Order Code IB10126
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Updated July 12, 2004
Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Background
Overview of Operations
Support, Opposition, and Challenges
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Bills to Establish NHAs or Authorize Studies
Proposals to Establish Systemic Procedures
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report
Funding
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
108th Congress
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10126
07-12-04
Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
SUMMARY
Over the past 20 years, Congress has
blueprint for managing the heritage area.
established 24 National Heritage Areas
(NHAs) to commemorate, conserve, and
NHAs might receive funding from a wide
promote important areas that include natural,
variety of sources, and Congress and the NPS
scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational
do not ordinarily expect to provide NHAs
resources. NHAs are partnerships between the
with permanent federal funding. Congress
National Park Service (NPS), states, and local
determines which areas will receive funding
communities, where the NPS supports state
under annual appropriations bills and specifies
and local conservation through federal recog-
the amount of funds for each area. NHAs can
nition, seed money, and technical assistance.
use federal funds for purposes including
NHAs are not part of the National Park Sys-
staffing, planning, and projects.
tem, where lands are federally owned and
managed. Rather, lands within heritage areas
More than 35 measures to establish
typically remain in state, local, or private
individual heritage areas or study the suitabil-
ownership. Heritage areas have been sup-
ity and feasibility of areas for heritage status
ported as protecting lands and traditions and
are currently pending. H.R. 280, the only one
promoting tourism and community revitaliza-
of these bills approved by a chamber, would
tion, but opposed as potentially costly and an
establish four new heritage areas and autho-
initial step that may lead to federal control
rize a study of the suitability of designating
over nonfederal lands.
another. Debate on private property rights
provisions was contentious during committee
Today, more than 45 million people live
consideration. Three bills to establish heritage
in NHAs (16% of the U.S. population), and
areas have been reported in the Senate.
NHAs encompass roughly 160,000 square
miles (about 5% of the contiguous U.S. land
The sizeable number of existing NHAs,
area). In addition, other heritage areas have
together with the number of measures to
been designated by states and local govern-
designate new ones, has renewed interest in
ments and announcements. This issue brief
enacting a law providing criteria for designat-
focuses on heritage areas designated by Con-
ing NHAs, standards for their management,
gress, and related issues and legislation.
and limits on federal funding support. Two
such measures have been introduced — H.R.
There is no generic statute that estab-
1427 and S. 2543 — with the Senate bill
lishes criteria for designating NHAs or pro-
based on an Administration draft.
vides standards for their funding and manage-

ment. Rather, particulars for an area are
The FY2004 Interior and Related Agen-
provided in its enabling legislation. Congress
cies Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-108) pro-
designates a management entity, usually non-
vided $14.3 million for NHA assistance,
federal, to coordinate the work of the partners.
established the Blue Ridge NHA (NC), and
The management entity typically develops and
directed the NPS to study Muscle Shoals (AL)
implements a plan for managing the NHA, in
as a possible NHA. The President’s FY2005
collaboration with other parties. Once ap-
budget request for Heritage Partnership Pro-
proved by the Secretary of the Interior, the
grams is $2.5 million, but the House passed a
management plan essentially becomes the
level of $15.1 million in H.R. 4568.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10126
07-12-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
More than 35 bills have been introduced to establish NHAs or to study areas for
possible heritage designation. Three of these bills to designate NHAs were reported by the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on July 7, 2004 (S. 180, S. 211, S. 323).
Five other bills were reported by the House Committee on Resources on November 17, 2003,
and were then included in H.R. 280 as passed by the House on November 18, 2003. H.R.
280 was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November
19, 2003. In addition, two bills have been introduced to establish criteria and mechanisms
for designating NHAs: H.R. 1427, introduced March 25, 2003, and S. 2543, introduced June
17, 2004. On June 24, 2004, a Senate subcommittee held hearings on S. 2543. The 108th
Congress has held other hearings on general heritage area issues, as well as hearings on
heritage bills to designate or study particular areas.
The President’s budget request for FY2005 was $2.5 million for the Heritage
Partnership Program, a decrease of $11.8 million from the $14.3 million for heritage area
assistance during FY2004 (P.L. 108-108). The House approved an appropriation of $15.1
million for heritage areas in H.R. 4568 on June 17, 2004.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Background
Over the last two decades, Congress has designated 24 National Heritage Areas (NHAs)
to recognize and assist efforts to protect, commemorate, and promote natural, cultural,
historic, and recreational resources that form distinctive landscapes. Congress has
established heritage areas for lands that are regarded as distinctive because of their
resources, their built environment, and the culture and history of their residents. A principal
distinction of these areas is an emphasis on the interaction of people and their environment.
Heritage areas seek to tell the story of the people, over time, where the landscape helped
shape the traditions of the residents. In a majority of cases, NHAs now have, or have had,
a fundamental economic activity as their foundation, such as agriculture, water
transportation, or industrial development. Congress also has enacted measures authorizing
the study of areas to determine their suitability and feasibility for heritage designation.
Congress designated the first heritage area — the Illinois and Michigan Canal National
Heritage Corridor — in 1984. This area was located in one of the nation’s most
industrialized regions and sought to combine a diversity of land uses, management programs,
and historical themes. A goal was to facilitate grassroots preservation of natural resources
and economic development in areas containing industries and historic structures. The federal
government would assist the effort (e.g., through technical assistance) but not lead it. The
idea of linking and maintaining a balance between nature and industry, and encouraging
economic regeneration, resonated with many states and communities in the eastern United
States. Interest in establishing heritage areas was commensurate with growing public interest
in cultural heritage tourism.
CRS-1

