[Senate Hearing 108-23]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-23
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON THE DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL
HERITAGE AREAS, INCLUDING CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATING
HERITAGE AREAS, THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON HERITAGE AREAS ON PRIVATE LANDS
AND COMMUNITIES, FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL COSTS OF MANAGING HERITAGE
AREAS, AND METHODS OF MONITORING AND MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF HERITAGE
AREAS
__________
MARCH 13, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
87-091 PDF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Fellow
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio........................ 2
Higgins, Kathryn, Vice President for Public Policy, National
Trust for Historic Preservation................................ 13
Hoffman, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, Department of the Interior.............................. 4
Knight, Peyton, Legislative Director, American Policy Center..... 25
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 3
Sachse, C. Allen, Executive Director, Delaware and Lehigh
National Heritage Corridor Commission.......................... 19
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
LETTER
Letter From Senators Reed, Kennedy, Chafee, and Kerry............ 4
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. I think we will go ahead and begin. We are
in a series of voting over there, so I do not suspect that we
will have a huge number here, but that is fine.
We are going to be talking about National Heritage Areas,
and so I welcome you all here today, witnesses particularly.
The purpose is to conduct an oversight on the designation and
management of National Heritage Areas. This is not designed to
decide whether we have them, or opposed to them, or for them.
It is just: We have had increasing numbers of heritage areas
come before the Senate recently, before the Congress. And we
really have not defined what they should be. We have no
standardized ideas of what they are. We have no particular
notion of what the Federal role is in these things, and the
funding, and so on.
So I think what we are doing is saying if we are going to
have more and more National Heritage Areas, if that is the
direction we are going in, then I think we need to define it
somewhat as to how we do it.
I have had some concerns about the goals; that they be
shared goals that we all can work on and the structure; the
criteria for the establishment of it; what generally are going
to be the responsibilities of the Park Service. As you all
know, we have 388 parks or something in this country, and so
there comes a time when you begin to say, ``All right. How do
we define what really fits into the purpose here?''
Certainly, there are unique places in the country where it
is appropriate to have Federal assistance where a State or
local organization is not able to assume all of the
responsibility. I have to say I am a little concerned about the
numbers, and again, because there is no real consistent policy
with regard to our standardization of it.
So that is really what we would like to hear your thoughts
on: What you think about heritage areas; how you think they
might be defined; what do you think some of the issues ought to
be that are discussed with respect to them as they come here;
and, you know, very frankly so that they do not just become
some political issue that someone brings in from their State to
get Federal funding to do something that is really a local
deal. Now I know that is kind of hard to define sometimes.
But at any rate, I am very pleased to have Deputy Assistant
Secretary Paul Hoffman with us today.
I think what we will do, Mr. Secretary, is ask you to go
first and have a few questions, and then we will ask the other
three to come up following that. So if you would, come forward,
sir.
I am particularly happy to have Mr. Hoffman since we both
have interests in Cody, Wyoming.
Mr. Hoffman. We certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
[The prepared statements of Senators DeWine and Landrieu
and a letter from Senators, Reed, Kennedy, Chafee, and Kerry
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike DeWine, U.S. Senator From Ohio
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony today
regarding my support for National Heritage Areas. As you know, the idea
behind heritage areas is that the sites and organizations, working
together, can accomplish more than working separately. Because they are
linked together by theme and geographical proximity, they can readily
collaborate on preservation activities, promotional campaigns, and
programming.
The real work of the heritage area is conducted by the individual
sites and organizations. The minimal role of the federal government is
to help coordinate and assist the management of the groups involved in
the heritage area. It is clear from the outcome seen at the established
heritage areas located throughout our nation that much benefit has come
to those communities involved. With less interference from the federal
government, key elements of our great heritage are being preserved and
made available for all to enjoy.
It is for that reason that I have introduced a bill, along with my
friend and colleague, Senator Voinovich, that would establish a
National Aviation Heritage Area within our home state of Ohio, which is
celebrating its bicentennial this year. The year 2003 also represents
the 100th anniversary of manned flight. On December 17, 1903, Wilbur
and Orville Wright, who are native Ohioans, invented controlled,
heavier-than-air flight. This was the first step in the century-long
progression of flight. The Wright Brothers' successful design and the
science behind it were the forerunners to our modern airplanes and
space vehicles.
There is obvious historical and cultural significance to the birth
of aviation, and one of the unique educational aspects of aviation is
the opportunity we can give children to interact with the subject
outside of the classroom. Our bill seeks to foster strong public and
private investments in aviation landmarks. Some of these landmarks
include the Wright Brother's Wright Cycle Company, located in Dayton;
the National Aviation Hall of Fame; the Wright-Dunbar Interpretive
Center, where students of all ages can learn about the painstaking
measures the Wright Brothers and many of their predecessors took to
fly; and the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, where the Brothers perfected
the design of the world's first airplane.
Mr. Chairman, flight has become another important square in the
patchwork of our nation's history. We are reminded of this every time
we look skyward and see the criss-cross of jet contrails. We are
reminded of this every time we walk through the Rotunda of our very own
U.S. Capitol and see the last frieze square that depicts the invention
of flight by the Wright Brothers. And, we are reminded of this by one
of the symbols of America, the eagle, and a flying bird that represents
the freedom of a people.
It is vital that we protect the sites that have played such an
important role in aviation and our nation's heritage. Doing so, we can
enhance the education and enrichment of our children and our
grandchildren for many years to come.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to express my
support for National Aviation Heritage Areas.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator
From Louisiana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to express my strong support
for National Heritage Areas. The idea behind heritage areas is that the
sites and organizations, working together, can accomplish more than
working separately. These partnerships that extend from the local to
the national level, enable national heritage areas to conserve cultures
and drive economic development through heritage tourism.
National heritage areas significantly help to extend the National
Park Service's mission beyond the borders of existing parks by
conserving regions that are significant to our nation's history.They do
so in a cost-effective manner that also provides a large role for local
participation.
National heritage areas are ``living landscapes,'' special places
inhabited by the people who have lived and worked in a region for
generations. In national heritage areas, local people participate in
preserving the places and traditions important to our communities and
to our nation's history. In this way, national heritage areas broaden
the relevance of the National Park Service, building ever-greater
constituencies committed to the NPS mission.
Further, I want to make perfectly clear the fact that national
heritage areas do not restrict private property owners' rights.
Property owners' rights have not been stifled, indeed, they have been
expanded. For example, property owners participate in the annual grants
program, receiving awards to improve their property with preservation,
research, and development projects of their own choosing.
NPS funding for national heritage areas is the catalyst to leverage
private support, as well as other public funding (both state and
local). The public/private partnerships in national heritage areas help
preserve nationally significant regions, as well as foster sustainable
economic development focused on heritage tourism. National heritage
areas tell the story of our nation's history through regional
interpretation, often giving greater context to the national parks in
that region. And no state has a heritage as rich and diverse to show to
the world than my state of Louisiana.
Louisiana currently has one national heritage area, the Cane River
National Heritage Area in Natchitoches. Its success has prompted me to
introduce legislation, along with Senator Breaux, that would create the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area in the southern part of my state.
Both areas are closely associated with national park units. The
residents of both areas share the history and culture that is
interpreted at the national park units, providing a cultural and
historical context for the parks. Both areas contribute to the
development of infrastructure for heritage tourism in the regions in
which they are situated.
Tourism and culture define Louisiana. This state long has been
known for Creole and Cajun peoples, their music, their food, and the
beauty of the landscape in which they live. Visitors come from all over
the world to experience Louisiana's unique natural and cultural
heritage.
Mr. Chairman, national heritage areas are a perfect fit for my
state and I know other states can benefit from their many contributions
as well.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, March 13, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas and Senator Akaka: This afternoon, the
Subcommittee on National Parks is scheduled to hold a hearing on the
National Park Service's National Heritage Areas (NHAs). We write to you
at this time to express our concern for changes to the NHA Program that
may be proposed during this hearing, and ask that you consider the
potential for negative impacts of these proposals on the future
sustainability of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National
Heritage Corridor. Over the years, it has been our experience that the
success witnessed at the Blackstone has been due to the fact that the
``framework'' has been molded by the states and the people representing
the region. A sustainable and locally driven decision-making process is
vital to harnessing the energy needed for a heritage area to succeed.
In 1986, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor was
established to recognize the national significance of the Blackstone
region as the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. At the
time, the NPS struggled to understand how to work outside of its
familiar park boundaries and looked at the Blackstone as a challenge
and an experiment. The communities that make up this bi-state region
needed leadership and a mechanism for working together. Traditionally,
Congress would have recognized the nationally significant resources of
the Blackstone Valley by establishing a unit of the National Park
System. However, the Blackstone Corridor's success can be attributed to
the fact that the federal government does not own land, and the
authorizing language specifically protects private property rights
within the Corridor. This model partnership is being coordinated by a
federally-sanctioned commission charged with carrying out a publicly
supported and long-lasting management framework for the Blackstone
Corridor. The Commission, working with the states and local partners,
developed a common vision for the region, and provides limited federal
seed money and technical assistance to implement their common goals.
Today, there are visible signs of change throughout the Blackstone
Corridor. The water quality of a polluted river has been significantly
improved; A greenway for bicyclists and hikers is underway; Historic
mill buildings have been restored; and, NPS rangers and volunteers are
educating local residents and visitors about the valley's rich history.
The Blackstone Commission has become a national model for how federal
government, with the leadership of the NPS, can work with state and
local partners toward common goals of revitalized communities, historic
and economic restoration, and an improved environment. All this has
been accomplished with a relatively small amount of federal funding
that has been leveraged many times over by state, local, and private
sector dollars.
Last April, the National Park Service testified before this
Subcommittee on the Blackstone Corridor and stated, ``A multi-agency
partnership with emphasis in the interpretation of a cultural landscape
rather than federal ownership and regulation, was considered the more
appropriate protection strategy for such a large area where people
continue to live and work. The Blackstone Valley exemplifies a seamless
system of local, state and federal efforts where people are working on
a regional scale to maintain historical integrity by developing
integrated protection and economic development strategies. As one of
the first National Heritage Areas established, the Blackstone has
become a model of how the National Park Service can work cooperatively
with partners to achieve resource protection and public support.''
The inspiration and dedication that led to the founding of this
nation. The foresight of entrepreneurs in propelling America's early
economy forward. The revitalization of a river and historic mill
communities. These are the collective stories of the Blackstone
Corridor. The Commission's continued partnership with the region's
local stakeholders in sharing this rich cultural and historic past
remains crucial to the future of the Blackstone Valley. As your
Subcommittee reviews the current status of the NHA Program, we urge you
to consider the benefits that the national heritage area designation
provides to the local economy and sense of community pride in the
Blackstone Valley Corridor.
We respectfully request that this letter be included as part of the
hearing record for the NHA hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to
share our views.
Sincerely,
Jack Reed, United States Senator
Ted Kennedy, United States Senator
Lincoln Chafee, United States
Senator
John F. Kerry, United States Senator
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FISH AND
WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the Department of the Interior
regarding National Heritage Areas. We have submitted written
testimony which I would like to be included as part of the
record.
Senator Thomas. Your total statement will be included.
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you. A little bit of my background,
certainly not for your edification, but maybe for the record:
You and I first met about 17 years ago over a plate of buffalo
wings, if I remember correctly.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hoffman. And our lives have intersected several times
since then. But most recently, I spent 12 years as the
executive director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce in
Cody, Wyoming, a little gateway community where your roots are,
outside Yellowstone National Park.
It was really pleasing for me when I got to the Department
of the Interior to learn of Secretary Norton's four ``C''s:
consultation, cooperation and communication, all in the service
of conservation. It seemed to me that that was the appropriate
way for the Federal Government to do business with gateway
communities and parks, and other stakeholders. So that was very
refreshing for me.
I also come with a strong belief that government at the
lowest level is the best kind of government. I have a strong
belief in the rights of private property owners. And I also
have seen firsthand the benefits that Federal assistance can
provide to communities in the area of promoting heritage
tourism.
A little background on the National Heritage Area Program.
The first heritage area was designated by Congress in 1984. The
first few, I think the first five, were arguably experimental.
I am not sure Congress exactly knew what they were doing. It
was a new concept, and each one had a little bit of a different
look. And those five included a Federal advisory board for the
management of those heritage areas. Subsequent to that, the
Park Service has developed a criteria and a model that seems to
be working fairly well.
There are currently 23 National Heritage Areas. There are
11 that have been pending designation by Congress, and there
are 9 that are in the study phase. There are 45 million people
in 17 States who live in National Heritage Areas.
The Park Service has, as I mentioned, over time developed
four criteria for designation of a National Heritage Area. One
is the completion of a feasibility and suitability study. The
second is significant public involvement in the preparation of
that study. Three is demonstration of widespread public support
among heritage area residents for the proposed designation. And
four is commitment to the proposal from appropriate players
which may include governments, industry, private nonprofit
organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.
It is our view that a feasibility suitability study should
be completed before a designation is considered by Congress. On
occasion, we have been authorized and asked by Congress to
conduct those suitability feasibility studies for heritage
areas, but in most cases, now the local groups do their own
study, and then come to Congress for the designation.
Suitability and feasibility study, part of its purpose
besides the four criteria I mentioned, is to determine that an
area contains resources of national importance. There are 10
components that should be included in feasibility and
suitability study. And they are in the written record, so I
will spare you reading those. But one of the nice things about
those components though is that it includes a significant
connection between the human landscape and the natural and
cultural resources, a link between the culture and the
economies of the area and the National Heritage Area
designation.
Why are heritage areas appropriate as a National Park
Service program? I think some people wonder why we are in that
business. The fact is, the National Park Service is responsible
for preservation of cultural and historic resources under the
Organic Act. We administer the National Register of Historic
Places. We administer several grant programs, including Savings
of America Treasures which helps in the preservation of
cultural historic resources by the private sector.
The National Heritage Area program has proven to be a good
alternative for those communities that want the prestige of the
National Park Service arrowhead, but do not have a potential
national park site. As you are well aware, we have 388 national
park units, and there are always requests coming before
Congress for designations.
Most communities perceive a national park as the Holy Grail
of tourism promotion, if you will. And a National Heritage Area
is a nice alternative to a national park designation which, of
course, comes with greater restrictions, greater budget
commitments, greater management authorities over the area, over
the land area.
