Order Code IB10126
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Updated March 24, 2005
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
109th Congress Overview
109th Congress Proposals to Establish Systemic Procedures
108th Congress Overview
108th Congress Measures Enacted
108th Congress Proposals to Establish Systemic Procedures
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
108th Congress
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10126
03-24-05
Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
SUMMARY
Over the past 20 years, Congress has
and typically specifies in appropriations docu-
established 27 National Heritage Areas
ments the funds for each area. NHAs can use
(NHAs) to commemorate, conserve, and
federal funds for many purposes, including
promote important areas that include natural,
staffing, planning, and projects.
scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational
resources. NHAs are partnerships between the
Heritage areas have been supported as
National Park Service (NPS), states, and local
protecting lands and traditions and promoting
communities, where the NPS supports state
tourism and community revitalization, but
and local conservation through federal recog-
opposed as potentially costly and possibly
nition, seed money, and technical assistance.
leading to federal control over nonfederal
NHAs are not part of the National Park Sys-
lands.
tem, where lands are federally owned and
managed. Rather, lands within heritage areas
Measures to designate NHAs and study
typically remain in state, local, or private
the suitability and feasibility of areas for
ownership. In addition, other heritage areas
heritage status have been introduced in the
have been designated by states and local
109th Congress. Some of these have passed
governments and announcements. This issue
the House or been reported from committee.
brief focuses on heritage areas designated by
The 108th Congress considered about 60 such
Congress, and related issues and legislation.
measures, some of which passed the House
and/or Senate. Debate on private property
There is no comprehensive statute that
rights provisions was contentious during
establishes criteria for designating NHAs or
consideration of some of these bills. The 108th
provides standards for their funding and man-
Congress also created four new NHAs, and
agement. Rather, particulars for each area are
provided appropriations for NHA assistance
provided in its enabling legislation. Congress
for both FY2004 and FY2005.
designates a management entity, usually non-
federal, to coordinate the work of the partners.
The sizeable number of existing NHAs,
This entity typically develops and implements
together with the number of measures pro-
a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration
posed in recent Congresses to study and desig-
with other parties. Once approved by the
nate new ones, has intensified interest by the
Secretary of the Interior, the management plan
Administration and some Members in enact-
becomes the blueprint for managing the area.
ing a law providing criteria for designating
NHAs, standards for their management, and
NHAs might receive funding from a wide
limits on federal funding support. Two such
variety of sources, and Congress and the NPS
measures have been introduced in the 109th
do not ordinarily expect to provide NHAs
Congress, one of which has been reported by
with permanent federal funding. Congress
committee. They are essentially identical to a
determines the total level of federal funding
bill that passed the Senate in the 108th Con-
for NHAs under annual appropriations bills
gress, but no further action was taken.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10126
03-24-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Two heritage bills passed the House on March 14, 2005. H.R. 412 would authorize a
study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Western Reserve Heritage Area
(OH). H.R. 694 would designate the Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor (FL, GA, NC, SC).
Another five measures to designate heritage areas have been reported by the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: S. 63 would designate the Northern Rio
Grande NHA (NM); S. 163 would designate the Mormon Pioneer NHA (UT); S. 200 would
designate the Arabia Mountain NHA (GA); S. 204 would designate the Atchafalaya NHA
(LA); and S. 249 would designate the Great Basin National Heritage Route (NV, UT). Other
measures to designate heritage areas or study specific areas for potential heritage status also
have been introduced.
Legislation to establish a heritage areas program and criteria and mechanisms for
designating NHAs has been reintroduced in the 109th Congress. S. 243 was reported by the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 9, 2005. A companion House bill,
H.R. 760, was introduced on February 10, 2005.
For FY2006, the Administration requested $5.0 million for the NPS for NHA activities,
a decrease from the FY2005 level of $14.6 million.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Background
Over the last two decades, Congress has designated 27 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 associated with 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, especially in the
CRS-1

---

IB10126
03-24-05
eastern United States. Interest in establishing heritage areas was commensurate with growing
public interest in cultural heritage tourism.
Since 1984, Congress has designated a total of 27 NHAs. 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, by Date of Authorization
National Heritage Area
State
Date of
Enabling
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
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
CRS-2

---

IB10126
03-24-05
National Heritage Area
State
Date of
Enabling
Authorization
Legislation
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area
NC
November 10, 2003
P.L. 108-108
National Aviation Heritage Area
OH/IN
December 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Oil Region National Heritage Area
PA
December 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area
MS
December 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Sources: P.L. 108-447, and 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.
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 “Support, Opposition, and Challenges,” below.)
Heritage areas are among the types of entities that use 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, National Park System:
Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
While the concept of heritage areas is more than two decades old, NHAs are still 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 set aside for protection and
enjoyment. By contrast, NHAs typically are non-federally owned, 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.