---

IB10126
07-12-04
Since 1984, Congress has designated a total of 24 NHAs in 18 states, primarily in the
East. An omnibus park and recreation law in 1996 created 10 NHAs, more than doubling
the number of NHAs at that time. NHAs have been created during both Republican and
Democratic control of the White House and Congress, indicating a degree of bipartisan
support. Today more than 45 million people live in designated heritage areas (16% of the
U.S. population), and heritage areas encompass roughly 160,000 square miles (about 5% of
the contiguous U.S. land area). The attributes of each NHA are set out in its establishing
law. Because they are based on distinctive cultural attributes, NHAs vary in appearance and
expression. They are at different stages of developing and implementing plans to protect and
promote their attributes. Table 1, below, identifies the current NHAs.
Table 1. Existing National Heritage Areas (24), by Date of Authorization
National Heritage Area
State
Date of
Establishing
Authorization
Legislation
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage
IL
August 24, 1984
P.L. 98-398
Corridor
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National
MA/RI
November 10, 1986
P.L. 99-647
Heritage Corridor
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
PA
November 18, 1988
P.L. 100-692
Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation
PA
November 19, 1988
P.L. 100-698
Commission (Path of Progress)
Cane River National Heritage Area
LA
November 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449
Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National
CT/MA
November 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449
Heritage Corridor
Cache La Poudre River Corridor
CO
October 19, 1996
P.L. 104-323
America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos
IA
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
and Smokestacks)
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area
GA
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Essex National Heritage Area
MA
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area
NY
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
National Coal Heritage Area
WV
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor
OH
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area
PA
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
VA
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
District
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor
SC
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area
TN
November 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
(MotorCities-)Automobile National Heritage Area
MI
November 6, 1998
P.L. 105-355
Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area
PA
October 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
CRS-2

---

IB10126
07-12-04
National Heritage Area
State
Date of
Establishing
Authorization
Legislation
Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area
PA
October 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
Wheeling National Heritage Area
WV
October 11, 2000
P.L. 106-291
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
AZ
October 19, 2000
P.L. 106-319
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
NY
December 21, 2000
P.L. 106-554
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area
NC
November 10, 2003
P.L. 108-108
Source: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Areas: Legislative Citations, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/INFO/legisindex.HTM], visited Dec. 1, 2003, and U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2004
(Washington, DC: 2003), page NR&P 83.
Note: For information on heritage areas, see the website of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA)
at [http://www.nationalheritageareas.com/], or the National Park Service at [http://www.cr.nps.gov/
heritageareas/], which includes a monthly bulletin board that tracks NHA-related activity at [http://
www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/rep].
Heritage areas are not federally owned, and a designation generally is not intended to
lead to federal acquisition of lands. They consist mainly of private properties, although some
include publicly owned lands. In most cases the laws establishing NHAs do not provide for
acquisition of land, and once designated, heritage areas generally remain in private, state, or
local government ownership. However, in a few cases Congress has authorized federal
acquisition of land in heritage areas. For instance, Congress authorized creation of the Cane
River Creole National Historical Park (LA) within the Cane River NHA. Such cases of
federal acquisition/ownership have been challenged by property rights advocates, who
generally oppose federal land ownership and possible resulting limitations on private land
uses. (See below under “Support, Opposition, and Challenges.”)
Heritage areas are among the types of entities that utilize technical and financial aid
from the National Park Service (NPS) but are not directly owned and managed by the agency.
They also are not part of the National Park System, where lands are federally owned and
managed. Congressional designation of heritage areas is commonly viewed as a less
expensive alternative to acquiring and operating new units of the National Park System. That
system now has 388 diverse units, including national parks, national monuments, national
historic sites, national battlefields, and national preserves. (For information on establishing
units of the National Park System, see CRS Report RS20158.)
While the concept of heritage areas is two decades old, NHAs are viewed by some as
an experimental form of protecting lands that reflects an evolution in thinking on roles and
responsibilities. The traditional form of NPS land protection has been through government
ownership, management, and funding of lands that are set aside for protection and
enjoyment. By contrast, NHAs typically are in nonfederal ownership, managed by local
people with many partners and NPS advice, funded from many sources, and intended to
promote economic development as well as protect natural and cultural heritage resources and
values.