Oftentimes, National Heritage Areas can complement existing
park units by providing an appropriate linkage between the
gateway communities, their heritage, the role of humans in the
landscape, history, and culture, and economies of the region,
and how those link to the national park unit that is near those
gateway communities. And the National Heritage Areas, I
believe, are consistent with the Secretary's four ``C''s
because they do require significant local input into the
planning process and significant concurrence from the local
citizenry to the designation of a National Heritage Area.
What makes National Heritage Areas unique? Well, one is
that there is no National Park Service land acquisition or
management regime that is applied over a National Heritage
Area. The NPS role in a National Heritage Area is one of a
facilitator, not a manager. There is no direct Federal
influence on zoning. Now, yes, a management plan for a heritage
area may include recommendations for zone changes, but it is
the local planning and zoning board that reviews those changes
and makes those decisions. The Park Service has no role in
that.
There are significant matching funds that leverage Park
Service dollars in National Heritage Areas. We require at least
a 50 percent match of any National Park Service dollars
provided. But, in practice, over the years we have seen an
average of 8.7 dollars matched to every dollar of National Park
Service money put into a heritage area. To put it into real
dollar terms, for $107 million of National Park Service
appropriated dollars, we have seen $929 million expended to
benefit those heritage areas.
There is limited funding of National Heritage Areas, and
that is up to $1 million per year, not to exceed $10 million
over 15 years. So there is a natural endgate to the Federal
funding that would assist locals in the development or
promotion of their National Heritage Area.
One of your questions is: Do National Heritage Areas need
legislative criteria and standards? And our short answer is:
Yes, we believe they do. We think that a broad framework that
sets out the criteria and components of feasibility suitability
studies would be very helpful to the Park Service
administration of this program. Rigorous standards and criteria
for future designations and clearly articulated components
should be required.
Property rights and zoning disclaimers, which are usually
included in the National Heritage Area establishing
legislation, could be part of a generic National Heritage Area
Act. But we believe it is important that we not make that
property rights and zoning disclaimer a show stopper. You know,
it has been suggested that we get the majority of the
landowners to say that they approve of a heritage area. It has
also been suggested that we require every landowner in a
heritage area to say in writing that they approve of it. And
that probably would be a show stopper for almost any heritage
area. We seldom see 100 percent support of anything in this
world today.
We would like to see whatever standards and criteria are
developed not be artificially constraining on the ability of
local communities to develop their own elaborate partnerships.
That is one of the beauties of the National Heritage Area
Program is that it allows the local communities to put together
their own kind of a partnership. And if we put too much
structure, too much flesh on those bones, I think we could
dampen their creativity in terms of how they create their own
heritage area.
We would like the opportunity to work with you and your
staff on the development of generic National Heritage Area
legislation and look forward to working with you on that.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the
opportunity to explain the National Heritage Area Program, the
Department's position on codifying standards and guidelines for
future heritage area designations. And I would be most happy to
answer any questions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the
National Park Service's National Heritage Area Program, to update you
on the accomplishments of the 23 existing areas, and to offer
recommendations for improvements to the program.
A ``National Heritage Area'' is a place designated by Congress
where natural, cultural, historic and scenic resources combine to form
a cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of
human activity shaped by geography. These patterns make national
heritage areas representative of the national experience through the
physical features that remain and the traditions that have evolved in
them. Continued use of national heritage areas by people whose
traditions helped to shape the landscapes enhances their significance.
A recent National Park Service survey shows that almost 45 million
people across 17 states live within a national heritage area. Heritage
areas are just one of a growing number of collaborative, community-
based conservation strategies that have developed in recent years to
identify, preserve, and interpret resources. By establishing a heritage
area, communities work in partnership across jurisdictional boundaries
to plan for their future, based on their shared heritage from the past.
It is important to clarify that the Federal Government does not
assume ownership of land, impose zoning or land use controls in
heritage areas, or take responsibility for permanent funding. In most
areas the authorizing legislation prohibits the management entity from
acquiring property with funding appropriated for the heritage area. In
addition, the authorizing legislation provides private property owners
with specific protection. This guarantees that it will be the
responsibility of the people living within a heritage area to ensure
that the heritage area's resources are protected, interpreted and
preserved.
Almost twenty years have passed since the designation of the first
national heritage area, the Illinois and Michigan Canal National
Heritage Corridor. Since that time, Congress has authorized a total of
23 national heritage areas, and absent generic criteria, the
authorizing legislation has taken a variety of forms. While the
earliest heritage area bills resulted in several different management
and funding structures, the heritage areas created since 1996 have
become more standardized in how they are studied, designated, managed,
and funded. It is appropriate today to look at the 23 existing heritage
areas and evaluate how this collaboration between local communities and
the National Park Service is working. With the growing interest in
additional national heritage area designations, it is also timely to
look at the process by which new areas are evaluated for consideration.
The Department of the Interior supports the heritage area approach
for preserving resources because it is based on locally driven
partnerships that emphasize local control of land. We recognize that
protection of parks and the conservation of special places is greatly
enhanced when the people who live in the region and are uniquely
qualified to care for them are involved. Heritage areas embody
partnerships that blend education, cultural conservation, resource
preservation, recreation, and community revitalization, which are all
integral parts of the mission of the National Park Service. The
Secretary has made partnerships integral to the Department's efforts to
preserve and protect all of our natural, cultural and recreational
programs. Recently First Lady Laura Bush announced ``Preserve
America'', a new White House initiative that pursues ``. . .
partnerships with State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the
private sector to promote the preservation of the unique cultural
heritage of communities and of the Nation . . .''
Our experience over the past two decades has led us to make the
following observations about the process for the study, designation,
and management of national heritage areas. To be successful, all
heritage area initiatives must be developed and shaped by local people
and by local initiative. Some of these heritage proposals also seek the
support and assistance of the National Park Service through designation
as a national heritage area or corridor. To warrant our involvement,
these areas should tell nationally important stories through a
regionally distinctive combination of natural, cultural, historic and
recreational resources and provide outstanding opportunities for
resource conservation. When appropriate they should also strengthen,
complement, and support existing units of the National Park System.
Criteria are needed to assist communities and the National Park
Service in assessing the appropriate direction for national heritage
area proposals. In past testimonies, we have identified the specific
steps for national heritage designation and the components of a useful
suitability and feasibility study. These have been field-tested and
have shown themselves to be valuable, yet they have never been
formalized. They are included as a possible starting point for any
future efforts to set some criteria and standards for the establishment
and management of national heritage areas.
The National Park Service has outlined four critical steps that
need to be taken and documented prior to congressional designation of a
national heritage area. These steps are:
(1) completion of a suitability/feasibility study;
(2) public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
(3) demonstration of widespread public support among heritage
area residents for the proposed designation; and
(4) commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players,
which may include governments, industry, and private, non-
profit organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.
A suitability and feasibility study would determine that an area
contains resources of national importance, and should include a number
of the components we believe are helpful for public review. Our
experience has also shown the importance of completing the suitability
and feasibility study before a heritage area is designated. The most
helpful components of a suitability and feasibility study include
analysis and documentation that show:
1. An area has an assemblage of natural, historic, or
cultural resources that together represent distinctive aspects
of American heritage worthy of recognition, conservation,
interpretation, and continuing use, and are best managed as
such an assemblage through partnerships among public and
private entities, and by combining diverse and sometimes
noncontiguous resources and active communities;
2. Reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life that
are a valuable part of the national story;
3. Provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural,
cultural, historic, and/or scenic features;
4. Provides outstanding recreational and educational
opportunities;
5. The resources important to the identified theme or themes
of the area retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting
interpretation;
6. Residents, business interests, non-profit organizations,
and governments within the proposed area are involved in the
planning, have developed a conceptual financial plan that
outlines the roles for all participants including the federal
government, and have demonstrated support for designation of
the area;
7. The proposed management entity and units of government
supporting the designation are willing to commit to working in
partnership to develop the heritage area;
8. The proposal is consistent with continued economic
activity in the area;
9. A conceptual boundary map is supported by the public; and
10. The management entity proposed to plan and implement the
project is described.
We believe that only when an area has been studied and can satisfy
these criteria, should it be designated as a national heritage area.
Upon designation, an area must develop a management plan to serve
as a road map for all stakeholders that support the vision for the
area. The plan must be developed within the timeframe specified in the
legislation (usually 3-5 years) and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. For designated areas, the National Park Service's role is to
work with the area on the management plan that will guide the heritage
development of the region; to enter into a cooperative agreement that
defines our partnership role and is amended each year to allocate
appropriated funds for the identified projects that will be undertaken
to further the plan; to monitor the expenditure of funds, to ensure
that the funds are matched and meet all other requirements; and to
review annual reports prepared by each management entity. The National
Park Service, along with other Federal land managing agencies, can
bring national recognition to the areas and provide other technical
assistance on a case-by-case basis.
Funding for the national heritage areas has grown along with the
program. The formula under which many areas were authorized provided
funding of up to $10 million over 15 years. In general, newly
designated areas start with more modest funding as they develop their
management plans and then receive increased support until they are well
established. Ultimately, heritage areas are supposed to become self-
sufficient, so that available National Park Service funding can be
shifted toward more recently designated areas. In fiscal year 2003, the
23 areas are slated to receive $14,374,000 through the National Park
Service. We continue to recommend that each heritage area be capped at
$1 million per year, not to exceed $10 million overall.
While the National Park Service and heritage area partners have
tested the above criteria, have forged a role for the agency in the
planning process and can demonstrate impressive leveraging and
conservation successes for specific resources, we still have a lot to
learn. More difficult to measure is the increase in residents and
visitors participating in programs and activities supported by the
heritage areas. At this time, the National Park Service, in partnership
with the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, is working with Michigan
State University to adapt the National Park Service's ``Money
Generation Model'' used by park units to test impacts on a regional
scale. The model will be tested on eight heritage areas this summer and
fall. Even more difficult to measure is the effect the heritage area
approach, working in partnership with so many organizations in a
region, has on quality of life, community pride and civic engagement.
As the partnership model becomes a way of business for all National
Park Service programs, we would like to study these experiences as they
relate to heritage areas to improve our ability to collaborate.
The National Park Service recognizes national heritage areas as
important partners for adjacent park units who are assisted by giving
the community a voice in telling the larger story of a region, by
building a common understanding and a vision for the future, and by
encouraging local stewardship of key resources. For example, the newly
designated Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park tells a
specific story of a crucial battle of the Civil War, yet is also part
of the larger Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District. Gateway communities in particular can benefit from heritage
planning that reinvigorates local tourist offerings with real and
authentic experiences. The heritage area approach is one more link in a
national network of parks and conservation areas between important
natural resources and the people who live and work in gateway
communities.
National heritage areas have significance and value in their own
right. They encompass some of the most important cultural landscapes in
the nation exemplified by the Hudson River Valley and the Shenandoah
Valley. They also tell stories of national significance such as the
rise of the automobile industry in the ``Motor Cities'' of Detroit,
Flint, Lansing and Ypsilanti that ``put the world on wheels.'' Or the
story of big steel in the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area in
Pennsylvania, an industry that made possible railroads, skyscrapers,
and shipbuilding activities across the nation. It is noteworthy that
over 20% of all the National Historic Landmarks in the nation are
located in national heritage areas.
Of importance to everyone is the financial impact of heritage area
designation. National heritage areas are cost-effective because they
can facilitate the leveraging of funds and resources for the
conservation of natural, cultural, and historic values. Since 1985,
Congress has appropriated $107,225,378 to the National Park Service
under the Heritage Partnership Program to support heritage area
projects and programs. This allocation has leveraged $929,097,491 in
non-National Park Service partnership funds, an impressive 1 to 8.7
match. A well-established heritage area will have a wide range of
funding sources; for example, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage
Corridor in Pennsylvania recently issued a report that showed the
following profile of partnership funding: 8% National Park Service
($4,302,200), 22% U.S. Department of Transportation Enhancement Funds
($13,051,794), 37% State ($21,705,164), 17% Local Government
($9,952,061), and 16% private ($9,173,046). The partnership approach of
national heritage areas attracts a flexible mix of funding that
reflects both needs and opportunities.
In keeping with the regional scale of national heritage areas, they
have been able to take a broader perspective and tackle projects in
multiple jurisdictions. In the areas of education and interpretation,
almost all heritage areas have strong programs that reach out to
visitors and residents across the landscape. Silos & Smokestacks
recently won a national award from the National Association for
Interpretation for their educational web site on agriculture ``Camp
Silos'', which reaches not just the 37 counties in Iowa, but users from
around the world. Greenways and trail projects are also best done on a
regional basis. Outstanding work has been done completing the Great
Allegheny Passage trail from Washington to Pittsburgh by the Rivers of
Steel National Heritage Area; in adding over seventy miles of trail
north and south of Cuyahoga National Park by the Ohio and Erie Canal
National Heritage Corridor; and in developing the Schuylkill River
Water Trail recently designated as a National Recreation Trail.
To assist local partners, 14 of the national heritage areas
administer grants programs for heritage and historic preservation
planning and rehabilitation projects. Over 66 Save America's Treasures
grants have been awarded through the assistance of national heritage
areas, including two administered by the Cane River National Heritage
Area for the Prufhome-Rouquierer House and Melrose Plantation. Heritage
areas also work to sustain regional economies through heritage tourism
initiatives, which illustrates that environmental protection and
economic progress can be complementary goals. For instance, at the
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area, the management of waterpower
along the canal maintains the area's traditional economy.
One of the trends in the growth of the heritage area movement is
the increased interest in conservation, based on community
collaboration. This is particularly true in the west where potential
heritage areas in New Mexico, Nevada and Utah propose to tell the story
of the peopling of the west in a multiple-use environment. Many of
these new proposals include large swaths of land managed by the Bureau
of Land Management and other Federal land managing agencies. These
agencies will be important partners in the coordination of these new
western heritage areas.
Heritage area partnerships are also becoming more diverse. As they
move west, tribal organizations are becoming partners as seen in Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area where the Quetchan Nation has
contributed significant funding to rehabilitating a historic bridge
over the Colorado River and is working with the heritage area on a
major wetland restoration project. Finally, there has been a positive
growth in state heritage programs including newcomers like Maryland,
Louisiana, and Utah. In all, eight states across the country have state
heritage programs.
Heritage areas are inclusive of diverse peoples and their cultures
because they encompass living landscapes and the traditional uses of
the land. For example, the National Park Service is conducting a study
for a potential heritage area to recognize the Low County Gullah
Geechee, a geographically isolated community of African Americans who
have retained a distinct Creole language and traditional practices with
elements that are traceable to the rice coast of West Africa. A special
resource study conducted in Louisiana has led to the designation of the
multicultural Atchafalaya basin as a state heritage area.