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 has supported NHAs because they embody partnerships between communities and
the federal government, locally driven resource preservation, and local (rather than federal)
control of land. At hearings early in the 109th Congress, however, the Administration
recommended deferring action on certain bills seeking to establish heritage areas, despite
favorable studies of the areas, until systemic NHA legislation is enacted. (See “Legislative
CRS-3

---

IB10126
03-24-05
Activity,” below.) 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. More than twenty bills introduced early in the 109th Congress,
and approximately 60 proposals introduced 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 study and designate new ones, has fostered interest by some Members and the
Administration in establishing a standardized process and criteria for designating NHAs.
(See “Legislative Activity,” below.) However, some opponents believe NHAs present such
numerous problems and challenges that Congress should oppose efforts to designate new
areas and create a “system” of NHAs. (See “Support, Opposition, and Challenges,” below.)
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 (Executive Order 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. (See [http://www.heritagedevelopmentinstitute.org/
home], visited on January 21, 2005.) 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 comprehensive 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 state or local government agencies,
nonprofit corporations, and independent federal commissions. 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
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
CRS-4

---

IB10126
03-24-05
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 (now called the Government Accountability 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 A report of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas with data over
a longer period shows the federal contribution at about one-third (34%) of total funding from
1985 through 2004. State and local governments also contributed about one-third (35%) of
NHA funds, with private funding sources providing 27% and the remaining 4% deriving
from other sources. For 2004, the report indicates that the federal (30%) and state and local
(27%) shares of NHA funding were significantly less than private contributions (42%). The
remaining 1% of NHA funding during 2004 was provided by other sources.2
Congress determines the total level of federal funding for NHAs and typically specifies
in appropriations documents the funds 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.3
Support, Opposition, and Challenges4
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
1 The data reflect funding for 22 of the then existing 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 (Washington,
DC, March 30, 2004), at [http://www.gao.gov/].
2 See Alliance of National Heritage Areas, Telling America’s Story: Annual Report 2004, p. 10, at
[http://www.nationalheritageareas.org/reports.htm].
3 Testimony of Paul Hoffman, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, March 13, 2003, available at [http://energy.
senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=627&wit_id=1714].
4 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]. 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].
CRS-5

---

IB10126
03-24-05
NHAs as important for protecting history, traditions, and cultural landscapes, especially
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. 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. Some fear that any private property protections in legislation
would not be routinely adhered to by the federal government. 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 establish and define the criteria for creating NHAs, specify
what NHAs are and do, and 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 the
management entities accountable for the federal funds they receive and the decisions they
make.

Some observers recommend caution in creating NHAs, because in practice NHAs 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,
CRS-6

---

IB10126
03-24-05
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 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.5
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 has sought to limit each heritage area to no more than $1 million per
year, not to exceed $10 million per area over 15 years. In 2004, the Administration presented
a draft National Heritage Partnership Act that 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.6 Similar provisions were included in S. 2543, which passed
the Senate but was not enacted in the 108th Congress. This legislation has been reintroduced
in the 109th Congress. (See “Legislative Activity,” below.)
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 implementing projects. For FY2006, the Administration has requested $5.0
million for NHAs, a significant decrease from the FY2005 level of $14.6 million.
Historically, the Bush Administration’s requests for NHA funding have been significantly
lower than the previous year’s appropriation; however, Congress typically has restored or
increased NHA funds.
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
5 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.
6 Testimony of A. Durand Jones, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, March 30, 2004,
at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1128].
CRS-7

