Order Code RL33462
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
June 7, 2006
Carol Hardy Vincent and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Summary
Over the past 20 years, Congress has established 27 National Heritage Areas
(NHAs) to commemorate, conserve, and promote areas that include important
natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources. NHAs are partnerships
among the National Park Service (NPS), states, and local communities, where the
NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money,
and technical assistance. NHAs are not part of the National Park System, where
lands are federally owned and managed. Rather, lands within heritage areas typically
remain in state, local, or private ownership or a combination thereof. Heritage areas
have been supported as protecting lands and traditions and promoting tourism and
community revitalization, but opposed as potentially costly and possibly leading to
federal control over nonfederal lands. Other heritage areas have been designated by
states and local governments and announcements. This report focuses on heritage
areas designated by Congress, and related issues and legislation.
NHAs might receive funding from a wide variety of sources, and Congress and
the NPS do not ordinarily expect to provide NHAs with permanent federal funding.
Congress determines the total level of federal funding for NHAs in annual Interior
appropriations bills and typically specifies the funds for each area. NHAs can use
federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and projects. The
FY2006 appropriation for the NPS for assistance to heritage areas was $13.3 million.
For FY2007, the Administration requested $7.4 million, and the House approved
$13.9 million.
There is no comprehensive statute that establishes criteria for designating NHAs
or provides standards for their funding and management. Rather, particulars for each
area are provided in its enabling legislation. Congress designates a management
entity, usually nonfederal, to coordinate the work of the partners. This entity
typically develops and implements a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration
with other parties. Once approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the management
plan becomes the blueprint for managing the area.
Some 40 measures to designate NHAs or study the suitability and feasibility of
areas for heritage status have been introduced in the 109th Congress. Some of these
have passed the House — H.R. 412, H.R. 694, H.R. 938, H.R. 2099, and H.R. 5311.
A Senate-passed bill, S. 203, would establish 10 new areas and authorize 3 area
studies. The sizeable number of existing NHAs, together with the number of
measures proposed in recent Congresses to study and designate new ones, has
intensified interest by the Administration and some Members in enacting a law
providing criteria for designating NHAs, standards for their management, and limits
on federal funding support. Two such measures have been introduced in the 109th
Congress — H.R. 760 and S. 243 — and the Senate bill has passed the Senate. A
related bill passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, but no further action was taken.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10126, Heritage Areas: Background,
Proposals, and Current Issues. It will be updated periodically.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Support, Opposition, and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Role of the National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Area-Specific Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bills to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing National Heritage Areas, by Date of Authorization . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Bills in the 109th Congress to Establish Heritage Areas
or Authorize Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

---

Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Most Recent Developments
For FY2007, the President requested $7.4 million for the NPS for Heritage
Partnership Programs, a 44% decrease from the $13.3 million appropriated for
FY2006. The President also proposed combining the Heritage Partnership Program
with the Preserve America and Save America’s Treasures programs to form the
American Heritage and Preservation Partnership Program, under the Historic
Preservation Fund. In the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5386), the House
approved $13.9 million for the NPS for national heritage areas. The House did not
support combining funding for heritage areas within the Historic Preservation Fund.
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 these areas and 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 eastern
United States. Interest in establishing heritage areas was commensurate with
growing public interest in cultural heritage tourism.

---

CRS-2
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
Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislation
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage
IL
Aug. 24, 1984
P.L. 98-398
Corridor
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley
MA/RI
Nov. 10, 1986
P.L. 99-647
National Heritage Corridor
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage
PA
Nov. 18, 1988
P.L. 100-692
Corridor
Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage
PA
Nov. 19, 1988
P.L. 100-698
Preservation Commission (Path of Progress)
Cane River NHA
LA
Nov. 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449
Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley
CT/MA
Nov. 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449
National Heritage Corridor
Cache La Poudre River Corridor
CO
Oct. 19, 1996
P.L. 104-323
America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership
IA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
(Silos and Smokestacks)
Augusta Canal NHA
GA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Essex NHA
MA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Hudson River Valley NHA
NY
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
National Coal Heritage Area
P.L. 104-333
WV
Nov. 12, 1996
Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage
P.L. 104-333
OH
Nov. 12, 1996
Corridor
Rivers of Steel NHA
PA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National
VA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Historic District
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor
SC
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area
TN
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
(MotorCities-)Automobile NHA
MI
Nov. 6, 1998
P.L. 105-355
Lackawanna Valley NHA
PA
Oct. 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
Schuylkill River Valley NHA
PA
Oct. 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
Wheeling NHA
WV
Oct. 11, 2000
P.L. 106-291
Yuma Crossing NHA
AZ
Oct. 19, 2000
P.L. 106-319
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
NY
Dec. 21, 2000
P.L. 106-554
Blue Ridge NHA
NC
Nov. 10, 2003
P.L. 108-108

