 

Board of Directors: 

175 

CRZlR, Inc. P.O. Box 16 Maiden Rock, W1 54750 

Tel/FAX 715-448-3213 

March 17,1995 

TO: All parties interested in the Mississippi River 

RE: Efforts to stop designation of the Mississippi River 

Heritage Corridor and other Heritage programs. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The Mississippi River Heritage Corridor Study Commission will 

be in Washington D.C. on March 27. They plan to request 

additional funding and hope to meet with members of Congress, 

especially those who are newly elected. 

The enclosed letter in opposition will be directed to every 

Governor, Senator and Congressman from the ten river states. 

These are being mailed today. 

They will also receive the list of over 60 business organizations, 

local governments and property groups who have passed 

resolutions, or agreed to SIGN ON to our resolution opposing the 

corridor. We expect this list will continue to grow. 

Please follow up with phone calls and faxes the week of 

March 20. Advise them to rescind or withhold further funding. 

Tell them we do not want ANY designation. at ANY time. 

The Technical Assistance Act of 1995 is going to the 

subcommittee on Parks, Forests and Lands on March 28. This 

generic heritage bill is very dangerous. It does not specify 

lands to be managed. so it puts people off guard, while setting 

the entire heritage program in place for easy application in the 

future. 

Now is the time to STOP this bill. Tell your 

Congressmen to kill this one, at the same time! 

Please circulate this information In your state. 

Very truly, . . . -, / ---:?A ' / ~ 

Citizens 

Marilyn F~resident for Responsible Zoning ~ and Landowner Rights, Inc, 

Jack E. Brown 

Vernon Martin 

William Holst Ill 

Francis H. Ogden 

Joe Wieser 

Dr. Ernes1 Larson 

Frederick Richter 
Working together 

along the corridor 

to protect: 

Agriculture 

Agri-business 

Industry 

land owners 

Local economies 

Local government 

Recreation 

River users 

Small businesses 

Timbering 

as well as 

Culture 

Flora and fauna 

Hentage 

Scenic beauty 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

.... -- ----- . ··--- . 

Board of Directors: 

176 

CRZLR, Inc. 

P.O. Box 16 Maiden Rock, WI 54750 

Tel/FAX 715-448-3213 

March 17, 1995 

The Hon. 

Dear: 

Without exaggeration, the list following this letter represents 

thousands of businesses and millions of people who 2RQS!1! 

the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor proposal. 

We have grave objections to the process and 

substance of this plan, and are apprehensive of the 

eventual effect. 

Public Law 101-398, which created the Mississippi River 

Heritage Corridor Study Commission. suggests the corridor has 

not been adequately protected, but provides no data to support 

this claim. 

Though the public has been told this was just a "study" to 

determine "feasibility," the law itself asserts the national 

government "should assist" in co-ordinating and interpreting 

activities along the River. 

The decision to request this study was made by unelected 

officials without the knowledge and participation of business and 

landowners. 

The study was not done by an independent agency; rather, it 

as done by the Park Service, the very entity which created the 

Heritage Corridor concept. 

The Interim Report prepared by the Commission gives 

cause for urgent concern: 

Recommendations are vague and open to 

capricious interpretation. 

A "preserve and restore" philosophy is inimical to 

growth and development. 

lack E. Brown 

Vernon Martin 

William Holst Ill 

Francis H. Ogden 

loeWieser 

Dr. Ernest Larson 

Frederick Richter 
177 

The "common goals" and "collective attitudes" being advanced negate 

individual initiative and the concept of private property which are the 

foundation of this Nation. 

"Co-ordinated management" and "comprehensive planning" suggest 

decisions will be made by a higher, central authority. 

Emphasis on "public enjoyment" and "increased public access" should alert 

property owners of serious intrusions to come. 

Our concerns were expressed most accurately by a businessman who wrote to the 

Commission: " ... we have seen laws passed by Congress, which were predicted to 

have little impact on private lands, eventually strip the landowner of his ability to 

receive traditional benefits from the property." 