---

IB10126
03-24-05
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,
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 witness7 outlined the Administration’s draft legislation to
create a National Heritage Areas Program. At an earlier subcommittee hearing, the Deputy
Director of the NPS expressed “strong support” for legislation to establish a national heritage
program, while suggesting modifications to S. 2543 on behalf of DOI.8

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

109th Congress Overview. The 109th Congress appears to continue a high level of
interest in heritage area bills and issues. As of March 23, 2005, five measures to designate
heritage areas have been reported by committee. Also, one bill to designate a heritage area,
and another measure to study an area for possible heritage designation, have passed the
House. Other bills to designate heritage areas or study specific areas for possible heritage
status have been introduced. Some of them would create heritage “corridors,” “routes,” or
“partnerships.” A number of existing heritage areas have similar titles, and the NPS
considers all of them to be NHAs. These bills are shown in Table 2, below. General
heritage area legislation (in contrast to area designations or studies) is discussed following
the table and is identified in the “Legislation” section, below.
Other pending legislation pertains to existing heritage areas. H.R. 326 and S. 505 seek
to amend the boundary of the Yuma Crossing NHA, and the House bill also would extend
the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance until 2020. H.R. 1205 and
S. 574 seek to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor
7 Ibid.
8 Testimony of A. Durand Jones, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the 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].
CRS-8

---

IB10126
03-24-05
Act to increase the authorization of appropriations and extend the date on which the authority
of the Secretary of the Interior terminates. For each of several heritage areas, H.R. 888
would extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior from September 30, 2012, to
September 30, 2027, and increase the total authorization of appropriations from $10 million
to $20 million. It also would rename the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor
as the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, and make other changes regarding that
area, the National Coal Heritage Area, and the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor.
On March 15, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on establishing three heritage
areas that feasibility studies determined to be appropriate for designation. They are in the
“Bleeding Kansas” area (KS, MO; S. 175), Champlain Valley (NY, VT; S. 322), and Upper
Housatonic Valley (CT, MA; S. 429). Several witnesses testified in favor of establishing one
or more of the areas as NHAs, while one witness testified against NHAs generally. The
Administration recommended deferring action on the bills until the enactment of systemic
NHA legislation that would set guidelines and a process for designating NHAs. The
Administration also recommended deferring action due to current fiscal constraints and for
consistency with the Administration’s FY2006 budget. While the budget includes a sizeable
decrease in funding for the NPS for NHAs, the Administration asserts that through several
efforts and programs the budget “will go a long way toward supporting local efforts to
preserve” heritage resources.9 At a March 1, 2005, Senate committee hearing on the DOI
budget, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton stated that the NPS is seeking money for
heritage areas from sources including one proposed program — Preserve America.
On March 10, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users, to authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit
programs, among other purposes. The omnibus bill authorizes appropriations for FY2005
through FY2009 for congressional “high priority projects” under Title I, Federal-Aid
Highways. Title I includes authorizations for projects at the Erie Canalway National
Heritage Corridor and the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor. Title III, Federal Transit Administration Programs, includes project authorizations
for new fixed guideway capital projects. Among the projects authorized for alternatives
analysis and preliminary engineering for FY2004 through FY2009 is the Aviation Heritage
Corridor Streetcar Project in Dayton, Ohio. (For more information on the operation of
federal highway and transit programs, see CRS Issue Brief IB10138, Surface Transportation:
Reauthorization of TEA-21, by John W. Fischer.)
9 Testimony of Janet Snyder Mattthews, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, March 15,
2005, at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1412], visited March 22, 2005.
CRS-9