---

CRS-3
Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislation
National Aviation Heritage Area
OH/IN
Dec. 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Oil Region NHA
PA
Dec. 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA
MS
Dec. 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 March
8, 2006; 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 or
a combination thereof. 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 creating and operating new units
of the National Park System. That System now has 390 diverse units: national parks,
national monuments, national historic sites, national battlefields, national preserves,
and other designations. (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 reflect an evolution
in 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 nonfederally owned,
managed by local people with many partners and NPS advice, funded from many
sources, and intended to promote local economic development as well as to 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 as well as conservation and preservation. The
Bush Administration generally has supported NHAs because they embody
partnerships between communities and the federal government, locally-driven

---

CRS-4
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 was enacted. (See “Legislative
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 40 bills introduced in the 109th
Congress, and the approximately 60 proposals introduced in the 108th Congress, to
designate heritage areas or study lands for heritage status indicate 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 any efforts to designate new areas and/or
to 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. Further, a
White House initiative, Preserve America (Executive Order 13287, March 3, 2003),
directs federal agencies to improve management of historic properties through
adaptive reuse initiatives and to promote heritage tourism through partnerships with
communities. The first Preserve America grants, awarded on March 9, 2006,
included grants for nine projects within NHAs.1 These grants were provided on a
matching basis to assist communities with protection and use of community heritage.
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
March 8, 2006.) 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 typically are provided in its enabling legislation. While there tended to be more
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 usually involve partnerships among 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.
1 For information on the Preserve America initiative, see [http://www.preserveamerica.gov/].

---

CRS-5
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 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 Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that during
the six-year period from FY1997 through 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.2 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
2005.3 State and local governments also contributed about one-third (36%) of NHA
funds, with private funding sources providing 26% and the remaining 4% from other
sources. For 2005, the report indicates that the combined state and local (42%)
shares of NHA funding were higher than federal (33%) and private contributions
(24%).
Congress determines the total level of federal funding for NHAs and typically
specifies in appropriations documents the allocation 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 sponsor special
events to showcase an area’s natural and cultural heritage. In testimony presented in
March 2003, a DOI official testified to the success of NHAs in using funds provided
by the NPS to leverage additional funding from other sources.4
2 The data reflect funding for 22 of the then existing 24 heritage areas. See GAO, 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/] on June 5, 2006.
3 See Alliance of National Heritage Areas, Telling America’s Story: Annual Report 2005,
p. 10, at [http://www.nationalheritageareas.org/reports.htm] on June 5, 2006.
4 Testimony of Paul Hoffman, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the Senate Energy and
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
Support, Opposition, and Challenges5
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 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 often 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. Some 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, while other
proponents favor a standardized program and process.
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
4 (...continued)
Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, March 13, 2003, available at
[http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=627&wit_id=1714] on June 5, 2006.
5 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.nationaltrust.org./]. 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/archives/108/
testimony/danielclifton.htm].

---

CRS-7
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 may one day 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 NPS 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, lodging, and restaurants. 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.6
Role of the National Park Service
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
6 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.

---

CRS-8
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.7 Similar provisions are included in one bill which passed
the Senate in the 109th Congress and another which has been introduced in the House.
(See “Legislative Activity,” below.)
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, 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 witness8 outlined the
Administration’s draft legislation to create a National Heritage Areas Program. At
another 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 (108th Congress) on behalf of DOI.9

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 conducted a review of NHAs, the
Heritage Partnership Program, and future NPS involvement with NHAs. The DOI
accepted the committee’s findings and recommendations and recommended their
transmittal to Congress. An interim report contains the committee’s findings and
7 Testimony of A. Durand Jones, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, March 30, 2004,
at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1128] on June 5, 2006.
8 Ibid.
9 Testimony of A. Durand Jones, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, June 24, 2004,
at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1243&wit_id=169] on June 5, 2006.

---

CRS-9
recommendations.10 A key recommendation is to establish a legislative foundation
for a system of NHAs in the Park Service, based on specified concepts.
Legislative Activity
Congress has 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. Legislative and oversight hearings also have been held on heritage
bills and issues.
Area-Specific Legislation
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.
In addition to establishing several new areas, 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.

The 109th Congress has continued a high level of interest in heritage area bills
and issues. As shown in Table 2, more than 40 bills have been introduced to
designate or study 28 areas in 31 states and territories. On July 26, 2005, the Senate
passed S. 203, to establish 10 new heritage areas: Northern Rio Grande NHA,
10 A copy of the interim report was available at the NPS website on June 5, 2006, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/].