This seemingly virtuous piece of legislation is viewed with apprehension by the people 

who live and work in the Valley. Based on the results of other noble-sounding 

programs, they have ample reason to fear: 

The 'taking' of property rights; 

The erosion of property value; 

Bureaucratic initiatives to restrict use and development; 

An uncertain climate for maintaining or expanding business; 

Loss of well-paying jobs in industry; 

Loss of local control; 

Alteration or destruction of small communities; 

Loss of the traditional culture, heritage and economic base. 

A Texas businessman has written to us: "Try to stop it now and forever. Once the 

bureaucrats get a foot in the door there's no stopping them." 

We are unequivocally opposed to designation of the Mississippi River Heritage 

Corridor. Even a simple designation. a name only, would be a ''foot in the door." 

We respectfully request your support: 

Very truly 

Withhold any further funding of the Mississippi River Heritage 

Corridor Study Commission; 

Rescind any current funding; 

Vote NO to any bill which would designate the Mississippi River 

Heritage Corridor or give the Mississippi any other special status. 

Marilyn 

/r;tf,::L:r 

F. Hayman, 

I~ 

Presid~ Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights, Inc. 
178 

RESOLUTION 

Whereu: 

DMigndon of • Mlululppl River HeriUge Corridor -lei heve • 8erlou• 

lmpect on property rlghte 8lld on the 8blllty of peopl• to UH their 1811d 8lld 

Where••: 

Economic development •nd the unique netur•l •nd hum•n ruourcu of the 

corridor •re elrNdy being edequetely eddreued by the atetu, feder•l 

government end ulatlng reglon•l orv•nlutlona, 

Therefore be It RMolved: 

We oppoH dMigndon of the Ml ... ulppl River Herttege Corridor. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

We are aware of the following individuals and organizations that have already expressed their 

opposition to the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor proposal: 

Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson 

11,000 Signatures on Petitions 

Against the Corridor 

WI All Terrain Vehide Ass'n ( WATVA) 

Lake States Lumber Ass'n 

Iowa Wood lncl.lstries Ass'n 

MN County brds: 

Houston, W111ona, Filmore, Gooctlue, Wabasha 

WI County brds: 

Vernon, Crawford, Pierce 

lA Drainage District Ass'n 

National Federal Lands Conference 

Private LAnd Owners of WI (PLOW) 

Blue Ribbon Coalition 

MN Agri· Growth Council 

Anderson-Tully Co. 

MI-WI Timber ProclJcers Ass'n (TPA) 

lntem'l Freight Forwarders and Customs 

Brokers of New Orleans 

ll Ass'n of Snowmobile Cubs 

Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) 

Black Hils Women in Tmber 

National Hardwood Lumber Ass'n (NHLA) 

Guttenberg Industries, Inc. 

Abel Island Resort 

Esmann Island Ass'n 

Elmed lnCOI'pOI'Ited 

llinois Agri-Women 

Cenexlland O'Lakes Agronomy Co. 

Protect America's Rights & Resources 

Tri Q.ub River Improvement Ass'n. (IL) 

Property Rights Foundation of Ameriel 

Concerned atlzens Coalition (AR) 

Sha-Me State Heritage Landowners 

National C.tt'-'s Ass'n 

Minnesota Farm Bureau 

Wisconsin Farm Bureau 

ll County Farm Bureaus: Ogle and Adams 

WI County F.m Bureaus: Pierce and Grant, WI 

CRZLR, Inc. 

Land lrnproYement Contractors Ass'n 

MNUCA 

lA UCA 

Lake States Resource Allance (LSRA) 

WI Floodplain Ass'n 

8 & L Construction & Excavating 

Ass'n of WI Snowmobile Cubs 

Alliance for America 

MN llnited Snowmobilers Ass'n (MNUSA) 

South Side Boat Cub - Quincy ll 

WI Trappers Ass'n 

Mississippi Valley Hunters & Fisherman's Ass'n 

WI Women In Agriculture 

WI Muck Farmers Ass'n 

Duluth Area Ass'n of Snowmobile Cubs 

East Perry Lumber Co. 

Battle Island Area Landowners Ass'n 

Brower Sales and Leasing 

Livingston Lumber Co. 

American Medi·Matic, Inc. 