---

IB10126
03-24-05
Table 2. Bills to Establish Heritage Areas or Authorize Studies, 109th Congress
(as of March 23, 2005)
Bill Number
State
Type
Title
Status
H.R. 61
VI
Study
St. Croix NHA Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 73
VA
Study
Northern Neck NHA Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 87
NJ
Desig.
Crossroads of the American Revolution NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 412
OH
Study
Western Reserve Heritage Area Study Act
Passed House
H.R. 413
KS/MO
Desig.
Bleeding Kansas NHA Act
Introduced
S. 175
Hearing Held
H.R. 522
LA
Desig.
Atchafalaya NHA Act
Introduced
S. 204
Committee Reported
H.R. 694
FL, GA,
Desig.
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act
Passed House
NC, SC
H.R. 732/
NM
Desig.
Northern Rio Grande NHA Act
Introduced
S. 63
Committee Reported
H.R. 938/
CT/MA
Desig.
Upper Housatonic Valley NHA Act
Introduced
S. 429
Hearing Held
H.R. 956
MA/NH
Desig.
Freedom’s Way NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 1087
NC
Study
Northeastern North Carolina Heritage Area Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 1192
IL
Desig.
Abraham Lincoln NHA Act
Introduced
H.R. 1289
SC
Study
Southern Campaign of the Revolution Heritage Area
Introduced
Study Act
S. 163
UT
Desig.
Mormon Pioneer NHA Act
Committee Reported
S. 200
GA
Desig.
Arabia Mountain NHA Act
Committee Reported
S. 249
NV, UT
Desig.
Great Basin National Heritage Route Act
Committee Reported
S. 322
NY, VT
Desig.
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act
Hearing Held
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress, 109th Congress data file.
109th Congress Proposals to Establish Systemic Procedures. House and
Senate companion bills, H.R. 760 and S. 243, have been introduced to establish a heritage
areas program and a unified process for creating, operating, and funding NHAs. S. 243 was
reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 9, 2005. These bills
are essentially identical to legislation (S. 2543) passed by the Senate but not enacted in the
108th Congress. They 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. They set out criteria by which such areas would
be evaluated, including 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. The criteria include evidence of resources and traditional uses that are
CRS-10

---

IB10126
03-24-05
of “national importance,” a term used to avoid confusion with the “national significance”
needed for designating units of the National Park System.
The measures would provide 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, to encourage
self-sufficiency of heritage areas. For each NHA, the bills would authorize funding of not
more than $1 million per year, with a total of not more than $10 million over 15 years. The
bills would cap funding for all NHAs at $15 million per year. They seek to protect private
property owners, for instance, by not requiring their participation in NHA plans and
activities. They also seek to protect existing regulatory authorities — for example, by not
altering “any duly adopted land use regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory
authority.” They set out the responsibilities of local coordinating entities and the authorities
of the Secretary of the Interior (through the NPS).
108th Congress Overview. The 108th Congress considered measures to designate
and study heritage areas, as well as to extend the authorization of existing NHAs, establish
uniform criteria and procedures for designating and managing heritage areas, and appropriate
funds for heritage areas. The 108th Congress also held legislative and oversight hearings on
heritage bills and issues.
In addition to enacting several measures (see below), the 108th Congress considered, but
did not enact, about 60 bills for more than 20 different areas, to establish other NHAs or to
study the suitability and feasibility of areas for heritage status. Some of these bills passed
the House and/or Senate. Other legislation sought to extend the authorization for certain
NHAs from September 30, 2012, until September 30, 2027, and increase the total funding
authorized for each area from $10 million to $20 million. Still other measures proposed
changes to existing NHAs to add explicit property rights protections, revise boundaries, or
amend management authorities.
108th Congress Measures Enacted. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of
FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) established three new NHAs: the National Aviation Heritage Area
(OH/IN), the Oil Region NHA (PA), and the Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA (MS). The
language for all three heritage areas seeks to protect private property rights, although the
Mississippi Gulf Coast provisions do not include property owner notification and consent
language. Such language for the other two areas 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 within the
boundary of the heritage area “shall have their property immediately removed” upon written
request. Further, private property owners cannot be compelled to allow public access to their
property or to participate in, or be associated with, the NHA. Private property provisions
have been 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. In earlier action, provisions of P.L. 108-108
established the Blue Ridge NHA (NC) with specified private property protections.
CRS-11

---

IB10126
03-24-05
As in previous Congresses, the 108th Congress enacted appropriations for the NPS to
partially fund heritage areas. The FY2005 request for NHA funding was $2.5 million, an
$11.8 million decrease from the FY2004 enacted level. P.L. 108-447 provided $14.6 million
for 25 of the 27 existing heritage areas for FY2005, including $500,000 for three NHAs
established in the law. For FY2004, Congress enacted $14.3 million for the NPS for heritage
areas (P.L. 108-108).