After almost two decades of experience with the National Heritage
Area Program, we support the development of criteria and standards for
the establishment and management of these heritage areas. National
heritage areas are not units of the National Park System and, as
demonstrated by the examples above, a proscribed, narrowly defined
strategy will not permit the flexibility we need to manage the program.
A broad framework that emphasizes the overall goal of resource
conservation, that is locally driven and shaped by communities in
partnership with Department of the Interior agencies such as the
National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and that
maintains rigorous standards for future national heritage areas should
be the goal of any proposed generic heritage area legislation. We would
welcome the opportunity to work with this committee on developing such
a framework.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
Senator Thomas. I think that was a good insight into where
we are. I was a little puzzled with the study phase. Now out of
the 23, or now close to 30, how many of those have actually had
a study before they were considered for final passage?
Mr. Hoffman. I am not certain that the first five had
study, but I believe all the ones subsequent to those had
studies completed before they were designated. Some of those
cases, Congress authorized and directed the Park Service to
conduct those studies. Others, the studies were developed and
prepared by the local communities.
Senator Thomas. That may be, but as I recall them coming
before the Congress, you know, if it is a park, then usually
the authority that comes before the committee is to do the
study. And then we come back with the Park Service study and
recommendation one way or the other. I do not think that that
has normally been the case with heritage, but I think it should
be. So maybe we can work on that some more.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes. The current model has been more often the
local communities do the studies themselves with their own
money.
Senator Thomas. All right.
Mr. Hoffman. And one of the advantages of that is--I mean,
we share the criteria with them so that they are sure to
address all those criteria, but it has them buying into the
process from the beginning and it reduces the Federal
obligation financially.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Well, I would not object to the locals
doing it, but then the Park Service ought to go over the study
and see whether or not they think it is an appropriate result
of the study and so on.
How do you define ``national importance''?
Mr. Hoffman. That is always a challenge. We apply pretty
much the same standards or same formulas that we do for
national parks. There are some areas that demonstrate cultural
or historic significance that relates back to activities that
occurred there that had a national impact. It is not an easy
definition to come up with, but when you talk about, say, the
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area and the role that steel
played in the building of ships, bridges, buildings, clearly
the industrial revolution of the United States was tied to the
production of steel. That is just one example.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Coal heritage, you can argue where the
coal heritage comes from, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Thomas. It is a little difficult. I guess here,
again, you know, we are trying to maybe differentiate between
what is more appropriately a local cultural thing and certainly
worth saving, but is it a national responsibility?
I hate to see it simply become a political thing. There
ought to be some kind of a definition to where it is not just
there depending on who introduces and, you know, all that sort
of thing. I think there are about 100 State heritage areas that
exist without Federal funding. I guess you can make the
argument that maybe that is where they ought to be.
Mr. Hoffman. Absolutely. Twenty-eight States have their own
heritage programs, heritage area programs, and many of those
heritage areas are most appropriately State heritage areas.
They do not rise to the level of national significance.
Senator Thomas. How do you define the level?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, that is a little bit of the art the Park
Service practices. And ultimately, it would come to Congress to
look on that determination and determine if indeed it is
national.
Senator Thomas. As I recall, the Park Service does not
usually take a very strong position on those one way or the
other, not like a park. And I understand that because it is a
different thing.
I notice in some of the material here you said $10 million
was the max. I think that maybe the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Heritage Preservation Commission is quite more than that.
Mr. Hoffman. I am not familiar with that, but I would be
glad to get you an answer to that.
Senator Thomas. Yes, please. I think you will find it is
closer to $50 million.
So, is it the view of the Agency that $10 million over 10
years is the limit?
Mr. Hoffman. Over 15 years, yes. No more than $1 million
per year, not to exceed $10 million over 15 years.
Senator Thomas. So that is pretty well defined?
Mr. Hoffman. That is pretty well defined. And, in fact, the
average funding has been more on the order of $250,000 a year.
The current fiscal year 2003 budget for heritage areas is about
$14 million. Our request in the 2004 budget is about $7
million. Our request in 2003 was $7 million.
Senator Thomas. What did we spend? Do you know?
Mr. Hoffman. We are spending $14 million this year.
Senator Thomas. We are spending $14 million.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Okay. There is also, I suppose--and again
there is Park Service funding, and then there is total Federal
funding. And the total Federal funding is quite more than the
other. You said it was about $1 out of every $6 was Park
Service. It is about $1 out of every $2 that is Federal
dollars, and when all the highway money, or whatever, goes into
them; so that it is substantially more than just the Park
Service when it is given the Federal designation now. I suppose
those dollars could be spent whether it is designated as
Federal or not, but those are some of the things.
Do you have Park Service employees that are in the field,
regional headquarters, that work on heritage areas only?
Mr. Hoffman. Not exclusively. We have one full-time
National Heritage Area program director at the national office,
the Washington office, and there is at least--well, there is
one person who has as part of their collateral duties National
Heritage Areas in the region. It probably amounts to less than
25 percent of their time.
Senator Thomas. I forgot what I was going to ask you. Oh,
the management aspect: Are you saying that the only
responsibility after these are approved from the Park Service
is money?
Mr. Hoffman. To assure that the money is being spent
appropriately under the guidelines that the Park Service has
for matching funds with nonprofit organizations.
Senator Thomas. And no management responsibilities at all?
Mr. Hoffman. No, there is no Park Service management
policies overlay. It is strictly up to whatever the local
communities developed in their development plan. They implement
that on their own. Most heritage areas, since the first five
were adopted, are now managed by private nonprofit
organizations. In some cases, they are managed by States, and I
think maybe on a limited basis local governments manage
heritage areas.
Senator Thomas. Okay. I think that may be all the questions
I have. I think we do need to define a little more clearly what
the criteria should be for the Federal involvement. Even though
you say it is there, and it's national interest, somehow it
ought to be a little more common standard, I believe. And maybe
we can come up with something of that kind and see if it fits.
So we would like to work with you on it so that when they
come up, why, it is not just sort of such an open field for us
to think about and talk about here, and know a little bit more
what would fit into the category.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes, it would be very beneficial to us to have
legislative criteria and guidelines.
Senator Thomas. Good. Well, if you could give us any ideas
any more than you have in your statement, we would appreciate
that.
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Secretary. It is good to see
you.
Okay. We have Kathryn Higgins, vice president for Public
Policy for National Trust for Historic Preservation; Mr. Allen
Sachse, executive director of the Delaware and Lehigh National
Heritage Corridor; and Mr. Peyton Knight, legislative director
for the American Policy Center, Warrenton, Virginia.
I guess we will just take them as I read them off here, if
that is all right. Ms. Higgins.
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN HIGGINS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Ms. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kathryn
Higgins. I am the vice president for Public Policy at the
National Trust for Historic Preservation. And we are delighted
to be here today and to talk with you about our role in working
with heritage areas and our thoughts about how to shape the
program going forward.
The Trust, as I am sure you know, is a 50-year-old national
nonprofit, concerned with helping people protect the Nation's
historic resources. We believe that when historic buildings and
neighborhoods are torn down or allowed to deteriorate, we lose
not only part of our past forever, we also lose a chance to
revitalize our communities.
The Trust works with heritage areas in a number of
different ways, but principally through our Main Street
program. And we are engaged now with 18 heritage areas, and 118
Main Street communities that are a part of those heritage
areas. We also work with heritage areas through our rural
programs, things like scenic byways and, very importantly,
through heritage tourism. We also work through our Community
Partners program which helps local communities work to get tax
credits to help restore historic buildings in those communities
and in those heritage areas.
We believe that the stewardship of the Nation's cultural
and natural resources is as outlined in the President's recent
executive order, Preserve America, that was just signed last
week, makes a very compelling case for the continued
designation of heritage areas and the Federal Government's
strong role in the creation, designation, financial support,
and oversight.
Preserve America sets forth the base from which these
effective relationships may arise. These include building
partnerships that work, promoting preservation through heritage
tourism, encouraging stewardship of historic resources, and
improving Federal agency planning and accountability.
The timing of the President's Executive order is excellent.
Support for heritage areas, as you know, has been increasing
over the years, and in particular, there has been a noticeable
increase in the last couple of years in the aftermath of
September 11. In the past 3 years, the number of designations
has increased from 18 to 23 nationally. There are 11 pending
designations before Congress, and there are several others in
the pipeline awaiting completion of feasibility studies.
The local, regional, and Federal partnerships and private
sector participation in heritage areas affect the very goals of
Preserve America which include promoting strategic planning,
economic development, community revitalization, and as I have
mentioned before, tourism. Heritage areas achieve these goals
with a fraction of the Federal costs associated with
establishing and operating similar functions through national
parks.
As you have already heard, heritage areas pool local and
regional resources and get 20 percent of their funding directly
from the Park Service. The remaining 90 percent comes from
Federal grants through, particularly, transportation
enhancement programs which promote preservation, through State
and local and private funding.
One of the principal economic benefits for heritage areas
is heritage tourism. As I have already mentioned, that is a
major focus and a major goal of the President's new executive
order. Tourism, as I am sure you have seen in your State of
Wyoming, is big business. In the year 2000, travel and tourism
contributed almost $600 billion to the economy, and it is the
country's third largest retail industry. And it has supported,
either directly or indirectly, over 19 million jobs.
According to a 2001 report on cultural and historic
tourism, visitors to historic sites stay longer and spend more
money than other kinds of tourists. Visitors to historic and
cultural attractions spend on average $631 per trip compared to
a little less than $500 for all U.S. travelers. And they spend
an average of four, almost five nights away from home as
compared to not quite three and a half nights for all other
travelers.
As a result, the travel and tourism industry, seeing these
trends, are tailoring travel packages to the interest of the
individual consumer. And a growing number of visitors are
becoming special interest travelers who rank heritage and
cultural activities as one of the top five reasons for travel.
Heritage areas clearly respond to that trend, and that trend is
only going to increase over the next decades.
Another way that we work with these areas is through our
national Main Street center. As I have already mentioned, we
are involved in 18 heritage areas and 118 communities. A good
example is the work that we are doing with the first heritage
area that was established in Illinois, the Illinois and
Michigan National Canal Heritage Corridor. This is the first
area designated by Congress.
Since then, as a result of what has happened in that area,
and it is a Main Street program, almost $10 million in public
and private funds have been reinvested into the communities
within that corridor. They have added 51 new businesses, and an
additional 150 full-time jobs.
Based on our experience in working with heritage areas
through Main Street, our rural programs, and our tourism
programs, the Trust would like to offer the following
observations for building on success to date.
Heritage areas have been locally and regionally created,
and the leadership and management should continue at that
level. Successful heritage areas enlist the support and
participation of all interests in their creation, planning, and
management. And that coalition building should continue.
Like most new enterprises, the beginning phases of
establishing a heritage area is the most difficult, and there
is value in seed money in the form of technical assistance to
help these heritage areas get off the ground. We support
continued grants for these start-ups, but recognize the overall
budgetary constraints and think that that funding should not go
on in perpetuity.
Heritage areas complement national parks and monuments, and
recreation areas, but they are different. We believe they
should be guided by legislation that would establish uniform
procedures for the designation, establishment and management,
but we also think that in tailoring that legislation, it should
not be a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to recognize the
unique local character within each State and within each one of
these areas.
Heritage areas originally are sustained by regional and
local efforts, but we also think that there is an important
Federal Government role, as we have already said, in their
designation and oversight. We think the National Park Service,
with pretty limited resources, has done a very good job of
working with these areas and modeling very closely what they
have done with national parks.
We also think--and I would echo the statements of Mr.
Hoffman--that the criteria that the Park Service uses for
designating national parks is a model for designating heritage
areas and getting them off the ground. After Congress approves
a designation, it must carefully consider providing financial
assistance for certain activities such as technical help,
grants for preservation projects and exhibits, and related
operational expenses. It should have maximum flexibility and
provide each heritage area enough time to become self-
supporting before limiting or reducing assistance.
While heritage areas must be locally driven, Congress
should develop uniform guidelines that would reflect a common
vision for the designation and a clear definition of what
constitutes a heritage area. And we would look forward to
working with you, and with the Park Service in establishing
those criteria.
We think that this is a valuable initiative to help local
communities tell their story. We have lots of stories in this
country, and that is what makes us great. And they are all
unique. We think heritage areas are a wonderful way to allow
communities to understand their own history, to attract
visitors there, and to revitalize communities that perhaps have
lost their shine.
Again, we look forward to working with you, and thank you
for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Higgins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathryn Higgins, Vice President for Public
Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation concerning the designation and management of
national heritage areas. Since Congress approved the first heritage
area designation some twenty years ago, the National Trust has been
highly supportive of this initiative that fosters the benefits of
natural and cultural resource conservation across the country. We
particularly encourage those partnerships among federal, state, and
local governments along with the private sector that promote a greater
understanding of America's heritage.
For more than 50 years, the National Trust has been helping people
protect the nation's historic resources. As a private nonprofit
organization with more than a quarter million members, the National
Trust is the leader of a vigorous preservation movement that is saving
the best of our past for the future. The need for the National Trust
has increased since its founding in 1949 just as the need for heritage
areas has grown. When historic buildings and neighborhoods are torn
down or allowed to deteriorate, we not only lose a part of our past
forever, we also lose a chance to revitalize our communities.
Since 1980, the National Trust's Main Street Center has been
working with neighborhoods across the nation to revitalize their older
or traditional commercial areas through historic preservation. The
program was originally developed to save historic commercial
architecture and the fabric of the built environment, but it has become
a powerful economic development tool as well. The best example I can
provide you comes directly from the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage
Corridor. There, an initiative modeled after the Main Street program
was launched last year that is specifically designed to breathe new
life into 6 of the area's historic business districts along the spine
of the canal. Called the ``Corridor Market Town Initiative,'' it is a
blend of regional heritage preservation and main street revitalization
for Slatington, Palmerton, Lehighton, Jim Thorpe, Lansford, and White
Haven. The State of Pennsylvania provided funding for this project.
Similarly, the National Trust--as one of the partners with the
National Park Service in the Save America's Treasures program (SAT)--is
working to protect America's threatened cultural treasures along with
Honorary Chair Laura Bush. In the Cane River National Heritage Area,
SAT monies and private sector matching funds were used to restore the
historic Prudhomme-Rouquier House, which was re-opened to the public
last year, and attracts many tourists annually. SAT monies are also
being used to restore Melrose Plantation nearby. These sites are
significant to the history and the heritage tourism of the Cane River
National Historic Area.