CRS-3

---

IB10126
07-12-04
Since the creation of the first NHA, interest in additional NHA designations has grown
considerably. There has been significant interest from communities seeking tourism and
economic revitalization, and within the conservation community. The Bush Administration
generally supports NHAs because they embody partnerships between communities and the
federal government, locally driven resource preservation, and local control of land. Further,
in the past few Congresses, many proposals to designate heritage areas or study lands for
heritage status have been introduced, and Congress has held many hearings on heritage bills
and issues. The more than 30 proposals pending in the 108th Congress to designate heritage
areas or study lands for heritage status suggest a continued high level of congressional
interest in NHAs. The sizeable number of existing NHAs, together with the substantial
number of proposals to designate new ones, has renewed interest by some Members of the
Congress and the Administration in establishing a standardized process and criteria for
designating NHAs (see below under “Legislative Activity”). However, some opponents
believe that NHAs present such numerous problems and challenges that Congress should
oppose efforts to designate new areas and create a “system” of NHAs (see below under
“Support, Opposition, and Challenges”).
In addition to the federal heritage areas, other heritage areas have been designated by
local governments or announcements by local preservation groups, and a number of states
have developed their own heritage area programs. A White House initiative, Preserve
America (E.O. 13287, Mar. 3, 2003), directs federal agencies to improve management of
historic properties through adaptive reuse initiatives and to promote heritage tourism through
partnerships with communities. Also, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA), a
collaboration of the management entities for the federally designated NHAs, working
through its Heritage Development Institute initiative, provides training to practitioners of
heritage development. The ANHA also operates a resource center for heritage areas,
organizes educational workshops and programs, and promotes heritage tourism.
Overview of Operations
There is no generic statute that establishes criteria for designating NHAs or provides
standards for their funding and management. Rather, particulars for an area are provided in
its enabling legislation. While there tended to be greater variety in the creation and operation
of earlier heritage areas, over the past several years the establishment and management of
heritage areas have become somewhat more standardized. Common understandings and
characteristics are discussed below.
NHAs involve partnerships between the NPS, states, and local interests. In establishing
heritage areas, Congress typically designates a management entity to coordinate the work of
the partners. Management entities could include a state or local government agency,
nonprofit corporation, or independent federal commission. The management entity usually
develops and implements a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration with partners and
other interested parties. While the components of the plans vary, in accordance with the
authorizing legislation and local needs, they often identify resources and themes; lay out
policies and implementation strategies for protection, use, and public education; describe
needed restoration of physical sites; discuss recreational opportunities; outline funding goals
and possibilities; and define the roles and responsibilities of partners. Once the Secretary of
the Interior approves a plan, it essentially becomes the blueprint for managing the heritage
CRS-4

---

IB10126
07-12-04
area and is implemented as funding and resources are available. Implementation of
management plans is accomplished primarily through voluntary actions.
NHAs might receive funding to prepare and implement their plans from a wide array
of sources, including philanthropic organizations, endowments, individuals, businesses, and
governments. Congress and the NPS do not ordinarily expect to provide NHAs with
permanent federal funding, but rather encourage NHAs to develop alternative sources of
funding to become financially self-sufficient. A March 30, 2004, report of the General
Accounting Office states that during the six-year period from FY1997 to FY2002, heritage
areas received $310 million in total funding. About half the funds ($154 million) were
derived from state and local governments and private sources, with the other half ($156
million) provided by the federal government. Of the federal funding, about $50 million came
from the NPS heritage program and $44 million came from other NPS programs, with the
balance (about $61 million) provided by 11 other federal sources.1
Congress determines the total level of federal funding for NHAs and typically specifies
in appropriations documents the appropriation level for each NHA. The management entity
generally receives any federal appropriations for the area. Federal funds might be used to
help rehabilitate an important site, develop tours, establish interpretive exhibits and
programs, increase public awareness, and hold festivals to showcase an area’s natural and
cultural heritage. In testimony presented in March 2003, an official from the Department of
the Interior (DOI) testified to the success of NHAs in using funds provided by the NPS to
leverage additional funding from other sources. Specifically, since 1985, Congress has
appropriated $107.2 million to the NPS to support heritage projects and programs, and this
sum has leveraged $929.1 million in funding from other sources — a 1 to 8.7 match.2
Support, Opposition, and Challenges3
Some believe that the benefits of heritage areas are considerable and thus Congress
should expand its assistance for creating and sustaining heritage areas. Supporters view
NHAs as important for protecting history, traditions, and cultural landscapes, especially
1 The data reflect funding for 22 of the 24 heritage areas. See U.S. General Accounting Office.
National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and
Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed, GAO-04-593T, Summary, March 30, 2004,
Washington, DC, at [http://www.gao.gov/], visited April 20, 2004.
2 Testimony of Paul Hoffman, Department of the Interior, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, March 13, 2003, at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=627&wit_id=1714].
3 For sources generally supportive of NHAs, see, for example, the websites of the National Park
Service at [http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/], Alliance of National Heritage Areas at
[http://www.nationalheritageareas.com/], and the National Trust for Historic Preservation at
[http://www.ruralheritage.org/workarea.html], all visited March 19, 2004. For information generally
opposed to NHAs, see, for example, the websites of the Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc.,
at [http://prfamerica.org/HeritageRiversAreasIndex.html] and the American Policy Center at
[http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.htm], and congressional testimony by Daniel M. Clifton
of Americans for Tax Reform at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/108cong/parks/2003sep16/
agenda.htm], all visited March 19, 2004.
CRS-5