108th Congress Proposals to Establish Systemic Procedures. Legislation
governing the evaluation, designation, and management of new NHAs was considered but
not enacted during the 108th Congress. S. 2543, which passed the Senate on September 15,
2004, sought to establish a unified process for creating, operating, and funding NHAs. It was
similar to draft legislation prepared by the Administration. This legislation was reintroduced
in the 109th Congress (S. 243 and H.R. 760) and is discussed above.
H.R. 1427, to establish procedures for designating, managing, and funding heritage
areas, was introduced in the 108th Congress but no further action was taken. The bill would
have authorized 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. Prior to the Secretary’s recommendation, private property
owners would have been notified and given an opportunity to decide whether to include their
property in heritage area activities. The bill outlined requirements for conducting and
approving feasibility studies. It would have required the local coordinating entity for the
proposed area to prepare a management plan and would have provided for action by the
Secretary to approve/disapprove the plan.

H.R. 1427 would have authorized the Secretary to make grants during the five-year
period following authorization of a feasibility study for a “proposed” NHA. For established
heritage areas, the bill would have authorized the Secretary to make grants during a 10-year
period, and would have authorized appropriations of not more than $1 million yearly per area
with not more than $10 million total per NHA. Grant recipients would have been required
to provide matching funds, while the Secretary would have been authorized to provide
technical assistance on a nonreimbursable basis. The bill also contained provisions seeking
to protect private property, and outlined circumstances and procedures under which the
Secretary would terminate funding for an NHA.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report. A GAO report on NHAs,
released March 30, 2004, 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.
CRS-12

---

IB10126
03-24-05
LEGISLATION
Measures to establish individual heritage areas or authorize studies of individual areas,
as of March 23, 2005, are listed in Table 2, above. This section includes general heritage
area legislation introduced in the 109th Congress.
H.R. 760 (Hefley); S. 243 (Thomas)
The National Heritage Partnership Act would establish a program and criteria for
NHAs. H.R. 760 introduced Feb. 10, 2005; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 243
reported March 9, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-26), by the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
H.R. 888 (Regula)
For several existing NHAs, seeks to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior
and to increase total authorization of appropriations, among other changes. Introduced Feb.
17, 2005; referred to Committee on Resources.
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 (Wash., DC: 2003).
——Oil Region National Heritage Area Act, H.Rept. 108-366, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov.
17, 2003 (Wash., DC: 2003).

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

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

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Heritage
Partnership Act, S.Rept. 108-329, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., Aug. 25, 2004 (Wash., DC:
2004).
——Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act, S.Rept. 108-294, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., July
7, 2004 (Wash., DC : 2004).
——National Aviation Heritage Area Act, S.Rept. 108-292, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 7,
2004 (Wash., DC: 2004).
CRS-13

---

IB10126
03-24-05
——Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area Act, S.Rept. 108-293, 108th Cong., 2nd
Sess., July 7, 2004 (Wash., DC: 2004).
——Subcommittee on National Parks, Heritage Area Bill, hearing,108th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
June 24, 2004 (Wash., DC: 2004).
——National Heritage Areas, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., March 13, 2003 (Wash., DC:
2003).

——National Heritage Areas, hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 30, 2004 (Wash., DC:
2004).
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert and
Carol Hardy Vincent.
Alliance of National Heritage Areas, Best Practices, at
[http://www.nationalheritageareas.com/] and Telling America’s Story: Annual Report
2004, at [http://www.nationalheritageareas.org/reports.htm], visited March 24, 2005.
American Policy Center, Property Rights, at
[http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.htm], visited on January 19, 2005.
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 January 19, 2005.
Barrett, Brenda, and Suzanne Copping. National Heritage Areas: Developing a Model for
Measuring Success, at [http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/REP/research.htm], visited
on January 19, 2005.
Bray, Paul M. The Heritage Area Phenomenon: Where Is It Coming From, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/REP/research.htm], visited on January 19, 2005.
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.
CRS-14

---

IB10126
03-24-05

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

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Heritage Areas, at
[http://www.ruralheritage.org/workarea.html], visited on January 19, 2005.
——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 January 19, 2005.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Areas, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/], visited on January 19, 2005. 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 January 19,
2005.
——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 January 19, 2005.
CRS-15

---