Karl Hausner Farms 

Riwr Warren Research Committee 

ll Ass'n of Drainage Districts 

Otizens for Private Property Rights (MO) 

Specific policy relating to the Heritage Corridor 

has been adcpted by: 

Arnerlc:an F.m Bureau Federation 

llinais F.m Bureau 

Iowa Farm Bureau 
179 

" SPORTIHiEN DEWARE HR 4730 " 

CONGRESSMAN MAURICE HlNCHEY HAS PROPOSED A "HUDSON RIVER 

VALLEY AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA" (OR ~ARK) SIMILAR TO THE 

BLACKSTONE HERITAGE AREA, WHICH COVERS VAST AREAS OF 

MASSACHUSETTS ANU RHODE ISLAND AND PROMOTES TOURISM. 

I ATTEND~D A TOUR OF THE BLACKSTONE HERITAGE AREA (OR 

PARK) ORGANIZED BY CON. HINCHEY ON AUGUST 26, 1994, TO 

INVESTIGATE 'l'HE CREATION OF A HERITAGE PARK AND THE DIRECT 

~:n·EcT IT WOULD tiAVE ON SPORTSMEN. CONGRESSMAN MAURICE 

HINCHEY AND GREENWAY CZAK DAVID SAMPSON WERE AMONG THE 

NOTABLES ON THE TOUR. 

AFTER A FULL DAY '!'!UP AND A FULL REVIEW OF THE 

BLACKSTONE HERITAGE PARK lOR AREA) THERE WERE NO WILDLIFE. 

OR TOURISTS IN EVIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO HUNTING, FISHING, 

OR TRAPPING ALLOWED. SPORTSMEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN CROSS 

'l'HE HERITAGE TRAIL, WHICH COST A MILLION DOLLARS A MILE TO 

CONS'!'RUCT. 

ON t'URTHER INVESTIGATION, I FOUND MR. JACK PETERS , A 

SPOKESMAN FOR RHODE ISLAND SPORTSMEN AND THE SOURCE OF MUCH 

lNFORMATION. JACK PETERS MAY BE REACHED BY TELEPHONE AT 401-

U7-0439. 

IN CONCLUSION, I RECOMMEND ALL SPORTSMEN SHOULD ACTIVELY 

O~POU HR 4720. 

SINCERFlr,y 

ROBERT CONKLIN 

SAUGERTIES, NY 

ULSTER CO. FEDERATED SPORTSMEN, VICE PRES. 

71'1' 246-5001 

03. 21. 95 10:06 PK P02 
NATIONAL COALITION FOR 

HERITAGE AREAS 

. ~ - " ~ 

P. 0 . Box 33011 

WASHISGTOS, D.C. 20033-0011 

180 

TEL: (202) 673·4037 FAX: (202) 67)·4038 

Bollrd of Dirertors 

Brenda Barnm 

T. Allan Comp 

Randy Coole y 

Wilton CorJ.;crn 

Betsy Cuthberts(ln 

James Dn h 

H. Grant D~hart 

Thomas Gall.lher. lr. 

Eric Hert!dda 

Jun Ho..:ker 

Alan Jabbou r 

Henry A. Jorda n 

Ethd Locks 

Meg ~taguir e 

Edward T. :-.t ~iah n 

Shelley ~Iaman 

Mary C. ~lean s 

Phyllis :O.tycrs 

Lorena ;-\eumann 

Sally G. Oldham 

Claudia Polley 

)amnPcppcr 

Thomas Robenson 

Alvin Roitnbaum 

Mario Sanchez 

David Sampson 

Jcffrtv Soule 

Julia $. Stokes 

A. Elizabeth \\'auon 

Patricia E. Williams 

Lar~· G. Williamson 

A. Eliza~th \\'atson 

Chair 

Alvin Ro~enb3um 

Presiden t 

Patricia E. William ~ 

VictPrt51dcm 

Julia S. Stokes 

SccrcranLarry G. Williamson 

Treasurer 

Brenda BarrC'tt 

Nomir1armg Cornmmcr Chair 

Shelley \hstnn 

E.ucuri1·r D1recror 

National Coalition for Borilqe Arras 

SlatomOIIl of National Nood 

Jlad<rround 

The phenomenon of American regional heritage areas bas been growing over tbt past ten 

years. Efforts are now underway to seed and systematize the current ad hoc, project·byproject initiatives that designate and fwxl regiooal heritage developtru:nt effotts by the federal 

government. This statemeDt bas been prepared by the National Coalition for Heritage Areas to 

provide: a ba.o;is for evaluating legislation relating to a national program for heritage areas. 