---

IB10126
07-12-04
where communities are losing their traditional economic base (e.g., industry or farming),
facing a loss of population, or experiencing rapid growth from people unfamiliar with the
region. Advocates see NHAs as unifying forces that increase the pride of people in their
traditions, foster a spirit of cooperation and unity, and promote a stewardship ethic among
the general public.
Advocates of NHAs assert that they foster cultural tourism, community revitalization,
and regional economic development. Heritage areas are advertised as entertaining and
educational places for tourists, and may involve activities such as stories, music, food areas,
walking tours, boat rides, and celebrations. Through increased tourism, communities benefit
locally when services and products are purchased. In some cases, increased heritage tourism,
together with an emphasis on adaptive reuse of historic resources, has attracted broader
business growth and development.
Some supporters see NHAs as generally more desirable than other types of land
conservation. They prefer the designation of NHAs because the lands typically remain in
nonfederal ownership, to be administered locally. Other NHA backers view establishing and
managing federal areas, such as units of the National Park System, as too costly, and observe
that small federal investments in heritage areas have been successful in attracting funds from
other sources. Proponents also see NHAs as flexible enough to encompass a diverse array
of initiatives and areas because the heritage concept lacks systemic laws or regulations.
Property rights advocates take the lead in opposing heritage areas. They contend that
some national heritage areas lack significant local support, unlike state or local heritage
areas. They charge that private property owners should be routinely notified when their lands
fall within proposed heritage areas, because the NPS could exert a degree of federal control
over nonfederal lands by influencing zoning and land-use planning. They are concerned that
localities have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior for heritage area
management plans and believe that some plans are overly prescriptive in regulating details
of private property use (e.g., the species of trees that landowners can plant). Another concern
of opponents is that NHA lands will be targeted for purchase and direct management by the
federal government.
The lack of a general statute providing a framework for heritage area establishment,
management, and funding has prompted criticism that the process is inconsistent and
fragmented. Some see a need to specify what NHAs are and do, and to clarify the federal
role in supporting these areas. They are concerned that the enactment of additional heritage
bills could substantially increase the administrative and financial obligations of the NPS.
Some detractors assert that federal funds would be more appropriately spent on park units
and other existing protected areas rather than on creating new heritage areas. Still others cite
a need for a mechanism to hold accountable the management entities receiving federal funds
and making decisions for heritage areas.

Some observers recommend caution in creating NHAs because in practice they may face
an array of challenges to success. For instance, heritage areas may have difficulty providing
the infrastructure that increased tourism requires, such as additional parking, lodging,
restaurants, and well-coordinated attractions. Other areas may need additional protective
measures to ensure that increased tourism and development do not degrade the resources and
landscapes. Still other NHAs may require improvements in leadership and organization of
CRS-6

---

IB10126
07-12-04
the management entities, including explaining their message and accomplishments. Some
NHAs may experience difficulty attracting funds because the concept is relatively recent and
not universally accepted as a sustainable approach to resource preservation or economic
development. Some conservationists think the protective measures are not strong enough
and some economic development professionals think the heritage idea does not fit the
traditional framework for development. Also, achieving and maintaining appropriate levels
of public commitment to implementation may be challenging.4

Administrative Actions
The NPS assists communities interested in attaining the federal NHA designation by
helping them craft a regional vision for heritage preservation and development. The agency
also provides a variety of types of assistance to areas once designated — administrative,
financial, policy, technical, and public information. The NPS seeks to serve as a catalyst by
offering assistance to designated heritage areas only for a limited number of years.
Specifically, the NPS seeks to limit each heritage area to no more than $1 million per year,
not to exceed $10 million per area over 15 years. The Administration’s draft National
Heritage Partnership Act sought, in part, to codify these funding parameters and require each
heritage area management plan to include a business plan demonstrating financial capability
to carry out the plan. This business plan was intended to foster self-sufficiency of NHAs.5
Similar provisions are included in S. 2543, recently introduced in the Senate (see the section
below on “Legislative Activity.”) As part of its annual budget justification to Congress for
the National Park Service, the Administration submits its desired overall funding level for
the NPS Heritage Partnership Program. Congress generally determines a total funding level
and the distribution of the funds for specified NHAs. NHAs can use such funds for varied
purposes including staffing, planning, and projects.
Once a heritage area is designated by Congress, the NPS typically enters into a
cooperative agreement, or compact, with the designated management entity, often comprised
of local activists, to help plan and organize the area. The compact outlines the goals for the
heritage area and defines the roles and contributions of the NPS and other partners, typically
setting out the parameters of the NPS’s technical assistance. It also serves as the legal
vehicle for channeling federal funds to non-governmental management entities.
At congressional direction, the NPS also prepares studies as to whether areas are
suitable for designating as NHAs. The NPS often testifies before Congress on the results of
these studies. The studies typically address a variety of topics, including whether an area has
resources reflecting aspects of American heritage that are worthy of recognition,
conservation, and continued use. They usually discuss whether an area would benefit from
being managed through a public-private partnership, and if there is a community of residents,
4 Information on challenges to NHA success is found in Jane Daly, “Heritage Areas: Connecting
People to their Place and History,” Forum Journal (Journal of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation), vol. 17, no. 4 (summer 2003), pp. 5-12.
5 Testimony of A. Durand Jones, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, March 30, 2004,
at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1128], visited May 28, 2004.
CRS-7