Through our Community Partners division, the National Trust assists
preservation organizations, local governments, and community
development corporations in revitalizing historic properties, central
business districts, and urban neighborhoods. The link between older
buildings, historic places, and economic development--one of the major
byproducts of heritage areas--is crucial to our efforts. Among the
tools our Community Partners division uses to leverage private re-
investment in historic properties is the Historic Rehabilitation Tax
Credit--an incentive that has widespread utility to restore buildings
for commercial re-use in heritage areas across the county.
The National Trust believes that the stewardship of the nation's
cultural and natural resources as outlined in the President's recent
Executive Order ``Preserve America'' makes a most compelling case for
the continued designation of heritage areas and the federal
government's strong role in their creation, designation, financial
support, and oversight. While such places originate from, and are
sustained by, regional and local efforts, the federal government is
their natural and necessary partner. Preserve America sets forth the
base from which these effective relationships may arise, and highlights
all the ingredients that the National Trust and local and regional
organizations use in creating effective heritage areas. These include
building partnerships that work, promoting preservation through
heritage tourism, stewardship of historic resources, and improving
federal agency planning and accountability.
The President's timing for the Executive Order is excellent.
Support for heritage areas has been increasing over the years and has
grown noticeably with the country's stronger connection to its history
and culture in the aftermath of September 11th. In the past three years
the number of designations has increased from 18 to 23 nationwide. So
far, there are 11 pending designations before Congress and several
other initiatives in the pipeline to study the feasibility of
designation. Furthermore, the National Park Service has 3 feasibility
studies underway related to the establishment of such areas.
Heritage areas are so popular because they work across several
levels of government in conjunction with the private sector. So many of
these partnerships effect the very goals of Preserve America in
leveraging to communities economic development, tourism, strategic
planning, redevelopment, and revitalization benefits through our
national legacy. And heritage areas achieve these goals with a fraction
of the federal costs associated with establishing and operating similar
functions through a National Park. Heritage areas pool local and
regional resources on a targeted basis to achieve their goals. Since
the program began only 10 percent of the overall funding for heritage
areas has come from the federal government. State and local governments
have provided 36 percent and the private sector has contributed 26
percent. One of the main reasons why heritage partnerships are so
popular is because of the economic development dividend it provides to
localities and regions.
One of the principal economic benefits is tourism. The National
Trust defines cultural heritage tourism as ``traveling to experience
the places and activities that authentically represent the stories and
people of the past and present.'' Heritage tourism includes the very
historic, cultural, and natural resources that heritage areas seek to
protect and offer the American public. Two significant travel trends
will dominate the tourism market in the next decade. Travel packages
are being tailored to the interests of the individual consumer and a
growing number of visitors are becoming special interest travelers who
rank the arts, heritage and/or other cultural activities as one of the
top five reasons for traveling.
Let me provide you with a concrete example of the economic benefits
that heritage areas leverage into states and local communities from the
National Trust's perspective. In 1991, our National Main Street Center
established a Main Street program in the Illinois and Michigan National
Canal Heritage Corridor--the first heritage area designated by
Congress. Since the program was established, almost $10 million in
public and private funds have been reinvested in the communities within
the Corridor such as Lockport and the Upper Illinois Valley with a new
gain of 51 businesses and 150 full-time jobs. The I&M Canal program is
now part of the Illinois statewide Main Street program.
Based on our experience with heritage areas through the National
Trust's Main Street, Rural Heritage, and Heritage Tourism Programs, I
would like to offer the following observations for building on the
successes of the twenty years of the national heritage area act.
1. Although heritage areas most often complement national
parks, national monuments, and national recreation areas,
heritage areas are different by their very nature. They often
include existing federal, state, and locally protected areas,
communities, and jurisdictions, and embrace different
combinations of resources. Since heritage areas begin at the
local level, organizers seek to establish coalitions of
governments, agencies, and private sector partners that are
highly responsive to the unique characteristics of that
particular designation, including economic development plans
that highlight and enhance the rich historic qualities
distinctive to that area. Heritage areas must be guided by
strong legislation that would establish uniform procedures for
their designation, establishment, and management--but at the
same time Congress must recognize that a one-size-fits-all
approach would be inappropriate for local historic and cultural
resources.
2. Heritage areas have been locally or regionally created and
the primary role should be at that level.
3. Heritage areas respond to the need to integrate natural
and historic resource protection with sustainable economic
activity. Successful heritage areas must enlist the support and
participation of all interests in their creation, planning, and
management.
4. Heritage areas respond to local or regional goals to
maintain and promote individual character and identity, and to
resist being overwhelmed by homogenous sprawl. Restoring
buildings and preserving natural and cultural resources
sustains a community's special character, and enhances economic
activity.
5. Like most new enterprises, the beginning is the most
difficult period in the creation of viable heritage areas.
Organizing and involving the many diverse public and private
interests is extremely labor intensive. Seed support in the
form of technical assistance is critical. The Trust supports
grants for these start-ups, but recognizes the budgetary
limitations in this area.
the federal role in national heritage areas
Heritage areas originate and are sustained by regional and local
efforts, but the National Trust strongly supports the federal
government's role in the creation, designation, oversight, and
financial support of national heritage areas. The federal government is
a natural and necessary partner and can serve as a clearinghouse for
technical expertise and information to replicate best practices in the
establishment of future heritage areas.
The National Trust recognizes the invaluable role of the National
Park Service in the area of heritage conservation for many years and in
managing heritage partnerships--with technical assistance--throughout
the country. Furthermore, the Park Service's expertise in recommending
to Congress the establishment of National Park units should guide its
role in assisting--not leading--communities as they assess their
resources and plan for their conservation and interpretation. The
National Trust recommends that Congress consider a framework for
heritage areas and a role for the NPS that would:
1. fund and evaluate Congressionally authorized feasibility
studies;
2. require the completion and approval of a feasibility study
before proposing an area for designation;
3. provide recommendations to Congress for designation of a
heritage area after the review of feasibility studies;
4. approve the designation's management plan; and
5. provide financial assistance to designated areas for the
development of a required management plan and other activities
pursuant to that plan approved by the Secretary.
After Congress approves a designation, it must carefully consider
providing federal assistance for certain heritage area activities such
as technical help, grants for preservation projects and exhibits, and
related operational expenses. The National Trust urges the committee to
provide maximum flexibility for this funding to ensure that the
responsible parties can fully implement their heritage area plans.
These plans are developed locally and areas may need to use funds in
different ways to implement their goals. In addition, Congress should
provide each heritage area enough time to become self-supporting before
limiting or reducing federal assistance. We recommend that the
committee review the need for longer-term operations funding in its
consultation with the coordinating entities from existing heritage
areas.
Lastly, while heritage areas must be locally driven, Congress
should develop uniform guidelines that would reflect a common vision
for their designation and a clear definition of what constitutes a
heritage area. The National Trust advises against guidelines that would
place severe limitations on future designations or hamper the efforts
already underway at existing areas, but a basic framework is necessary
for the future success of the program. The National Trust would be
eager to work with you in setting forth such guidance.
Mr. Chairman, the heritage areas program is tremendously valuable
to telling this great nation's story to present and future generations.
It has another valuable story to tell as well that our historic and
cultural resources are important assets to our sense of place. In
providing that sense of place these resources also generate economic
development and foster community revitalization. Heritage areas convey
all these benefits with a comparatively small percentage of federal
investment and utilize the combined resources of the local and regional
support that underpins the program. With appropriate guidance and
legislation from Congress, and a well-defined federal role, the
heritage areas program will continue to be a most successful model for
the future.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Sachse.
STATEMENT OF C. ALLEN SACHSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE AND
LEHIGH NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR COMMISSION
Mr. Sachse. Mr. Chairman. My name is Allen Sachse. I'm the
executive director of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage
Corridor Commission. And I guess we are one of the experimental
areas--oh, is this not on? Okay. I am sorry.
I guess we are one of the experimental areas because we
were the third designated National Heritage Area. D&L, as we
call it, is located in the eastern Pennsylvania, five counties,
and it has long been known as an area with great opportunity.
This is where America's anthracite coal, iron and steel, and
transportation industries emerged and flourished for decades,
and became giants in the American industrial revolution.
Following World War II, though, these significant
industries and this transportation corridor started to decline.
The mines closed. The railroads no longer were competitive, and
the steel production started moving elsewhere.
Visionaries in the area searched for ways to protect this
nationally historic story. And in the late seventies, the
historic canal and overland railroads became the focal point
and inspiration for the region. The designation as a National
Heritage Corridor was the inspiration to lead us to the process
of heritage development.
After the designation, an extensive public dialogue
followed. And along the path of implementation, the Commission
has funded over 110 projects, and we have formed many
partnerships on the way. I am pleased to report for every
dollar that Congress has appropriated to us through the
Heritage Partnership Program, we have leveraged over $10.
I would like to share with you a couple of our major
accomplishments. The spine of the Delaware and Lehigh is this
historic transportation system. And along this system, we are
in the process of establishing a 160-mile trail.
At the time we were putting our management plan together in
the early nineties, 75 percent of this land had public access.
A big portion of it was owned by the State. I can report that
we have received some funding through the ISTEA Program, and we
have been able to work with local governments and nonprofit
groups to fill in the gaps where this right-of-way was missing.
We have right now underway 70 or 60 miles of this local
government portion that is under design. And of that we have
funding in place already for construction of trail along 30
miles of that. We have helped the State park gather funding to
refurbish some significant resources in the Delaware Canal such
as locks and aqueducts.
As we move forward, we realize that there is a burden there
with municipalities maintaining this trail as it is being
built. So we have created a volunteer maintenance crew. We call
it the D&L Tenders. In the first 4 years of the program, we
have had 3,000 volunteers come forward, and they have provided
22,000 hours of time to the D&L Trail.
One of our most gratifying partnerships was a project
called the Number 9 Mine and Wash Shanty in Lansford. This is a
mine that closed in 1972. At the time, it was the longest
continually operating anthracite coal mine in the world. In
1994, volunteers started the process of opening it, and
creating a museum at the Wash Shanty. The commission helped
them with assistance, and grant management, and interpretation
in funding. And last summer, the museum was opened.
Our most notable partnership is Two Rivers Landing in
Easton. It was led by the city of Easton, and it focused on the
corner of public square. They had three out of four buildings
abandoned. And today, on that square, is the national--our
visitors center, the Crayola Discovery Center, the National
Canal Museum, Crayola Store, McDonald's Express, City Hall.
This particular project has brought 2 million visitors to the
city of Easton since 1996, and has resulted in over 300
businesses being either opened or expanded, most of them
expansions.
We recently started a project with the Pennsylvania
Downtown Center. They give services to six small towns in our
corridor along the spine. What we have done is put together a
partnership that is going to give assistance to the communities
in combining the Main Street approach and also our heritage
development approach. I would like to say that often we are
perceived as having--or our National Heritage Areas, as having
regulatory power over land use. We do not. Our public law
restricts us from that.
In conclusion, I would like to note that the commission
serves as an enabler, a facilitator, a keeper of the vision. We
are not managers of the resources, for we own none. We have no
special authority or regulatory power. We really should not
have any. Our initiative programs and actions are a result of
local communities and the residents of that area. And we really
have erased much traditional political boundaries and have
inspired accomplishments beyond what we imagined at the
beginning. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Very fine. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sachse follows:]
Prepared Statement of C. Allen Sachse, Executive Director,
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Allen Sachse, and I am Executive Director of the Delaware and
Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission. The Commission is the
administrator of the National Heritage Corridor (NHC) and PA Heritage
Parks Program (PHPP) for the Delaware & Lehigh heritage area of eastern
Pennsylvania. I also sit on the Board of Directors of the Alliance of
National Heritage Areas and serve as President of the Board of the PA
Heritage Parks Association. Prior to my existing position, I was
employed with the Commonwealth of PA and involved with the crafting and
implementation of the PA Heritage Parks Program. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to offer my observations
of the growing heritage movement and share with you some of the
specific opportunities resulting in real accomplishments in the
Delaware and Lehigh NHC.
The last two decades has seen the emergence of heritage area
partnerships across the country, each attempting to tell its part of
the American story. Today there may be 200 or more such projects. As
you know, Congress has recognized 23 as being worthy to be designated
as National Heritage Areas. Having had the opportunity to assist many
of the PA Heritage Parks evolve from a vision to a reality, I believe
there are some very common similarities among the more successful
heritage partnerships:
Foremost is the strong local pride of heritage, history,
place and the belief that the region has a story to share;
This pride is embraced by the broadest range of community
leaders--representing the fields of conservation, preservation,
education, economic development and government;
The region exhibits a distinctive landscape, clearly
reflecting its cultural and natural heritage; and
Finally, there is a genuine consensus that the protection of
heritage resources will improve the quality of life and enhance
the region's economic base.
Heritage areas are driven by citizens, proud of their heritage and
place, desiring a prosperous future for their grandchildren, while
honoring and showcasing the sacrifices of their grandparents. Heritage
area partnerships contribute significantly to the quality of life for a
region. However, I think we all agree, not all heritage areas should be
national heritage areas. The formulation of a credible process to
determine whether a heritage area is to receive such a designation by
Congress is a challenge. I would suggest the final designation should
follow, not precede, a process to determine the significance of the
story, the collection of resources supporting the determination of
significance, the integrity of those resources, the complexity of the
challenge, and the leadership capacity of the region to carry out the
vision. Later, I will offer some suggestions as to a process that has
worked in PA.
Congress designated the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage
Corridor in November of 1988 by Public Law 100-692. The Act also
established a 21-member federal Commission to develop a management
action plan and to implement the plan. The Corridor was the third such
designated area and had few models or examples to follow. The growing
pains of being locally driven and managed but operating within a
federal structure were sometimes confusing and often challenging. The
Commission is very appreciative of tremendous support and assistance
received from the Mid Atlantic Regional Office of the National Parks
Service in the early days. Much of our success can be contributed to
the guidance received from the NPS in crafting a regional vision for
heritage preservation and development. We still call upon the same
office of the NPS for guidance and assistance, only less frequently,
and I am happy to report the assistance is always there.
In January 1993, the Management Action Plan (MAP) was completed and
submitted to the Secretary for review and approval. Ironically, the MAP
process consumed half of the Commission's initial authorization period.
When the Commission was due to sunset in 1998, the Commission was still
in the early stages of implementation. Thus, the Commission requested
and received from Congress an extension of its authorization by Public
Law 105-355.