---

CRS-10
Atchafalaya NHA, Arabia Mountain NHA, Mormon Pioneer NHA, Bleeding Kansas
NHA, Upper Housatonic Valley NHA, Champlain Valley National Heritage
Partnership, Great Basin National Heritage Route, Gullah/Geechee Heritage
Corridor, and Crossroads of the American Revolution NHA. The bill also would
authorize studies of the suitability and feasibility of establishing three other areas:
the Western Reserve NHA, St. Croix NHA, and Southern Campaign of the
Revolution NHA. Further, it would amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal National
Heritage Corridor regarding transition of the management entity from a federal
commission to a nonprofit organization; such provisions were incorporated into H.R.
938 and H.R. 2099 as passed by the House.
Five bills to designate heritage areas and/or study areas for possible heritage
designation have passed the House. H.R. 412 would authorize a study of whether to
establish the Western Reserve NHA. H.R. 2099 would designate the Arabia
Mountain NHA. H.R. 694 would designate the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage
Area. H.R. 5311 would designate the Upper Housatonic Valley NHA. H.R. 938
would authorize a study of whether to establish the St. Croix NHA and designate the
Northern Rio Grande and Upper Housatonic Valley NHAs. 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.
Other pending legislation would amend existing heritage areas. H.R. 3843
would amend the boundary of the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor to
include three counties, with related changes to the area’s management plan. As
introduced, H.R. 326 and S. 505 would 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 from 2015 until 2020. H.R. 326 passed the House with
an amendment to strike the extension for the Secretary to provide assistance. The bill
was reported without amendment by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on April 20, 2006. In earlier action, a Senate subcommittee held a
hearing on S. 505. H.R. 1205 and S. 574 seek to amend the Quinebaug and
Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act to increase the authorization
of appropriations and extend the authorization for the heritage corridors. For the
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, S. 1387, S.
1721, and H.R. 3775 would provide for an update of the management plan, extend
the authority of the commission, and authorize additional appropriations. H.R. 4539
and S. 2102 seek to make changes to the Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA,
including to designate a new management entity and enhance private property
protections.
For each of nine heritage areas, H.R. 888 and S. 1721 would extend the
authorization from September 30, 2012, to September 30, 2027, and increase the total
authorization of appropriations from $10 million to $20 million. They 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. S.
1721 has additional provisions as discussed above and shown in the table below.

---

CRS-11
On August 10, 2005, the President signed H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59). The law would authorize funds for federal-aid
highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, among other purposes.
The omnibus bill authorized appropriations for several years for congressional “high
priority projects” under Title I, Federal-Aid Highways. Title I included
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, included project authorizations for new
fixed guideway capital projects. Among the projects authorized by H.R. 3 for
alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering is the Aviation Heritage Corridor
Streetcar Project in Dayton, OH. (For more information on the operation of federal
highway and transit programs, see CRS Report RL33119, Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU
or SAFETEA): Selected Major Provisions, by John W. Fischer.)
Table 2. Bills in the 109th Congress to Establish Heritage Areas
or Authorize Studies
(as of June 6, 2006)
Title
State
Type
Bill Number
Status
Abraham Lincoln NHA Act
IL
Desig.
H.R. 1192/S. 973
Introduced
Arabia Mountain NHA Act
GA
Desig.
H.R. 2099
Passed House;
H.R. 2297
Introduced;
S. 200
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-3);
S. 203
Passed Senate
Atchafalaya NHA Act
LA
Desig.
H.R. 522
Introduced;
S. 204
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-5);
S. 203
Passed Senate
Bleeding Kansas NHA Act
KS, MO
Desig.
H.R. 413
Ordered Reported;
S. 175
Hearing Held;
S. 203
Passed Senate
Champlain Valley National Heritage
NY, VT
Desig.
S. 322
Hearing Held;
Partnership Act
S. 203
Passed Senate
Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage
AL, GA
Study
H.R. 4864/S. 2148
Introduced
Corridor Study Act
Cherokee Overhill Territory NHA
TN
Desig.
H.R. 3158
Introduced
Columbia-Pacific NHA Study Act
OR, WA
Study
H.R. 5485/S. 3035
Introduced
Confluence National Heritage Corridor Act
IL, MO
Desig.
S. 2114
Introduced
Crossroads of the American Revolution
NJ
Desig.
H.R. 87/S. 825
Introduced;
NHA Act
S. 203
Passed Senate
Freedom’s Way NHA Act
MA, NH
Desig.
H.R. 956/S. 1898
Introduced
Great Basin National Heritage Route Act
NV, UT
Desig.
S. 249
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-6);
S. 203
Passed Senate
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act
FL, GA,
Desig.
H.R. 694
Passed House;
NC, SC
S. 203
Passed Senate