---

IB10126
07-12-04
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and state and local agencies that would work to support
a heritage area.
Administration representatives have testified in support of developing systemic NHA
legislation to list the qualities a prospective area must possess and the parameters under
which designation could occur. At a March 30, 2004, hearing of a Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Subcommittee, a DOI witness6 outlined the Administration’s draft
legislation creating a National Heritage Areas Program. S. 2543, which was based upon the
Administration’s draft, was the subject of a June 24, 2004, Senate subcommittee hearing.
At this hearing, the Deputy Director of the NPS expressed “strong support” for legislation
to establish a national heritage program, while suggesting modifications to the bill on behalf
of DOI.7

The NPS Advisory Board was created in 1935 to advise the Director of the NPS and the
Secretary of the Interior on issues relating to the National Park Service. The Partnership
Committee of the NPS Advisory Board has begun a review of NHAs and the Heritage
Partnership Program and will report recommendations regarding future NPS involvement
with NHAs. The report is scheduled to be completed in mid-2005.
Legislative Activity

The 107th Congress considered many heritage proposals and held many related hearings;
ultimately it enacted three measures to study areas for potential heritage status. The 108th
Congress continues a high level of interest in heritage area bills and issues. It is considering
proposals to designate heritage areas, study areas for possible heritage status, extend the
authorization of existing NHAs, establish uniform criteria and procedures for designating and
managing heritage areas, and appropriate funds for heritage areas. Congress also has held
legislative and oversight hearings on heritage bills and issues.
Bills to Establish NHAs or Authorize Studies. In the 108th Congress, more than
35 bills have been introduced, for more than 20 different areas, to establish NHAs or study
the suitability and feasibility of areas for heritage status. Some of the pending measures
would create heritage “corridors,” “routes,” and “partnerships.” A number of existing
heritage areas have similar titles, and the NPS considers all of them to be NHAs.
Of the pending bills, five were reported by the House Committee on Resources on
November 17, 2003. Provisions pertaining to private property were contentious during
subcommittee and committee consideration, and were amended during both stages of
consideration. However, all five bills were ordered reported by unanimous consent,
indicating a compromise was reached in committee on the private property language (see
below) as well as other provisions. As reported, the five measures sought to establish the
National Aviation Heritage Area (OH/IN; H.R. 280, H.Rept. 108-370); the Arabia Mountain
NHA; (GA; H.R. 1618, H.Rept. 108-362); the Upper Housatonic Valley NHA (MA/CT; H.R.
6 Jones testimony; see footnote 5.
7 Testimony of A. Durand Jones, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, June 24, 2004, at
[http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1243&wit_id=169], visited July 12, 2004.
CRS-8

---

IB10126
07-12-04
1798, H.Rept. 108-365); and the Oil Region NHA (PA; H.R. 1862, H.Rept. 108-366); and
to authorize a study regarding the suitability and feasibility of designating the Island of St.
Croix as the St. Croix NHA (H.R. 1594, H.Rept. 108-361).
On November 18, 2003, the House considered and passed H.R. 280, amended to include
the provisions of the four other heritage area bills that had been reported by the Resources
Committee. The measure passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules
indicating substantial support, and the leaders of the floor debate described the measure as
supported by both parties. The Democratic floor leader described the property rights
provisions as representing a compromise between the parties and acceptable overall as a way
to move the legislation forward.8 H.R. 280 was subsequently referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
As passed by the House, H.R. 280 contains provisions to address private property rights.
For the four NHAs that would be established, it provides that private property shall not be
“preserved, conserved, or promoted by the management plan for the Heritage Area” until the
owner receives written notification and gives written consent. Owners of land that has been
included within the boundary of the heritage area “shall have their property immediately
removed” upon written request. The bill also provides that private property owners cannot
be compelled to allow public access to their property or to participate in, or be associated
with, the NHA. Further, the bill states that the establishment of a heritage area is not to be
construed as providing new regulatory authority on land use within the NHA or its viewshed.
For the area that would be studied for possible heritage status (the Island of St. Croix), the
bill states that the Secretary of the Interior is to analyze the potential impact of heritage area
designation on private property within or bordering on the area.
Such private property provisions were advocated as necessary to prevent federally-
influenced restrictive zoning, to protect land-use options of property owners, and to prevent
possible future federal ownership of heritage lands. Opponents have criticized such
provisions as impractical, expensive, and burdensome for the local management entities.
As passed by the House, H.R. 280 also included provisions of H.R. 521, to establish the
Steel Industry National Historic Site, as a unit of the National Park System, within the Rivers
of Steel NHA. The House Resources Committee had amended H.R. 521 in an effort to
address private property concerns and to require that any land acquired for a historical site
be done by donation. The bill was reported unanimously from committee before being
included in H.R. 280 for floor consideration. A Senate companion bill — S. 1787 — has
been introduced, but no further action has been taken.
On July 7, 2004, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported three
bills to establish heritage areas. S. 180 would establish a National Aviation Heritage Area
in Ohio and Indiana to promote and protect the cultural and industrial legacy of the aviation
and aerospace industry. The companion bill that passed the House — H.R. 280 — was
amended to include provisions of four other NHA bills. S. 211 would establish the Northern
8 Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
149, Nov. 18, 2003, p. H.11456-H11457. See also remarks of Representative Mark E. Souder, p.
H11456.
CRS-9