The Delaware & Lehigh NHC is located within five counties of
eastern PA and today is home to over 1.5 million Pennsylvanians. The
Corridor has long been known as a land of great opportunity. Hard-
working people, entrepreneurial leadership, and an abundance of natural
resources lead to early and enduring innovations in transportation and
industry. This is where America's anthracite coal, iron and steel,
transportation, cement and other industries emerged and flourished for
decades to become the giants of the American Industrial Revolution. It
became home, and still is today, to a diversity of immigrants seeking
opportunity and a new life for their families in America. The Corridor
was often the platform for many social changes that are now taken for
granted--including religious freedom, the separation of church and
state, equality among people and workers rights.
In the years following World War II, this significant industrial
and transportation corridor began to unravel. As the mines in the north
closed, the railroads could no longer compete with the interstate
highway system, and steel production started moving elsewhere. During
the last half of the 20th Century, the Delaware, Lehigh, and Wyoming
Valleys separately tackled the industrial decline, seeking new ways to
grow and prosper into the 21st Century. However, visionaries in each of
the Valleys toiled over ways to protect their part of this nationally
significant story. In the late 70s, the historic canal and overland
rail system provided a common focal point and the Congressional
designation of the Delaware & Lehigh NHC was truly the inspiration to
nurture the concept of heritage preservation/development.
The Commission led an extensive public dialogue and a multi-faceted
vision for the Corridor evolved from its residents and leaders:
A region that becomes even more strongly defined by the
remarkable remains of history--a greener region, with towns
centered on clean rivers;
The continuation of innovation that has always characterized
the Corridor, with the capacity to sustain a healthy
environment and visible heritage for our children;
A robust economic future based on the desirability and
rarity of our singular natural and cultural environment, a
park-like living landscape; and
Pride and an ethic of stewardship growing in the heart of
every resident--to understand the meaning of what we have, and
act to uphold it.
To achieve the vision, the Commission undertook an ambitious
agenda. We are extremely proud of the many partnerships with
conservation, preservation, and development agencies established along
the way. Since the approval of the MAP, and the designation of the
corridor as a PA Heritage Park the same year, the Commission has funded
and managed over 110 projects supporting the mission of the Corridor. I
am pleased to report for every dollar appropriated by Congress to the
Delaware & Lehigh via the Heritage Partnership Program, the Commission
and our partners have successfully leveraged over ten dollars in
funding from other sources. (Through FY 02 the Commission has received
a total of $5,140,200 in Heritage Partnership funding.)
The MAP outlined a four-fold mission. To demonstrate the
possibilities and exemplify the empowerment of heritage partnerships I
would like to share with you a major accomplishment in each track:
To conserve the historic canals and amplify the recreation and
educational opportunities based on them
D&L Trail--The 160 mile historic transportation system of overland
railroads and canals is the ``spine'' of the corridor. The system was
remarkable in its time for its engineering, innovation and vision.
Today it is remarkable for its integrity and endurance. The Lehigh
Canal was the nation's longest operating towpath canal. (Over 100 years
ceasing operations in 1932) The lift locks in the Upper Grand Section
of the Lehigh Canal were twice the scale of anything built at that
time. The Switchback Railroad was the first commercially successful
railroad in the nation. The Delaware Canal remains the most intact
towpath canal in the country and is recognized as a National Historic
Landmark. This transportation system is the centerpiece of an extensive
system of sites, facilities and tours that collectively will tell the
Corridor's stories.
When writing the MAP, approximately 75% of this historic system was
in public ownership and two-thirds of it opened as a trail, with much
of the it in need of upgrading. It was apparent very early in the
planning process that completing a trail from Wilkes-Barre to Bristol
was a high priority to the citizens. Recently a multi-year acquisition
project involving 30 miles of abandoned railroad right-of-way was
completed. The major gaps along the D&L Trail have been closed. The
Commission obtained funding for this project through the ISTEA program
and managed the project on behalf of several partners, who were the
receivers of the rail-to-trail. Already one-third of this future
portion of the trail is under design. The design for the remaining will
be awarded this spring using TEA, state and local funding. In another
portion of the D&L Trail, the Commission expects to complete the design
for 25+ miles of the Lehigh Canal Towpath this summer with the project
going out to bid shortly afterwards. This project was also worthy of a
TEA grant.
Along the Delaware Canal State Park, the Commission has obtained
TEA and other funding to assist with restoration and interpretation of
major canal structures, allowing water to flow freely again--Tohickon
Aqueduct, Ground Hog Lock, New Hope Lock #11 and Bristol Lock #4.
Support for the D&L Trail goes beyond the Corridor, as demonstrated
by the fact that Commission has leveraged $14.8m in Transportation
Enhancement funding--a figure equaling 24% of our total funding. This
would not have been possible without a compelling case set forward in
the MAP, strong citizen support, and the demonstrated capacity of the
Commission to complete multi-jurisdictional projects. When complete,
the D&L Trail will offer a great recreational experience, but beyond
that it will provide outstanding interpretation of one of the nation's
oldest transportation system from mine to market. The D&L Trail, a
resource once thought of only as a dream, is well on its way to
becoming a reality.
To broadly tell the story of the region by strengthening the
infrastructure for interpretation and education
The Commission relied heavily on the expertise of the NPS to craft
the framework for the interpretive part of our mission. As you can
imagine the complexities were enormous. By way of an Intergovernmental
Personnel Agreement, the Commission obtained the services of an
Interpretative Planner, who skillfully managed the process. The
Commission now has in place: Visually Speaking--a signage and graphic
system; Flexible Exhibit Guidelines--for use at D&L Landings and
exhibits at partner sites; and an Interpretation and Education Plan--to
assist partners in defining and telling their part of the D&L story.
Collectively they provide the ``tool kit'' necessary to connect the
hundreds of communities, trails, cultural sites, interpretative
facilities, as well as projecting a common image for the Corridor.
No. 9 Mine and Wash Shanty Museum--An extremely gratifying
partnership is the No. 9 Mine and Wash Shanty Museum in the small
community of Lansford. First open in 1855 as a part of the Lehigh Coal
and Navigation Company's holdings. When closed in 1972 the mine had the
distinction of being the oldest continually operating anthracite mine
in the world. For years there was a grassroots effort to save this part
of the anthracite story. In 1994, volunteers begin the laborious
process of re-opening the mine for tours and creating a museum at the
abandoned wash shanty. The Commission provided assistance in grant
management, interpretation, as well as, funding for planning and
implementation. As volunteers unsealed the mine and removed decades of
muck from the No. 9, while a parallel effort to establish a museum
moved forward.
Today, they mine Dreams! The mine re-opened, in June 2002, giving
6,000 visitors the experience of going 1,600 feet in the side of a
mountain, and a visit to the Wash Shanty is like a visit to the
``town's attic.''
Levee Trail--The best way to experience the D&L wayside signage
system is join hundreds of Wyoming Valley residents walking the
recently completed portions of the soon-to-be 12 mile levee trail and
watch them pausing to read the history and stories of the Valley. This
same type of interpretation will be part of the D&L Trail as
construction proceeds.
To establish a framework for stewardship, which will preserve
significant historical sites, enhance recreation, and conserve the
natural and cultural environment
D&L Tenders--It was quite apparent as we worked with local partners
to assume more responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the
trail system that the capacity of local communities to care for the
improvements needed to be addressed. A partnership between the
Commission and the Wildlands Conservancy, a local non-profit, was
formed to create a citizen volunteer group called the D&L Trail
Tenders. Initially, working within the Lehigh Watershed, the Wildlands
formed a core of volunteers to serve the Lehigh Canal portion of the
D&L Trail. This is a region where much of the historic trail is owned
and managed by small communities and non-profit groups. The pilot
program was a huge success. Recently the Commission assumed the
leadership of the program so that the program could extend beyond the
boundary of the Lehigh reaching the Wyoming Valley to the north and the
Delaware Valley to the south. In just four years there have been over
3,000 volunteers giving more that 22,000 hours of time to the D&L
Trail. They have removed shrubs and trees from the locks of the Upper
Grand Section of the Lehigh Canal, discovered and unearthed a hidden
railroad roundhouse in Lehigh Gorge State Park, and removed tons of
litter and debris from the Lehigh Canal, Trail and River.
Provide opportunities for capitalizing on Heritage Development
Two Rivers Landing--Upon the completion of the MAP, the City of
Easton (pop. 30,000) stepped forward and invited the Commission to
partner with the city on two initiatives recommended in the MAP--the
creation of a Landing (visitor center) and the development of a
``heritage attraction.'' Seed funding from several of the partners led
to a plan and revitalization strategy for downtown Easton drawing on
the wealth of heritage resources in the city. The partnership included
the City of Easton, Binney & Smith (Crayola), Hugh Moore Historical
Park and Museums (HMHPM), Easton Economic Development Corporation,
Lafayette College, and the Commission. The focus was to design an
investment strategy for a quarter section of the pubic square. This
corner contained the largest department store in the city that was
vacant for four years, an abandoned shoe store, and a nine-story office
building vacated for several years. Two of the three buildings were
architecturally important to downtown Easton. The only viable business
on the corner was a jeweler. The plan evolved into a powerful concept
known as Two Rivers Landing. With significant funding commitments from
the state, city and private sources, the concept moved forward. Today
these same buildings house the National Heritage Corridor Visitor's
Center, Crayola Factory (discovery center), the National Canal Museum,
Crayola Store, McDonald's Express, City Hall, and office space.
Since the opening of the Landing in the summer of 1996 over two
million visitors have passed through the door. Easton has experienced a
dramatic restructuring of its economic base. In the spring of 2000 the
Business Activity Report for the City listed 337 new or expanded
businesses. In the first seven-year period after the 1993 announcement,
employment increased 26% from 9,189 to 11,601, a gain of more than 340
jobs per year. During the same period the Business Privilege Tax
receipts increased 57%. Probably the most telling statistic is the
daily cars parking at the municipal garage increased--6,739 a year in
1995 to 67,333 a year in 1999.
The Corridor Market Towns Initiate (www.markettowns.net)--Each of
proceeding examples focuses on a major part of our mission. In reality,
most initiatives or projects cover a multitude of goals and I would
like to offer one more initiative that demonstrates the power of
heritage preservation and development that is still in its formative
stage.
Market Towns is a cooperative effort between the PA Downtown
Center, a statewide non-profit, and the Commission. The partnership
also includes six small towns (none over 5,000 in population) along the
``spine'' of the Corridor. The communities share a common history
linked by the Lehigh Canal, railroads, industry, and natural resources.
These communities also share a desire to improve their livability and
economic health, but have limited resources.
The PA Department of Community and Economic Development granted
four-year funding support to the partnership for a ``pilot'' community
revitalization project that will embrace the heritage resources of the
region. The Market Towns Initiative will combine the four point ``Main
Street'' approach with our 'heritage development' approach. The Market
Towns Manager is in place and the project has been up and running for a
year. Already the Market Towns office has a full agenda with new
historic districts, trails linking to the D&L Trail, facade and store-
front improvements, investment strategies for historic properties,
streets-scrapes, gateways and interpretation of key resources. The
Market Towns has provided optimism and inspiration to a part of the
Corridor that, more often than not, found it difficult to keep pace
with its more aggressive and better-equipped metropolitan neighbors.
The Delaware & Lehigh NHC, unlike many National Heritage Areas, has
the good fortune to also receive support from the PA Heritage Parks
Program (PHPP), which is administered by the PA Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources. In fact, over the years, the
Commission has received PHPP funding totaling $5.7 million, which is
slightly more than the NPS Heritage Partnership funding for the same
period. The two programs have been very complementary and provided the
Commission the flexibility needed to move the vision forward,
especially in the early years. Most of the PHHP funds were extended to
local partners to support local projects, which in turn leveraged
additional local funding.
The Commission is particularly pleased with the amount of private
funding forthcoming to support the initiatives of the Commission and
our partners. Support from private sources amount to approximately 15%
of all funds. However, most of the contributions have been to our
partners in support of local share. As you might suspect, sometimes
there is a reluctance to contribute directly to the federal government
no matter the size of the Commission. It is still very gratifying and
speaks of the broad support and types of partnerships the Commission
has had.
Also, it is apparent that various programs, such as the D&L
Tenders, will require continual private support. A parallel non-profit
agency was recently created to assume the management of such
activities.
You have asked me to address the issue of impact on private lands.
Sometimes there is perception, not based on fact, that national
heritage areas have some special regulatory authority. In addition to
the NHC status, the Delaware & Lehigh is also a federal commission and
a designated PA Heritage Park. The Public Law 100-692, designating the
NHC and creating the Commission, gives us no power or authority to the
Commission over local lands. The Commission is able to acquire lands
only from willing sellers and must transfer any lands acquired to a
local agency. Likewise, the PA Heritage Park designation provides no
such authority and if it did so, the Commission is still governed by
the Public Law 100-692.
I can report to you that although the Commission has assisted with
land acquisition, we have never had the need to acquire land even for
an interim period. For example, when acquiring the previously mentioned
30 miles of abandoned rail right-of-way, the Commission managed the
ISTEA process and assisted with land negotiations on behalf of a
county, a township and a non-profit agency. The land was owned by two
railroads the Northern, Blue Mountain and Reading and the Norfolk
Southern. The right-of-way was at one time the main line of the former
Lehigh Valley RR. Historically, Lehigh Valley obtained full control of
all their main lines. The land was acquired directly by the local
agencies.
Additional issues relating to both private and public lands are
already being addressed as design of the trail moves forward. These
issues include the conflicts of use and respect for the rights of
adjoining properties owners. The greatest concern by adjoining property
owners is a pre-existing problem, and that is trespassing by users of
off-road motorized vehicles. This is a valid concern to the Commission,
and the local land managers have determined that this use will not be
allowed. The D&L Tenders will be of great assistance to the local
managers in monitoring this activity. Also, the Commission is working
with various partners to find a suitable place for off-road motorized
vehicles.
Finally, I would like to briefly revisit the designation process.
The PA Heritage Parks program requires a two step process before
designation is granted. First is the feasibility study, which
determines the study area, the lead agency, the stakeholders, the
public support, the appropriate theme(s) within the state framework,
and supporting resources. If approved by a state interagency task
force, the project area may go forward to the management action plan
phase. If not, the applicant is offered assistance through the more
traditional categorical and technical assistance programs. When
completed, the management action plan will be reviewed by the same
interagency task force, which, if appropriate, makes a recommendation
for approval to the Governor. The Governor has final approval. The
state provides funding assistance for the two-step planning process.