Cooupl 

Heritage areas are most often regions with a distinctive sense of place unified by large·scale 

resources: rivers, lakes or suums. canal systems, historic roads and trails, railroads. They 

may include both rural aDd urban settlemem. aDd are cohesive, dynamic enviroomems where 

private ownership predomioales, and will COIIIinue to predominate, but wbere change can be 

creatively g11ided to benefit boll! people and place. · 

Heritage areas encourage both the proteaioo of a wide variety of environmeuta.l, scenic, and 

cui rural resources aOO sustainable development for tourism and other economic opponunities. 

They educate residents and visitors about community history, uaditions, and the environment. 

aDd provide for outdoor recreation. 

Heritage areas most often comprise more tban ooe jurisdiction, with regional management thar 

combines public and private sector leadership aDd engages grass-roots endlusiasm for 

celebrating community assetS. 

Purpose of a National Provam 

A national program will result in the conservation or resources in the nation's distinctive 

regions, representative of the diverse origins of our uniquely American character and vital to 

our national heritage and ideruiry. Limited federal invesanent and involvement will stimulate 

innovative partnerships and economic development-private and public, local, swe, and 

federal--across geographic re1ions. Heritage areas will create a greater sense of a shared 

narural and culrura.l heritage and new and renewed connections. leading ro greater 

commitments co coruervalion, education, and recrutional opportunities in the public realm. 

(over) 
181 

Principles 

The national program musr stimulare creativity. encourage partnerships, and create a designation for locally driven initiatives. A 

well~esigned program: 

Eolists Local Support 

Encourages and promotes heritage awareness at the grass-roots and responds to a local sense of what is significam for 

inclusion in a heritage area. 

Stimulates widespread irueres1 among communities to lnvestigate their eligibility for the program and to compe1e for 

funds and designarion. 

Designs a process that builds enduring local commianem, capacity, and public awareness. 

Inspire renewed commitmem to planning as the basis for communiry action and investment. 

Stimulates Creativit~' 

Established tlex.ible funding, crireria, and administrative processes. Grants should be awarded comperitively on me basis 

of merit rather than emitlemem. 

Encourages immediate and visible results to create momenrum for long-term achievement 

Promotes strategic, problem..<friven. action-oriented planning in preference to comprehensive. information-driven 

planning. 

Encourages Partnerships 

Stimulates invesa:nem and cooperation among business. labor, and professional organizations and lodividuals. 

Empowers grass-roms, state. and national nonprofit and civic organizations that can as.;ist heritage areas. 

Develops a national advisory body that reflects the diversity of public and private interest within regional heritage areas. 

Builds on existing experience among federal and non-federal heritage areas and encourages tbe developmem of regional 

and state programs. 

Provides a mechanism for creative and flexible involvement of federal, state . and local agencies both in the natillnal 

program and in individual beritage areas. 

Incorporates and encourages continued reliance on existing authorities and systems at the federal and state levels for 

resource evaluation and protection. 

Establishes a National System or Heritage Areas 

Includes federal designation as rewarded for communit)l acbievemeru. planning, and r<source qualit)l, maintaining the 

integrity of federal designation as a signal honor. Federal designation is expected to follow a period of education, 

technical. and funding assistance, and e~rimeotatioo. 

Authorizes a substantial level of new funding and grants for early-action, planniog, and implementation of heritage area 

initiatives. 

Responds fully to the diversity of the American experience and the strengths and needs of different heritage areas. 

Stimulates continuing public and private suppon for resource conservation and greater economic and educational benefits 

than would otherwise be the case. 

0 

90-778 (192) 
ISBN 0-16-047300-4