---

IB10126
07-12-04
Rio Grande NHA in New Mexico to preserve cultural, historical, and natural resources
associated with Spanish colonization of the area. S. 323 would establish the Atchafalaya
National Heritage Area in the Atchafalaya Basin swamp area of Louisiana, which is
associated with Cajun culture. Similar legislation was considered for all three areas in the
107th Congress.
H.R. 4492 would extend the authorization for nine NHAs from September 30, 2012,
until September 30, 2027, by amending P.L. 104-333. The bill also would increase the total
funding authorized for each area from $10 million to $20 million. It was referred to the
Committee on Resources.
Current bills to designate heritage areas or study specific areas for potential heritage
status are shown in Table 2 below. More general heritage area legislation is identified in the
“Legislation” section below. Another pending bill, S. 1105, would study the feasibility of
designating an existing state heritage area as a National Historic Site within the National
Park System.

Table 2. Bills to Establish Heritage Areas or Authorize Studies, 108th Congress
Bill Number
State
Type
Title
Status
H.R. 280 (Title I)
OH/IN
Desig.
National Aviation Heritage Area Act
Passed House
S. 180
S. Comm. Reported
H.R. 505
NM
Desig.
Northern Rio Grande NHA Act
Introduced
S. 211
S. Comm. Reported
H.R. 524/S. 230
NJ
Desig.
Crossroads of the American Revolution NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 567/S.472
VA
Study
Northern Neck NHA Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 744/S. 276
SC
Study
Southern Campaign of the Revolution Heritage Area
Introduced
Study Act
H.R. 907
CA
Study
Highway 49, “Golden Chain Highway” National
Introduced
Heritage Corridor Study Act
H.R. 1069/S. 577
MA/NH
Desig.
Freedom’s Way NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 1594
VI
Study
St. Croix NHA Study Act
See H.R. 280 as
passed House
H.R. 1618
GA
Desig.
Arabia Mountain NHA Act
See H.R. 280 as
passed House;
S. 1752
Introduced
H.R. 1759/S. 941
NC
Desig.
Blue Ridge NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 2691, §140
P.L. 108-108
H.R. 1798
CT/MA
Desig.
Upper Housatonic Valley NHA Act
See H.R. 280 as
passed House;
S. 1056
Introduced
H.R. 1862
PA
Desig.
Oil Region NHA Act
See H.R. 280 as
passed House;
S. 912
Introduced
CRS-10

---

IB10126
07-12-04
H.R. 2278/S. 1330
AK
Desig.
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Nat. Heritage
Introduced
Corridor Act/Heritage Area Act
H.R. 2689/S. 1137
MS
Desig.
Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 2925
NC
Study
Northeastern N. Carolina Heritage Area Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 3257
OH
Study
Western Reserve Heritage Area
Introduced
H.R. 3553/S. 1941
IL
Desig.
Abraham Lincoln NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 3909/S. 2224
KS/MO
Desig.
Bleeding Kansas NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 4683
SC/GA
Desig.
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act [Corridor]
Introduced
S. 323
LA
Desig.
Atchafalaya NHA Act
S. Comm. Reported
S. 840
NV/UT
Desig.
Great Basin National Heritage Route Act
Introduced
S. 916
UT
Desig.
National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act
Introduced
S. 1118
VT/NY
Desig.
Champlain Valley Nat. Heritage Partnership Act
Introduced
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress, 108th Congress data file.

Proposals to Establish Systemic Procedures. The growing number of NHAs,
together with the substantial number of proposals to designate or study new ones, has
renewed interest in systemic legislation governing the evaluation, designation, and
management of new NHAs. The National Heritage Areas Policy Act legislation — H.R.
1427 — would establish procedures for designating, managing, and funding heritage areas.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Resources. It would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to recommend to Congress that an area be granted heritage
designation if, within five years of Congress authorizing a feasibility study, the Secretary has
completed the study, determined the area to be suitable, and approved a management plan
for the area. It would not limit the number of areas that the Secretary could recommend or
that Congress could designate as NHAs. H.R. 1427 would provide that prior to the
Secretary’s recommendation, private property owners be notified and given an opportunity
to decide whether to include their property in heritage area activities. The bill outlines
requirements for feasibility studies. They would be conducted by the Secretary or another
interested party, completed or approved by the Secretary, and submitted to the House
Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congress could use the studies as part of its assessment of areas for NHA designation. H.R.
1427 would require the local coordinating entity for the proposed area to prepare a
management plan and would provide for action by the Secretary to approve/disapprove the
plan.