A comparison of the process as it relates to the Delaware & Lehigh
and the Congressional designation would be as follows:
November 1988 Delaware & Lehigh was designated a NHC
In 1990 planning for both the NHC and the state heritage
park commence
The MAP was completed in January 1993 and submitted the
Secretary of Interior and the Commonwealth of PA for review and
approval
In April 1993 the Governor of PA approved the Delaware &
Lehigh as a PA Heritage Park eligible for management and
implementation funding
The key is the PA process allows for public dialogue before the
designation is approved.
In conclusion, I believe it is extremely important to note that the
Commission serves as an enabler, facilitator and a ``keeper of the
vision.'' We are not managers of resources for we own no land. We have
no special authority or regulatory power over local land use, nor
should we have. Our initiatives, programs, actions and projects are in
response to requests from local agencies and the residents of the
corridor. Our heritage projects have erased traditional boundaries and
our partnerships have inspired accomplishments beyond our imagination.
A strong, locally driven heritage partnership is truly a powerful tool
for balancing the past and the future.
Again, I thank you for the invitation to appear before the
Subcommittee. I appreciate your interest in the heritage partnership
movement. As you know, every heritage area is unique to local resources
and leadership, and I do not presume to speak for all heritage areas. I
am available to answer any questions you may have and I would like to
extend an invitation to you or your staff to visit the Delaware &
Lehigh NHC to see first hand the accomplishment of our partnership.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Knight.
STATEMENT OF PEYTON KNIGHT, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
POLICY CENTER
Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today on behalf of property rights advocates
across the country who are concerned with the impact of
National Heritage Areas on land use, private property rights,
and local communities.
One of the biggest fears that both residential and
commercial property owners have about heritage areas is that
they will effectively lead to restrictive Federal zoning and
land-use planning. Why do they fear this? Because funding and
technical assistance for heritage areas are currently
administered through the National Park Service, an agency that,
unfortunately, has become synonymous with lost property rights.
Indeed, section 6.1.6 of the management plan for the
National Coal Heritage Area in West Virginia, a management plan
that was created with funding and technical assistance provided
by the Park Service, states, ``Southern West Virginia counties,
like rural areas across the United States, lack land-use
controls completely or else have controls that are weak or
ineffective. The visual landscape that results is often
cluttered and frequently unattractive.''
This, of course, is a blatant move towards increased
restrictions on development, and stringent zoning controls.
Furthermore, language of restricted land use is not unique
to the National Coal Heritage Areas. Nearly every heritage area
has a management plan or statement of purpose that calls for
restrictive zoning regulations, under the auspices of more
environmental protection, more open space and more historic
preservation. This typically results in more infringements upon
the property rights of landowners located within the boundaries
of the heritage areas.
Now, proponents of National Heritage Areas have claimed
that the Park Service merely provides technical assistance and
innocently serves as a conduit by which funds are transferred
from the Federal Government to the citizen planning boards and
special interest groups entrusted with the crafting of the
blueprints governing heritage areas. However, such an assertion
is highly dubious, because if it were true, it may mark the
first time in the history of Federal grantmaking, where the
funding agency refused to get intimately involved in the
program it was funding. It is just not realistic.
This trend was borne out when the Augusta Canal National
Heritage Area in Georgia was in its developmental stages in
1994. The National Park Service refused to accept the
management plan put forth by the Augusta Canal Authority until
zoning regulations were made stricter.
Private property rights advocates are also worried that
National Heritage Areas will effectively become part of the
National Parks program. Despite attempts by proponents to
assuage these fears, unfortunately these fears are well
founded.
The Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, located in
southwestern Pennsylvania, boldly states on its Web site,
``Rivers of Steel is spearheading a drive to create a national
park on 38 acres of original mill site. Bills have been
introduced before the U.S. Congress to make this urban national
park a reality.''
Thus, here is an example of a National Heritage Area,
funded and guided by the National Park Service, taking the
initiative in lobbying Congress for land acquisition and the
creation of yet another national park. It hardly appears that
heritage areas and national parks are strictly dichotomous. It
is also worthwhile to note that this is happening at a time
when funding for Federal land acquisition is becoming more and
more scarce.
If the Heritage Areas program is allowed to proliferate,
experience shows that it will become not only a funding
albatross, as more and more interest groups gather around the
Federal trough, but also a program that quashes property rights
and local economies through restrictive Federal zoning
practices.
The real beneficiaries of a National Heritage Areas program
are conservation groups, preservation societies, land trusts,
and the National Park Service; essentially, organizations that
are in constant pursuit of Federal dollars, land acquisition,
and restrictions on development.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify
on this very important issue. And I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you.
Well, thanks to all of you. I appreciate it very much.
Ms. Higgins, how many heritage areas are there that the
National Trust is involved in?
Ms. Higgins. We have--by our calculation, there are 18 of
the 23 where we have an active role, particularly through our
Main Street program. There are 118 Main Street programs that we
have an affiliation with that are a part of these heritage
areas. And Main Street, as you may know, is a program that is
run out of the National Trust. We work with local communities
all across the country to revitalize their downtown commercial
districts using historic preservation and working with business
owners to help them attract new businesses to them.
Senator Thomas. I understand the economics and attracting
new business. What does that have to do with heritage areas?
Ms. Higgins. As I mentioned in my remarks, the people who
are looking to travel want to come to places that are unique
and----
Senator Thomas. I understand that, but then if you are
talking about economic development, that does not seem like it
fits necessarily into heritage.
Ms. Higgins. I think one of the byproducts of a heritage
area is defining an area that has a unique characteristic in
it, and----
Senator Thomas. I think that in some cases, do you not,
that it is more than a byproduct? Do you not think that is the
real drive for doing it in the first place?
Ms. Higgins. It may be. I mean, I think that when people--
communities that have--for example, the Rivers of Steel in
western Pennsylvania, communities that have lost the steel
industry, the question is: What do they become now? And one of
the strategies is to look at: What are the assets there? What
makes them unique? Is that something where they can come
together and think about how to take those assets, the physical
assets, the buildings, mills, other things that are there, and
use them in another way.
Senator Thomas. Do you not suppose that there are more than
40 little towns in the United States that could use some Main
Street activity?
Ms. Higgins. Main Street, from the Trust perspective, is
engaged in over 1,300 communities.
Senator Thomas. But whose responsibility is that, the
Federal Government's?
Ms. Higgins. Well, not uniquely, no. I mean, we are a
national nonprofit, and Main Street----
Senator Thomas. I understand, but you are looking for money
from the Federal Government. That is why you have a heritage
area.
Ms. Higgins. We--the Trust is not.
Senator Thomas. Well, somebody is. I mean, I do not say
that is bad, but it seems like it is a little difficult when we
go through this thing--and Mr. Sachse, you may want to comment
on that--if it is economic development, is not that something
different than heritage?
Mr. Sachse. No, the two are connected very, very strongly.
I think heritage areas deal with the belief and philosophy that
if there is an economic alternative and if it is driven by
private citizens or residents of the area, and they have a good
viable use, they will act to preserve their particular
resources.
Senator Thomas. Absolutely. But why does it need to be
called a National Heritage Area?
Mr. Sachse. Well, it is designated a National Heritage Area
because those resources in that area are significant----
Senator Thomas. Oh, well----
Mr. Sachse [continuing]. The level of significance to be a
National Heritage Area.
Senator Thomas. Well, then, we have to define it, do we
not?
Mr. Sachse. Yes. I agree with that, yes.
Senator Thomas. You indicated that you had $1 out of every
$6, was it not, that you said?
Mr. Sachse. To every $10 that we receive----
Senator Thomas. So actually, the total Federal dollars is
$1 out of $2.
Mr. Sachse. Our total Federal is not quite that high, but
it is probably $1 out of every $3.
Senator Thomas. You spend $42 million and the Federal
spends $20 million, according to my numbers.
Mr. Sachse. That----
Senator Thomas. That is all right, but it is more than what
you said, and that is a significant contribution to it, which
is fine. But there are a lot of little towns in other places
that have businesses that have gone down. I guess what troubles
me a little is that if that is going to be the criteria, why, I
can sign up a few in Wyoming, quite a few probably in Montana.
Mr. Sachse. One of the funding programs we have received,
in fact our largest funding program, has been the ISTEA
Enhancement Program which was not available at the time the
Delaware and Lehigh was created. We just happened to have the
resource that is--you know, our Heritage Area is based around
this, around the historic transportation system. And we
probably have one of the most competitive projects in the State
of Pennsylvania. We have actually leveraged about $14.5 million
from the TEA program over the years to support what we have
been doing along this historic transportation system.
Senator Thomas. What is the role of the Park Service in
your heritage area?
Mr. Sachse. The Park Service provides oversight as was
stated earlier. At the very beginning, we were one of the
experiments, and the Park Service helped us put together our
management plan. They have a seat on the commission so they can
attend our meetings. They do not always attend our meetings.
Senator Thomas. What do you mean by oversight?
Mr. Sachse. They have oversight on our--we work with them
on administration of our budget and the appropriation process.
When I say the appropriation process----
Senator Thomas. Mr. Secretary, you said once that is done,
that you do not have any responsibility for the management.
Mr. Hoffman. Not the management of the heritage area--I am
sorry. Not the management of the heritage area itself. We do
have the responsibility to ensure that the Federal dollars are
spent for the purposes for which they were applied.
Senator Thomas. How long does that go on?
Mr. Hoffman. For as long as they are spending Federal
dollars, they are going to do it subject to Federal policies
and regulations.
Senator Thomas. So when the 15 years is over, you are out
of it, is that right?
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Thomas. All right. How long have you had this
going?
Mr. Sachse. How long have we been designated? We are
probably on our 15th year now. When we were designated in 1988,
because we were one of these experimental areas, we did not
have a feasibility plan and a management plan at that point in
time. It actually took us 5 years to complete the management
plan and have the management plan completed.
So we used up basically half of our first sort of 10-year
designation in doing the planning process before it reached the
Secretary of the Interior's desk. In 1998, we asked for a 10-
year extension, and was granted such an extension to bring us
in effect to a 15-year management--or implementation period.
Senator Thomas. I see. Ms. Higgins, so you then--the
National Trust does activities that are not national heritage
activities.
Ms. Higgins. Absolutely. We work with communities all
across the country including, Senator, in your State. But our
services are also called on to work with heritage areas.
As I mentioned, through our Main Street program, we have a
couple of--this very tiny staff in Denver who have expertise in
the tourism area, working with communities who want to attract
visitors because of their historic resources. We have worked
with heritage areas on attracting visitors. We have one person
in our national office who works with communities particularly
in rural areas, on issues like scenic byways and, you know,
historic agricultural resources. And those services are
available to heritage areas or anybody who, yes, wants to work
with us.
Senator Thomas. If you were assigned to do something about
a criteria or a standard for establishing heritage areas, what
do you think would be most important?
Ms. Higgins. Well, I think this issue of national
significance. I mean, I think that is an important question
because there is a concern, I know, in many quarters about
areas being designated, whether it is through a political
process or some other way, where the site really is not that
significant, but they develop political support or local
support.
You know, there are criteria that are established through
the National Historic Preservation Act about historic sites,
landmark. I am not suggesting that those are exactly the right
criteria, but there is a pretty long established history of
things that rise to the level of national significance.
Senator Thomas. Not on heritage areas, however.
Ms. Higgins. To my knowledge, they have not been applied to
heritage areas. There are certainly sites within heritage areas
that would be landmark sites that would meet the criteria of
historic significance.
Senator Thomas. Sometimes. And that is a problem, and it is
difficult to determine----
Ms. Higgins. Senator, the one thing I think that I find
encouraging about this or really that makes it unique is that
it really is a local initiative. And so many of the communities
where these things have really taken off are areas where they
really did not--the old industries die. They have the rust belt
communities and----
Senator Thomas. I have to tell you just from experience--
and I do not mean it unkindly--but when you talk about local
initiatives, the first thing you think of is ``Where are we
going to get the money? If we can get it as a heritage thing,
we will get $10 million.''
So local initiative is great, but one of the first things
you look for is dollars, right?
Ms. Higgins. That is always a factor.
Senator Thomas. Sure, and properly so. All we are saying, I
think, is that there needs to be some criteria so that we do
not end up with--I mean, you have got 40 Main Streets
somewhere. There are lots of towns that would like to have a
Main Street thing.
Ms. Higgins. I would tell you that the Main Street program
has very strict criteria about what is involved in becoming a
Main Street program. They have a very--some people would think
too strict.
I think the concern is: Can you develop national criteria
that are standards, but that you also--or that are also
flexible enough to recognize the unique characteristics of
local areas and regions?
Senator Thomas. All right. Mr. Knight, as you prepared your
comments, do you know of particular property owners who have
been impacted by the lands within heritage areas?
Mr. Knight. Yes, Senator, I do. One specific example that
comes to mind: I traveled to the National Coal Heritage Area in
West Virginia last spring, and visited with the citizen's group
who is essentially a group of property owners who stood to lose
their homes along the New River because the West Virginia
Department of Highways and the Park Service were planning on
building a parkway along the river that--and I guess by
definition of a parkway, it included certain view-shed
requirements. And the notion was that the parkway was going to
funnel tourists and tourism dollars.
Senator Thomas. Is that a heritage area?
Mr. Knight. Yes, it is.
Senator Thomas. I see. Okay.
Mr. Sachse, what does your heritage area impact? I think
you indicated it does not impact land use.
Mr. Sachse. No, it does not. We have no authority over land
use and no control over land use. And in Pennsylvania, land use
is made at the lowest level, which is 2,600 local
municipalities.
We have an impact on, you know, activities related to
preservation and of this historic transportation system. And
when I say ``an impact,'' we provide assistance to help the
communities improve the trail. We provide assistance to
communities on economic developmental issues. Our Main Street
program is going to have impact on the market towns area.
We have had, as I mentioned, over 100 projects that we have
given assistance to local groups, and they have been projects
that have been requested of us by municipalities. They all fall
under the management and----
Senator Thomas. These are all historic items?
Mr. Sachse. No. Some are----
Senator Thomas. They are economic development, right?
Mr. Sachse. No, they--some were historic preservation. Some
would be conservation. Some would be economic development.
There were a lot of interpretive projects that we were involved
with. There really is a whole host of projects, or types of
projects we have been involved with.
I would say, though, that almost every one of the projects
when I have mentioned those areas, has hit a couple of those
areas. You know, a lot of the economic developments are also
preservation ones or conservation ones, or something like that.
So they really hit several categories.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Mr. Knight, I would guess that
maintenance of historic areas and historic things are here to
stay. What recommendation would you have as that is done for
protecting private property rights?