---

CRS-12
Title
State
Type
Bill Number
Status
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA
MD, PA,
Desig.
H.R. 5195/S. 2645
Introduced
Act
VA, WV
Land Between the Rivers Southern Illinois
IL
Desig.
S. 2985
Introduced
NHA Act
Mississippi River NHA Act
MS
Desig.
S. 1721
Introduced
Mormon Pioneer NHA Act
UT
Desig.
S. 163
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-2);
S. 203
Passed Senate
Northeastern North Carolina Heritage Area
NC
Study
H.R. 1087
Introduced
Study Act
Northern Neck NHA Study Act
VA
Study
H.R. 73
Introduced
Northern Plains NHA Act
ND
Desig.
S. 1544
Hearing Held
Northern Rio Grande NHA Act
NM
Desig.
H.R. 732
Introduced;
H.R. 938
Passed House;
S. 63
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-1);
S. 203
Passed Senate
Sangre de Cristo NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 4383/S. 2037
Introduced
South Park NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 4818/S. 2336
Introduced
Southern Campaign of the Revolution
SC
Study
H.R. 1289/S. 1121
Introduced;
Heritage Area Study Act
S. 203
Passed Senate
St. Croix NHA Study Act
VI
Study
H.R. 61
Introduced;
H.R. 938
Passed House;
S. 203
Passed Senate
Trail of the Ancients NHA Study Act
AZ, CO,
Study
S. 1414
Introduced
NM, UT
Upper Housatonic Valley NHA Act
CT, MA
Desig.
H.R. 938
Passed House;
H.R. 5311
Senate Calendar;
S. 429
Hearing Held;
S. 203
Passed Senate
Western Reserve Heritage Area Study Act
OH
Study
H.R. 412
Passed House;
S. 203
Passed Senate
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress, 109th
Congress data file.
Bills to Establish Systemic NHA 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; see discussion
of H.R. 760 below.

---

CRS-13
H.R. 1427, to establish procedures for designating, managing, and funding
heritage areas, also 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.
Companion bills — H.R. 760 and S. 243 — have been introduced in the 109th
Congress to establish a unified process for creating, operating, and funding NHAs and
a heritage area program (H.R. 760) or system (S. 243). The Senate passed S. 243 on
July 26, 2005, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. H.R. 760 is essentially
identical to legislation passed by the Senate but not enacted in the 108th Congress (S.
2543), while S. 243 contains additional provisions. Both 109th Congress bills 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 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. H.R. 760 would cap funding
for all NHAs at $15 million per year, while the Senate-passed bill includes $25 million.
The Senate-passed bill also includes provisions on partnership support, authorizing the

---

CRS-14
Secretary of the Interior to award competitive grants to local coordinating entities
whose financial assistance has ended. The grants could be used for individual projects
at NHAs that further the purposes of the management plan.
The bills 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). The Senate-passed bill also sets out the relationship
between the NHA system and the National Park System, stating explicitly that NHAs
are not to be considered units of the Park System.

Funding
As part of its annual budget justification, the Administration submits its desired
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.

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).
For FY2007, the Administration requested $7.4 million for NHAs, $2.4 million
more than requested for FY2006, but a significant decrease (44%) from the FY2006
appropriated level of $13.3 million. Historically, the Bush Administration’s requests
for NHA funding have been significantly lower than the previous year’s appropriation;
however, Congress has restored or increased NHA funds. For FY2007, the President
also proposed combining the Heritage Partnership Program with the Preserve America
and Save America’s Treasures programs to form the American Heritage and
Preservation Partnership Program, under the Historic Preservation Fund. The
Administration asserted that the change would allow local communities to determine
the best approach, apply to the most appropriate programs, and improve coordination
and efficiency in meeting the goals of enhancing and expanding cultural preservation.
In passing the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5386), the House
approved $13.9 million for the NPS for national heritage areas. The accompanying
report (H.Rept. 109-465) recommended levels of funding for 24 of the 27 NHAs,
ranging from $200,000 to $800,000. The House did not support the President’s
proposal to combine funding for heritage areas with other programs within the Historic
Preservation Fund, but kept the Heritage Partnership Program within the NPS National
Recreation and Preservation line item.

---

CRS-15
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.
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.nationalheritage
areas.com/] and Telling America’s Story: Annual Report 2004, at [http://www.
nationalheritageareas.org/reports.htm], visited on February 6, 2006. Includes a
“Bibliography of Heritage Development Sources.”
American Policy Center, Property Rights, at
[http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.htm], visited on March 8, 2006.
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/
archives/108/testimony/danielclifton.htm], visited on March 8, 2006.
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 March 8, 2006.
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.

---

CRS-16
Knight, Peyton, “The Great National Land Grab,” Capitalism Magazine (June 13,
2003), at [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2850], visited on March 8,
2006.
Means, Mary, “Happy Trails,” Planning (Journal of the American Planning
Association), v. 65, no. 8 (August 1, 1999).
——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 8, 2006.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Areas, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/], visited on March 8, 2006. Includes a
monthly heritage areas bulletin.
U.S. Government Accountability 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 March 8,
2006.

---