H.R. 1427 would authorize the Secretary to make grants during the five-year period
following authorization of a feasibility study for a “proposed” NHA. It would authorize
appropriations of not more than $250,000 per year for initial studies and plans for each such
proposed area, with not more than $1.5 million total per area. The bill would authorize
additional appropriations of not more than $250,000 for each feasibility study. For
established heritage areas, the bill would authorize the Secretary to make grants during a 10-
year period, and would authorize appropriations of not more than $1 million yearly per area
with not more than $10 million total per NHA. Grant recipients would be required to
CRS-11

---

IB10126
07-12-04
provide matching funds, while the Secretary would be authorized to provide technical
assistance on a nonreimbursable basis. The bill also contains provisions seeking to protect
private property, and outlines circumstances and procedures under which the Secretary would
terminate funding for an NHA.
Under S. 2543, the National Heritage Partnership Act, the Secretary of the Interior
would establish a National Heritage Areas program, and provide technical and financial
assistance to local coordinating entities to help establish NHAs, subject to the availability of
funds. The bill seeks to establish a unified process for creating, operating, and funding
NHAs. It is similar to draft legislation prepared by the Administration. The bill would
require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct suitability-feasibility studies, or review and
comment on such studies prepared by others, for areas under consideration for NHA
designation. It sets out criteria against which such areas will be evaluated. For instance, the
criteria include evidence of resources and traditional uses that have a national significance,
to focus the creation of NHAs on areas that are determined to be nationally significant.
Other criteria include identification of a local coordinating entity, demonstration of support
by local governments and communities, development of a conceptual financial plan outlining
the responsibilities of participants, and concurrence of managers of any federal lands within
the proposed NHA.
S. 2543 provides for the local coordinating entity for an NHA to develop a management
plan for the area within three years of the availability of funds, and a process and time frame
for action by the Secretary of the Interior to approve/disapprove the plan. The management
plan is to include a business plan demonstrating that the local coordinating entity has
sufficient partnerships and financial resources to carry out the plan, in an effort to encourage
self-sufficiency of heritage areas. For each NHA, the bill authorizes funding of not more
than $1 million per year, with a total of not more than $10 million over 15 years. The bill
caps funding for all NHAs at $15 million per year. There is an additional $0.75 million for
conducting and reviewing suitability-feasibility studies, with a maximum of $0.25 million
per study. It seeks to protect private property owners, for instance by not requiring their
participation in NHA plans and activities. The bill does not include the “notification and
consent” requirements contained in H.R. 280. (See the section above on “Bills to Establish
NHAs or Authorize Studies.”) It also seeks to protect existing regulatory authorities — for
example, by not altering “any duly adopted land use regulation, approved land use plan, or
other regulatory authority.” It sets out the responsibilities of local coordinating entities and
the authorities of the Secretary of the Interior (through the NPS).
S. 2543 was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and
the Parks Subcommittee held hearings on the measure on June 24, 2004. Witnesses at this
hearing, and at another held by the subcommittee on March 30, 2004 on the Administration’s
draft, supported the creation of systemic NHA legislation but presented different criteria and
procedures for designating and operating NHAs. Some witnesses advocated less emphasis
on national importance of areas to foster creation of NHAs, while others promoted flexible
procedures to meet regional needs. Still others asserted that defining key terms, such as
“heritage”itself, was essential to the creation of any heritage area program. Witnesses also
presented alternatives for securing funding for NHAs and organizing federal activities. A
witness representing private property rights recommended reducing the emphasis of NHAs
on landscape protection. Private property rights advocates and others have opposed creation
CRS-12

---

IB10126
07-12-04
of a national system of NHAs with uniform standards.9 (See the section above on “Support,
Opposition, and Challenges.”)
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report. The GAO released a report on
NHAs at the March 30, 2004, Senate subcommittee hearing. The GAO concluded that
because there is no systematic process for designating NHAs, or well-defined NPS criteria
for assessing the qualifications of areas, it is not possible to ensure that future areas will have
the resources and support to be viable or that federal funds are well spent. The agency also
concluded that the NPS does not employ key management controls in overseeing heritage
areas; for instance, the NPS does not consistently review areas’ financial audit reports or use
results-oriented goals and measures. Further, the agency asserted that existing heritage areas
do not appear to have affected property owners’ rights. The GAO recommends that in the
absence of congressional action to establish a formal heritage program, the NPS take the
following actions: develop standards and processes for the agency’s regional staff to use in
approving heritage area management plans; require regular and consistent review of audit
reports of NHAs; and develop results-oriented goals and measures for heritage area activities.

Funding. As in previous Congresses, the 108th Congress enacted appropriations
legislation to fund heritage areas. While the Administration sought to reduce funding to $7.7
million for FY2004, Congress appropriated $14.3 million (P.L. 108-108). The FY2004 law
provided funds for 23 of the 24 heritage areas. Historically, the Bush Administration’s
requests for NHA funding has been significantly lower than the previous year’s
appropriation; however, Congress typically has restored or increased NHA funds. The
FY2005 request for NHA funding is $2.5 million, an $11.8 million decrease from the
FY2004 enacted level. On June 17, 2004, the House approved $15.1 million in NHA
funding for FY2005, in H.R. 4568.
The conference report on the FY2004 Interior appropriations law (H.Rept. 108-330)
directed the NPS to use available funds to conduct a heritage area study of Muscle Shoals
(AL). Study legislation for Muscle Shoals also was enacted in the 107th Congress (P.L. 107-
348), but no money was appropriated for the study. Still another provision of the
appropriations law established the Blue Ridge NHA (NC). This provision includes private
property protections, stating that the bill does not abridge an individual’s rights regarding
private property, affect the authority of state or local governments regarding private property,
or impose “any additional burden” on private property owners. It does not contain the
specific notification and consent provisions contained in H.R. 280 as passed by the House.
Further, a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) for FY2004 (P.L. 108-
199) sets a termination date for the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
Commission of November 18, 2007.