Mr. Knight. True, it is here to stay. And we do have
several recommendations to protect private property rights. One
of the first would be to require full notification to all
landowners whose property would fall within the boundaries of a
heritage area.
This is something that--I know that this is not a Senate
issue, but there was a heritage areas bill in the House last
year. And when this amendment was brought up, it was shot down
by the committee working on the bill, and for unknown reasons.
But full notification would be something that we would want
landowners to have.
We would also want landowners within a heritage area to
have to opt in to participating in a heritage area and all that
comes along with it. Now, let me be clear about that: Not a
letter that shows up on a door saying, ``Hey, this is a
heritage area and you are in it unless you send this piece of
paper back to us saying you do not want to be into it.'' We do
not think that opt-out would be a very good option. They would
have to opt in.
And we also would--if at some point down the road, a
heritage area was targeted to become a National Park, or an
Urban National Park like they are looking at in the Rivers
Heritage Area, we would submit that the Park Service would have
to redo the entire process over again and evaluate, go through
the normal evaluation procedures for establishing a national
park rather than taking a heritage area and merely converting
it over to a national park.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Well, obviously areas that are hoped
to save--here is one for instance, the National Coal Heritage
Area. It is in their management plan. ``Southern West Virginia
counties, like rural areas across the United States, lack land
use controls completely or else have controls that are weak or
ineffective. Visual landscape that results is cluttered and
frequently unattractive.'' That is in their management plan.
That does not say what they are going to do, but obviously it
is an issue, and one that we could go on.
Well, listen, I do not want to keep you much longer. Let me
go down and ask very shortly--starting with you, Mr.
Secretary--what would be your priority of what we might do to
help more clearly define and give strength to this program?
Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Chairman, I think a good set of criteria
to help us determine what indeed is ``national significance''
is important. I do believe that heritage tourism is real, and
the economic benefits are measurable. But your question, ``Does
that mean that every community needs to be a part of a heritage
area,'' is a very good question. And that is where we have a
difficult time drawing the line.
Senator Thomas. Yes. It is not easy.
Mr. Hoffman. I also would suggest, though, that the opt-in
recommendation that Mr. Knight recommends is a show stopper. We
have people in every county in Wyoming who do not pay their
property taxes every year which is the ultimate protection of
their property rights, which is to pay their property taxes so
the county does not come take their land from them. So I do not
know how we could ever expect 100 percent of property owners in
a heritage area to opt into a program.
Having said that, we believe it is very important that
there be significant public involvement and significant public
opportunity for people to comment about how they feel a
National Heritage Area.
We have said no to designations in the past. There are
heritage area organizations that are struggling along who have
run into the brick wall of local opposition, and they are not
going anywhere. And that is at it should be. If a local
community as a whole thinks it is a good thing, then I think
the democratic process prevails there and we should consider
what the community, taken as a whole, wants to have done in
their communities. But significant public support should
certainly be part of it, but an opt-in program, I think, is a
show stopper.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you. I think one of the things
we ought to ensure, too, is that there is a study, a bona fide
study as is the case with the parks.
Ms. Higgins, what would be your base recommendation to make
this thing work better?
Ms. Higgins. Well, I think, or my understanding is that the
criteria or the process that the Park Service now uses for
designation of a park which is the study and evaluation and
really working it through, is a place to start. We may want to
make some adjustments in that, but there is a process that the
Park Service follows before a park is actually recommended to
the Congress to be funded. And I think that that criteria might
be looked at as a way to----
Senator Thomas. Could be. I think it would have to be a
made a little bit more simple. As a matter of fact, the Park
Service is substantially behind in doing the studies that have
already been approved here. I think it is 15 of them--I cannot
remember exactly--are still to be done because they are rather
difficult. These could be done more easily perhaps, but some of
the criteria might be the same.
Okay. Mr. Sachse.
Mr. Sachse. Well, I would agree that there should be a
process of determining criteria and reaching a certain level of
national significance. I am not really sure what that level is.
Senator Thomas. I know. That is hard.
Mr. Sachse. That is always the fuzzy part.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Sachse. The second thing is that I would agree that
before there is a designation, there should be some type of
public process or some type of study, feasibility study to deal
with issues that make sure--that brings a consensus supporting
the project forward.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Sachse. And the other thing, I would just like to make
a comment about the Delaware and Lehigh, for instance. I think
a lot of the heritage areas are like this. We have a lot of
local interest and support, but the scale of the project that
we are doing is considerably beyond the level and scale of the
project that could be done under normal circumstances in
Pennsylvania.
I think that is part of the issue, too, is that we need
that sort of recognition to help move this scale of project
forward. Dealing with five counties where you have a hundred
local governments dealing with, you know, decisionmaking is not
an easy process.
Senator Thomas. Pennsylvania, I think, is kind of leading
the pack here, are they not, on heritage areas?
Mr. Sachse. Yes. And probably the reason why is because the
State has a rather strong State Heritage Parks program that has
taken--there are 11 State Heritage Parks in Pennsylvania. And
it has taken all of those State Heritage Parks through a public
planning process. The Secretary made a comment that areas come
with the plan. Many of those, you know, areas in Pennsylvania
have gone through that process.
Senator Thomas. Do they work well?
Mr. Sachse. The Pennsylvania process works well, yes.
Senator Thomas. Per your statement?
Mr. Sachse. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Sometimes it is a little hard to explain
when we have the backlog in National Parks that everyone
complains about, to be going on into new areas that could
possibly be done by the States.
Mr. Sachse. Well, I would venture to say that most National
Heritage Areas, we are providing assistance of National Park
and helping to protect and preserve resources beyond what their
capacity would be. And it is a locally driven process.
Senator Thomas. All right. Mr. Knight, what would be your
suggestion?
Mr. Knight. Well, if I could, Senator, just touch upon the
issue of establishing legislation at the Federal level for
National Heritage Areas: Proponents of this sort of legislation
and criteria and process whereby the areas are established, are
billing it as a process whereby we can kick out the bad, the
unqualified areas, and let in the good and fund those. We
strongly disagree with that. We think that by establishing a
process, you essentially grease the skids of the program,
whereby you will see an exponential growth in the number of
interest groups and local communities, and local groups that
are lining up at the door for Federal dollars.
If I could touch on the opt-in program really quickly, I
just want to correct something, with all due respect to Mr.
Hoffman. I never mentioned anything about 100 percent of
landowners within a heritage area having to opt in before that
heritage area went forth. I mentioned just any landowner having
to opt in. If every single landowner in that heritage area
wants to be a part of it and opts in except for one, then you
should leave that one landowner out of it and leave him alone.
I did not mention anything about--I just wanted to make that
clear.
Senator Thomas. In-holdings--so in something like this, so
called in-holdings would not be the same as they would be in a
park.
Mr. Knight. Possibly.
Mr. Hoffman. Well, not at all since there is no land
ownership associated with a National Heritage Area. Opt-in,
opt-out; it makes no difference. The benefits either come to
you or not, and whatever owner's restrictions come, come at the
hands of the local planning and zoning board which you can not
opt in or opt out of.
Senator Thomas. I was going to say, I think those decisions
generally with respect to zoning or whatever, would be local
decisions, not Federal decisions.
Mr. Knight. Ostensibly, yes.
Senator Thomas. I understand your point.
Well, we would like to work with you, and I think there is
a good reason to have these heritage things, and to save
things, and so on. But we do need a criteria, I think, so that,
number one, there is a limit on them so we kind of equally
divide the responsibility between local and Federal Government,
and so that we can do our main job which is Park Service, and
we need to do that.
So I thank all of you for coming.
If anyone has any other questions or so one, we will have a
couple of days to do all of that. Thank you all for being here.
We appreciate it very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following was received for
the record:]
Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc.,
Devens, MA, March 13, 2002.
Senator Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: Testimony for oversight hearing on the designation and management
of National Heritage Areas
Dear Senator Thomas: The Freedoms Way Heritage Association is
pleased to provide written testimony for this hearing. We know that you
will be looking at several key Heritage Area issues. As a Heritage Area
whose designation Bill, S. 577, is filed in this session of Congress,
we believe our views on criteria will be particularly relevant. We
believe that broad based national criteria and procedures are important
requirements for effective heritage areas, and that the National Park
Service criteria are fair and appropriate.
Since 1994, we have worked very hard in New Hampshire and
Massachusetts to meet the National Park Service (NPS) criteria for
National Heritage Area designation. We have completed the four NPS
critical steps and our Feasibility Study supports how we meet the ten
NPS criteria components. In order to demonstrate to you how a
prospective Heritage Area goes about assuring that these criteria are
met, we are attaching our Study and other documentation. We have also
included a brief timeline showing our progress to date. At the
Subcommittee hearing of June 18, 2002 the NPS testified that we do, in
fact, meet their criteria. We hope that you will find our answers
helpful in your oversight deliberations.
Since the terrorists attack of 9/11 there has been tremendous
outpouring of American's interest in their roots of democracy and
freedom. Our Heritage Area is helping to meet these current needs and
will help to educate our children who will be future citizens. Their
understanding of our fight for freedom is important. As Theodore
Roosevelt said:
``Let us in our turn with equal courage, equal hardihood and
manliness, carry on the task that our forefathers have
entrusted to our hands; and let us resolve that we shall leave
to our children and our children's children an even mightier
heritage than we received in our time.''
Thank you for your efforts. We hope to be an important contributor
to the discussion about Heritage Area monitoring or measuring
procedures. You will have our full support.
Sincerely,
Marge Darby,
President.
Chronology of Key Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc. Activities
1994 Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc. files incorporation
papers.
1995 Opened the Freedom's Way office, space, furniture and first
computer provided by MassDevelopment.
1996 Received grant under auspices of Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management to conduct feasibility study.
1997 Feasibility Study begins with tour of area to begin identifying
sites. March, April, June and July four public participation
forums held to discuss alternative plans and develop themes.
Four themes were chosen.
1998 Congressman Olver proposes submitting legislation and charges
FWHA with securing letters of support.
Freedom's Way receives the Nashoba Valley Chamber of Commerce
Outstanding Organization Award in recognition of ``outstanding
contribution [to the Nashoba Valley Communities] in service and
leadership.''
1999 Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism with matching funds
from MassDevelopment support additional work to publish
Freedom's Way Heritage Area Map. During this process four
themes are reduced to three. Met with regional Park Service
representatives to introduce to new map work. Minute Man
National Park Superintendent mentions interest in Freedom's Way
establishing a headquarters within the park.
1999 November National Park Service representatives held
reconnaissance tour of Freedom's Way.
2000 December, the Addendum to Feasibility Study Completed with input
from major partners: Chamber of Commerce, MassDevelopment,
Museum of Our National Heritage and Fruitlands Museum.
Circulated addendum to ensure broad support.
2001 January officers of Freedom's Way travel to Philadelphia to meet
regional Park Service Representatives.
February, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area legislation
filed by Congressman John W. Olver (H.R. 1027) with Bass,
McGovern, Markey, Meehan, Tierney and Sununu as co-sponsors.
State Senator Pam Resor and State Representatives Hall and
Walrath file appropriation bill for no less than $250,000 to
match federal appropriation of $1 million.
July 13 National Park Service representatives perform a site
tour of Freedom's Way.
Held additional public participation meetings in Nashua and
Brookline, New Hampshire to gather feedback from those
communities on Freedom's Way.
2002 Freedom's Way officials brief Washington Congressional Aides, and
House Resource Committee staffer on Freedom's Way progress in
meeting NPS criteria.
Boston Globe Regional Edition publishes front page story on
Freedom's Way.
Senators Kerry, Gregg, and Kennedy file Freedom's Way
National Heritage Area Act Bill, S. 1925
Officers of Freedom's Way received ``Green Seal'' award from
the Secretary Robert Durand of the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs for support for regional
planning initiative.
Received support from Governors of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire for designation of a Freedom's Way National Heritage
Area.
Freedom's Way officials testify at hearings to the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources, Parks Subcommittee.
National Park Service testifies that Freedom's Way meets the
Service's stated goals.
Massachusetts State Ways and Means issues a Prior Account
Continuance on the $250,000 appropriation to match federal
appropriation.
U.S. Senate subcommittee marks up S. 1925 and send it to full
Senate for consideration where it is bundled and becomes part
of H.R. 695 S.
Freedom's Way Heritage Area Act passed in Senate by Unanimous
Consent. House unable to take up HR695AES before adjourning
sine die.
Boston-based Channel 5 Chronicle Program highlights Freedom's
Way.
2003 February, Government Affairs committee confers with Mayor
Streeter, Nashua, and New Hampshire Congressional delegation
representatives.
Feb. 11-13--Government Affairs committee attends the DC
conference called by the Alliance Class of 2003 to discuss
Heritage development.
Feb. 11-13--Brief Congressmen, staffers, and aides on current
Freedom's Way heritage development activities.
Feb. 26--Stakeholders Meeting.
March, H.R. 1069 filed by Olver, Bass, Markey, McGovern,
Meehan, and Tierney. S. 577 filed by Kerry, Gregg, Kennedy and
Sununu.
Freedom's Way Heritage Area Feasibility Study Addendum Summary
March, 2003
Prepared by:
Freedom's Way Heritage Association, 43 Buena Vista Street Devens, MA.
Freedom's Way has examined the National Park Service criteria and
we believe they are well thought out and are directly related to the
purpose of what basic standards should exist in all National Heritage
Areas. We have strived to exceed these criteria, and we have
continually evaluated Freedom's Way Heritage Area as a potential
National Heritage Area against those criteria. Not only do we believe
that we have ample documentation that we do meet them, the Department
of the Interior Statement at the Senate Parks Subcommittee hearings
last June confirmed this.
The concept of the Freedom's Way Heritage Area has been well
defined by a feasibility study, a technical document, an addendum, a
map, and the continuing refinement of the themes through additional,
ongoing stakeholder meetings and newsletters.
Priorities speak to linkages through education and preservation of
nationally significant resources. The focus of the entire effort will
be the conservation of a nationally significant area. While
preservation efforts will include bricks and mortar requests, paint
eventually deteriorates: education is forever. One of our major goals
is an educational effort to accomplish the following:
To elevate the importance of nationally significant regional
resources through a coordinated educational and preservation
effort;
To mobilize communities by assisting their public and
private institutions to build partnerships to focus on
furthering stewardship of the natural, cultural and historical
connections of the region;
To work with existing interpretive sites that have
educational and interpretive programs in place to engage
citizens in the understanding and celebration of their unique
heritage using the Freedom's Way themes;
To expand current National Park exposure through thematic
linkages;
To use existing facilities and sites without acquiring new
land;
An objective is to use visitor sites that are already locally, or
nationally recognized as interpretive centers. The goals of these
institutions are: increased exposure through the national designation;
the establishment of linkages through theme-related efforts; the
creation of partnerships to further define each institution's focus to
eliminate duplication and to tell a richer story through the expansion
possibilities of shared themes.
Protecting precious resources requires developing a future
constituency by providing theme-related educational and interpretive
materials and activities.
Success will evolve through the recognition that a National
Heritage Area designation will bring, standing and local pride, and
encourage efforts toward further protection and preservation and
increased local investment.
Each of the participating institutions already has interpretive
programs relating to the Freedom's Way themes but they lack the
cohesiveness necessary to tell the entire story. Local site managers
recognize the potential of cooperative efforts connected to one over
all endeavor that has been given national recognition.
The Minute Man National Park will play an important role in
connecting the Freedom's Way themes. There are four main cores or areas
of focus of cultural heritage sites. Each one has the combined
resources of a solid open space component adjacent to or proximate to,
a cultural/heritage visitor center. An example is the core of cultural
heritage sites that are connected to the theme-related open space and
recreational areas at Minute Man National Park and in the Concord/
Lexington/Lincoln area. This combination is repeated in three other
areas: the central area that includes Fruitlands and the Oxbow NWR, the
western area that includes Wachusett Mountain and the Gardner Heritage
State Park and the northern area including Nashua and Beaver Brook in
New Hampshire.
The Freedom's Way Heritage Area sites represent the possibility of
partnerships between all levels of government, especially local to
local, as well as public and private non-profit organizations. Open
space examples are: Minute Man National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife's
Great Meadows and Oxbow Wildlife Complexes, Massachusetts State Parks,
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Beaver Brook Association, and local
Conservation Commission lands. Cultural heritage site examples are:
Minute Man National Park, Concord Museum, Great Meadows Visitor Center,
Massachusetts Audubon's Drumlin Farm, Fruitlands Museum, the National
Heritage Museum and local historical society facilities.
Many other resources offer potential for recognition; some local
resources with national importance are unrecognized. The inventory, at
this point, is a work in progress. Designation will help to refine
theme development.
four critical steps
1. Completion of a Suitability/Feasibility Study
The Freedom's Way suitability/feasibility study (1997) was
completed under the supervision of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management and conducted by ICON architecture, Inc.
The study resulted in two main documents:
I. The Summary Report (and Summary Report brochure) and,
II. The Technical Report, an initial data base of natural and
cultural resources.
The study included hundreds of participants, public meetings and
four monthly newsletters.
Freedom's Way has continued the public participation process
through stakeholder meetings, and newsletters to refine the results of
the feasibility study.
This refinement process has already led to a simplification of
themes from four to three: Rediscovering the Native Landscape,
Inventing the New England Landscape, and Shaping the Landscape of
Democracy.
A descriptive map/brochure about Freedom's Way has been developed
and is being distributed throughout the region.
As National Park Service Criteria have changed and matured, we
completed an Addendum to our Feasibility Study to ensure all of the
present criteria are fully addressed.
2. Public Involvement in the Suitability/Feasibility Study
The public participation during the feasibility study included four
area-wide public meetings, which were well attended.
Participants were invited from the general public through published
announcements in local papers and through a committee of liaison or
contact people representing each town.
A steering committee representing a wide range of interests oversaw
the study. The representatives were: Nancy Nelson, Superintendent of
Minute Man National Park; James Baecker, Project Director, Mass
Department of Environmental Management; Mildred Chandler, Marge Darby,
Robert Farwell, Freedom's Way; Judith McDonough, Commissioner of
Massachusetts Historic Commission; Judith Alland, Metropolitan Area
Planning Commission/Minuteman Advisory Group; George Krusen III, Minute
Man Historical Societies; George Kahale, Montachusett Regional Planning
Commission; Thomas Leavitt, Museum of Our National Heritage; Robert
Levite, Nashua River Watershed Association; Deborah LaPointe, Nashoba
Valley Chamber of Commerce; Elizabeth Tennessee, Nipmuc/African
American History; Janet Kennedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Public participation has continued through a series of stakeholder
meetings, prospective partner breakfasts, a web site, and newsletters.
Since the conclusion of the feasibility study Freedom's Way Heritage
Association has given more than 25 public presentations and mailed out
nine newsletter/updates.
3. Demonstration of Widespread Public Support Among Heritage Area
Residents for the Proposed Legislation
A current mailing list of 1500 receives important notices
and newsletters
Board representation of 22 organizations
Forty town liaisons
Commitments from Mayors, Town Selectmen, local Commissions
and Boards
Membership in Freedom's Way includes towns, museums,
cultural and educational institutions
Letters of support numbering more than a hundred
4. Commitment to the Proposal From the Appropriate Players Which May
Include Governments, Industry, and Private, Non-Profit
Organizations, in Addition to the Local Citizenry
FWHA has on file letters of support from legislators, mayors,
selectmen, town committees and boards, over 50 cultural institutions,
six Chambers of Commerce, 24 businesses, 16 legislators, 67 municipal
boards, and can show an expanding membership.
The support from units of government includes: federal and state
legislators; mayors and local town executives; MassDevelopment Finance
Agency; Massachusetts Historical Commission, Massachusetts Historical
Society, Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, Massachusetts
Office of Environmental Management, and Dept. of Environmental
Protection. The towns differ in their approach to membership.
Private non-profits such as: Massachusetts Audubon Society, Nashua
River Watershed Association, Museum of Our National Heritage, Concord
Museum, Fitchburg Art Museum, Fitchburg Historical Society, Lunenburg
Historical Society, Fruitlands Museum, Cyrus Dallin Museum, the Beaver
Brook Association and many others.
components of feasibility study
1. The Area HAS an Assemblage of Natural, Historic, and Cultural
Resources That Together Represent Distinctive Aspects of
American Heritage Worthy of Recognition
The assemblage is evident in the Feasibility Study
conclusions.
Additional data has been compiled since the study.
The proposal fills a need that is not currently being met by
any other regional, state or federal agency. John Ott, Director
of the Museum of Our National Heritage states clearly that,
``No other organization is doing what Freedom's Way has plans
to do.'' There are no entities available to take on the task of
providing a regional network through a national heritage
designation to enhance regional educational efforts.
2. Reflects Traditions, Customs, Beliefs, and Folklife That Are a
Valuable Part of the National Story
Evidence and examples of early traditions, customs, beliefs and
folklife still exist within the region.
Evidence of Native American life still. Example: Eliot's
Praying Village of Nashoba, and archaeological digs.
Many towns were founded 100 years before the Revolutionary
War.
Village folklife focused around common property and
interdependence as a process for town development.
A citizenry accustomed to self-governance and independence
is linked to Freedom. Town Meeting form of government is still
actively practiced in its purest form.
Shakers, Transcendentalists, Millerites, African American,
Native American, early tri-racial and other ethnic communities
experimented in ways of living.
Examples of the continuation of the earliest national efforts at
conservation as well as the evolution of Democracy offer a unique
educational opportunity to teach how old ideas can still stimulate new
actions.
3. Provides Outstanding Opportunities
The three themes: Rediscovering the Native Landscape, Inventing the
New England Landscape, Shaping the Landscape of Democracy will provide
outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, cultural, historic, and/
or scenic features.
The rediscovered landscape combines the concept of preserving the
natural and native landscape with the conservation movement. It is
still possible to walk from the town of Westford to Concord through a
wild and natural landscape. Thoreau's ``Walk to Wachusett'' can still
be accomplished with only a few present day interruptions.
By developing a network of educational opportunities through
thematic connections, future stewards of the land will emerge.
Conservation Trusts, Municipal Conservation Commissions, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, and local conservation commission land managers offer
outdoor educational opportunities.
Cultural and historic sites offer unique opportunities to teach
conservation and preservation: area museums, National Historic
Landscapes, National Historic sites, Shaker villages, town centers,
churches, and town commons are only a few.
The Massachusetts Community Preservation Act shows a strong desire
on the part of the state to preserve the historical and political
makeup of communities, e.g.: rural flavor, commons and the town meeting
form of government. Through the implementation of Executive Order 418,
the Commonwealth is providing each town with $30,000 for ``intralocal''
community development planning. Nothing exists to help the communities
pull together as a region. The Freedom's Way linkages will help them to
recognize the value of a regional preservation effort.
4. Provides Outstanding Recreational and Educational Opportunities
The map shows there are existing recreational and educational
opportunities. By thematic connections the opportunity for enhancing
use of these sites is exponential.
Massachusetts sites begin 30 minutes from Boston, and the New
Hampshire sites are one hour away. This indicates the strong potential
for use by major city residents and foreign visitors.
The map/brochure shows how the sites can be integrated as part of
the interpretation of the themes. There is at least one major
recreational area paired with each cultural/heritage site.
5. The Resources Important to the Identified Themes of the Area Are
Capable of Supporting Interpretation
The themes reinforce each other and provide a method for viewing
the region to maintain integrity of place.
The proposed Interpretive Centers are stable, substantial, and well
organized. Such centers already in existence give ample opportunity for
establishing and enhancing mutually beneficial relationships.
This is an ideal place to teach democracy. The resources for such
an effort are strong: museums, open land, interpretive centers.
Illustrating the ideas of freedom, resources show, for example, how
democracy predated the Revolutionary War; the Revolutionary War and its
consequences. The native landscape, geological formations that still
remain undiminished by development, resources that show the birth and
development of the conservation movement; attractive village centers
once required by law; the farmlands and mills reveal the evolution of
land use. Altogether, these can be used to maintain a setting, the
integrity of place.
Designation will bring the cohesive force necessary to accomplish
the work.
6. A Broad Range of Interest Groups Were Involved in the Planning
Over the years, Freedom's Way Heritage Association has been
bringing together representatives of the public and private sector.
The Freedom's Way Board is comprised of representatives of the
following entities: Chambers of Commerce, regional environmental
organizations, area museums, two regional planning commissions, local
Select boards, mayoral appointees, city planners, town administrators,
newspaper publishers, business owner, Native Americans and African
Americans, Massachusetts Historical Society, local historians, federal
land managers, farmers, local community non-profits, local planning
boards, and trails advocates.
Having established working relationships with many public and
private not-for-profit entities through the feasibility process,
planning is underway through stakeholder meetings and partnership
meetings to refine roles of all participants. The stated focus is for
Freedom's Way to facilitate linkages and partnerships to strengthen the
role of participants in educational efforts.
The legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts appropriated
the funding for the Feasibility Study. Massachusetts Office of Travel
and Tourism, with a matching grant from MassDevelopment, helped produce
the Freedom's Way Map. MassDevelopment also supplied facilities,
resources and utilities. By state effort, $250,000 in matching state
funds was appropriated as matching funds for a federal appropriation.
The management plan will help to identify additional financial
resources.
Freedom's Way has developed a list of major corporate entities. The
association is actively seeking corporate support. Partnerships with
these companies and many more will be explored in depth: Fleet Bank,
Citizen's Bank, Fidelity Savings Bank, Middlesex Savings Bank, North
Middlesex Savings Bank, Cisco Systems. MassDevelopment will offer
assistance seeking funds.
Business partners express quality of life issues as a shared
concern.
The Study Addendum shows projected budget and other financial
details.
7. The Proposed Management Entity and Units of Government Supporting
the Designation Are Willing To Commit To Working in Partnership
To Develop the Heritage Area
A Minute Man National Park representative attended feasibility
study meetings.
The heritage designation will permit further participation of the
National Park Service and a working relationship with Minute Man
National Park.
Mass Development Agency, Mass Department of Environmental
Management, Wildlife, Regional Planning Commissions, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife and Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism are all
committed to supporting the designation. Many municipalities have
joined as members.
At least three levels of government have offered potential
headquarters for Freedom's Way. MassDevelopment currently provides
office space without fee.
The newly-formed Devens Historical Museum has also offered
Freedom's Way headquarters space.
MassDevelopment has made a major contribution in addition to
providing the office space for Freedom's Way: the donation of office
furniture and utilities and a matching grant for the map/brochure.
Nashoba Valley Chamber of Commerce provides office assistance.
8. The Proposal Is Consistent With Economic Activity in the Area
From the beginning, we have had the full support of
MassDevelopment, a Commonwealth entity charged with overseeing the
economic development of the Devens communities, their abutters and
beyond. All of these communities are in Freedom's Way.
9. A Conceptual Boundary Map Is Supported by the Public
The Freedoms Way Map, the feasibility study workshops, subsequent
meetings and stakeholder meetings, technical data and expanding library
illustrate the public's participation and acknowledgement that this
area is Freedom's Way.
10. The Management Entity Proposed To Plan and Implement the Project Is
Described
Freedom's Way Heritage Association is described in the legislation
and in the Feasibility Study. The public has access to material through
the web site, the office and regular mailings.
The federal money will be used for this major regional effort by
helping the communities to find ways to develop their own linkages
through participation and cooperative partnerships. We will:
1. Focus on the three main themes in order to teach about and
connect the major trails that will be marked.
2. Improve both the usage and meaning of significant sites
within the trails through interpretation;
3. Develop an educational curriculum based within the
community to benefit teachers, children, visitors, and
residents;
4. Bring increased recognition to Minute Man National Park as
well as the regional museums through the benefit of a broader
based effort;
5. Connect to the National Park Service nation-wide heritage
themes to gain additional linkages and exposure through the
stories that relate to the Freedom's Way themes. It is an
advantage to connect the telling of the entire story of
American Democracy through each region's participation.
6. Link major federal land protection efforts with historic
and cultural themes adding synergy and broader exposure to the
efforts of two Department of the Interior services.
7. Act as a clearinghouse, or regional resource to help
communities learn the methods for land preservation and
conservation that are available to them through a regional
educational program focused on town planning issues relating to
sustainability.
8. Cultivate a working relationship with other educational
institutions such as Harvard University and U. Mass.
conclusion
The Department of the Interior's Senate testimony at last year's
Parks Subcommittee Hearing is that Freedom's Way fully complies with
all stated criteria. Following designation a cultural resource study
and a detailed management plan will be developed and submitted to the
Secretary. The purpose will be to support the work of regional
educational and planning entities, focusing on a regional approach.
Long term by products will be livable communities, growth of public
transportation and sustainable development. Locally determined growth,
including heritage tourism, will yield significant economic benefits as
a byproduct of all the collaborative work.