Other pending bills have provisions impacting heritage area funding. Section 522 of
H.R. 4100, the “Get Outdoors Act of 2004,” would allow state use of historic preservation
assistance (under the National Historic Preservation Act) for national heritage areas and
corridors. Provisions of H.R. 3550, “The Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,”
9 Testimony of witnesses at the March 30, 2004 hearing is available on the website of the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/hearings.cfm].
CRS-13

---

IB10126
07-12-04
authorizes federal-aid highway funds for high-priority projects, including enhancements at
specified heritage corridors.
LEGISLATION
Measures to establish individual heritage areas or authorize studies of individual areas
are listed in Table 2, above. This section includes more general heritage area legislation.
P.L. 108-108, H.R. 2691
Contains provisions appropriating $14.4 million for heritage area management. Also
establishes the Blue Ridge NHA (NC) and directs the NPS to conduct a heritage area study
of Muscle Shoals (AL) using available funds. Signed into law November 10, 2003 (P.L.
108-108).
H.R. 280 (Hobson)
As passed by the House, establishes the National Aviation Heritage Area (OH/IN), the
Arabia Mountain NHA (GA), the Upper Housatonic Valley NHA (MA/CT), and the Oil
Region NHA (PA), and authorizes a study of the suitability and feasibility of designating the
St. Croix NHA. Passed House, amended, November 18, 2003; referred to Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources on November 19, 2003.
H.R. 1427 (Hefley)
The National Heritage Areas Policy Act establishes criteria and mechanisms for
designating national heritage areas. Introduced March 25, 2003; referred to Committee on
Resources.
H.R. 4492 (Regula)
Amends P.L. 104-333 to extend the authorization for nine NHAs from September 30,
2012 until September 30, 2027, and to increase the total authorized funding for each area
from $10 million to $20 million. Introduced June 2, 2004; referred to Committee on
Resources.
S. 2543 (Craig)
The National Heritage Partnership Act would establish a program and criteria for
NHAs. Introduced June 17, 2004; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Subcommittee hearing held June 24, 2004.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
108th Congress
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area
Act, H.Rept. 108-362, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 2003 (Washington, DC, 2003).
——Oil Region National Heritage Area Act, H.Rept. 108-366, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov.
17, 2003 (Washington, DC, 2003).
CRS-14

---

IB10126
07-12-04

——St. Croix National Heritage Area Act, H.Rept. 108-361, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 17,
2003 (Washington, DC, 2003).
——To Establish the National Aviation Heritage Area, and for Other Purposes, H.Rept.
108-370, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 2003 (Washington, DC, 2003).

——Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act, H.Rept. 108-365, 108th Cong.,
1st Sess., Nov. 17, 2003 (Washington, DC, 2003).

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
National Parks, National Heritage Areas, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., March 13,
2003 (Washington, DC, 2003).
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Management and Recreation, coordinated by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
Alliance of National Heritage Areas, Celebrating and Conserving Real Places, at
[http://www.nationalheritageareas.com/], visited on March 19, 2004.
American Policy Center, Property Rights, at [http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.
htm], visited on March 19, 2004.
Americans for Tax Reform. Statement of Daniel M. Clifton, House Committee on
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, September
16, 2003, Washington, DC, at
[http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/108cong/parks/2003sep16/agenda.htm], visited
on March 19, 2004.
The George Wright Society, “Stewardship of Heritage Areas,” The George Wright Forum,
v. 20, no. 2 (June 2003).
Hart, Judy, “Planning for and Preserving Cultural Resources through National Heritage
Areas,” Cultural Resource Management, v. 23, no. 7 (2000) pp. 29-32.
Knight, Peyton, “The Great National Land Grab,” Capitalism Magazine (June 13, 2003), at
[http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2850], visited on March 19, 2004.

Means, Mary, “Happy Trails,” Planning (Journal of the American Planning Association), v.
65, no. 8 (August 1, 1999).

CRS-15

---

IB10126
07-12-04
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Heritage Areas, at [http://www.ruralheritage.org/
workarea.html], visited on March 19, 2004.
——National Trust Forum, “Regional Heritage Areas: Connecting People to Places and
History,” Forum Journal, vol. 17, no. 4 (summer 2003).
The Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc., Heritage Rivers and Areas, at
[http://prfamerica.org/HeritageRiversAreasIndex.html], visited on March 19, 2004.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Areas, at [http://www.cr.nps.gov/
heritageareas/], visited on March 19, 2004. The 2003 Annual Report on National
Heritage Areas is on the NPS website at [http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/REP/
annrep2003.pdf], visited on April 19, 2004.
——Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2004, Washington,
D.C. 2003, pages NR&P 83-95.
——Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2005, Washington,
D.C. 2004, pages NR&P 57-74.
U.S. General Accounting Office. National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for
Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are
Needed. Statement of Barry T. Hill, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, March 30, 2004, Washington, DC (GAO-
04-593T), at [http://www.gao.gov/], visited on April 20, 2004.
CRS-16

---