Order Code RL33462
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Updated November 29, 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 two decades, Congress has established 37 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 laws 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; the House approved $13.9
million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $14.1 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.
The 109th Congress enacted S. 203 (P.L. 109-338) to create 10 new heritage
areas and authorize studies of 3 other areas. In total, nearly 50 measures to designate
NHAs or study the suitability and feasibility of areas for heritage status have been
introduced. The sizeable number of existing NHAs, together with the number of
proposals 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. Three such measures have been introduced in the 109th Congress — H.R.
760, H.R. 6287, and S. 243 — and the Senate bill has passed the Senate. In July
2006, the Administration presented to Congress related draft legislation, which
reflects the recommendations of the National Park System Advisory Board. This
report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10126, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals,
and Current Issues
.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Support, Opposition, and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Role of the National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Area-Specific Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bills to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Background
Over the last two decades, Congress has designated 37 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.
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.

CRS-2
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
Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA
MS
Dec. 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
National Aviation Heritage Area
OH/IN
Dec. 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Oil Region NHA
PA
Dec. 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
Arabia Mountain NHA
GA
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338

CRS-3
Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislation
Atchafalaya NHA
LA
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Champlain Valley National Heritage
NY/VT
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Partnership
Crossroads of the American Revolution NHA
NJ
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Freedom’s Frontier NHA
KS/MO
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Great Basin National Heritage Route
NV/UT
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor
FL/GA/
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
NC/SC
Mormon Pioneer NHA
UT
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Northern Rio Grande NHA
NM
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Upper Housatonic Valley NHA
CT/MA
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Sources: P.L. 109-338, 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

CRS-4
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
resource preservation, and local (rather than federal) control of land. At hearings 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.
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. Nearly 50 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.
1 For information on the Preserve America initiative, see [http://www.preserveamerica.gov/].

CRS-5
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.
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%)
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.

CRS-6
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
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
4 Testimony of Paul Hoffman, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the Senate 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] 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
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
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
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
(continued...)

CRS-8
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.
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 the 108th and 109th Congresses
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 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.8 At a 109th Congress hearing, the Administration expressed similar views. The
Administration testified against establishing and expanding several NHAs under
examination, until systemic NHA legislation is established. However, other
6 (...continued)
Trust for Historic Preservation), vol. 17, no. 4 (summer 2003), pp. 5-12.
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 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
witnesses supported the extension or establishment of the NHAs being addressed at
the hearing.9

The National Park System 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 Advisory Board conducted a review of NHAs, the Heritage
Partnership Program, and future NPS involvement with NHAs. A 2006 report
contains the Advisory Board’s findings and recommendations.10 A key
recommendation is to establish a legislative foundation for a system of NHAs in the
Park Service, based on specified concepts. Concepts include requiring a feasibility
study to demonstrate that future proposed heritage areas meet certain criteria; setting
standards for management planning that include a business plan; and protecting the
rights of private property owners. Another recommendation is to develop
performance measures for NHAs.
In July 2006, the Administration presented to Congress a draft National Heritage
Areas Partnership Act based on the findings and recommendations of the Advisory
Board. The draft seeks to establish a National Heritage Areas System, composed of
current and future NHAs. It would provide standards and processes for conducting
feasibility studies, designating NHAs, and developing and approving management
plans. It aims to protect the rights of property owners. The draft also would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance
to local coordinating entities. A heritage area could receive up to $1 million per year,
but not more than $10 million over a 15-year period, and a non-federal match would
be required. Legislation to create a process for designating, managing, and funding
NHAs also has been introduced in both chambers, and one bill has passed the Senate.
(See “Legislative Activity,” below.)
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
9 Testimony of Donald Murphy, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, June 26, 2006, at
[http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=
1566] on August 29, 2006.
10 A copy of the report was available at the NPS website on August 29, 2006, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/].

CRS-10
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 continued a high level of interest in heritage area bills and
issues. As shown in Table 2, nearly 50 bills were introduced to designate or study
30 areas in 31 states and territories. 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.
One omnibus bill to designate and study numerous heritage areas was enacted
(S. 203, P.L. 109-338). The law established 10 new heritage areas: Arabia Mountain
NHA, Atchafalaya NHA, Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership,
Crossroads of the American Revolution NHA, Freedom’s Frontier NHA, Great Basin
National Heritage Route, Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor, Mormon Pioneer NHA,
Northern Rio Grande NHA, and Upper Housatonic Valley NHA. The language for
all 10 areas seeks to protect private property rights. The law authorized 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
amended the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor regarding
transition of the management entity from a federal commission to a nonprofit
organization and protections for private property. For the John H. Chafee Blackstone
River Valley National Heritage Corridor, the law provided for an update of the
management plan, extended the authority of the commission, and authorized
additional appropriations. The law also amended the National Coal Heritage Area.
The 109th Congress considered legislation to amend existing heritage areas, and
enacted H.R. 326 (P.L. 109-318) to amend the boundary of the Yuma Crossing NHA.

CRS-11
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. H.R. 6103 seeks to amend the boundary of the Rivers of Steel NHA to include
an additional county. 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. 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. H.R. 6263 would reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh National
Heritage Corridor through 2019, designate a new local management entity, and
provide for a special resource study.
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, including one to establish the Mississippi River
NHA, as shown in the table below.
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.)

CRS-12
Table 2. Bills in the 109th Congress to Establish Heritage Areas
or Authorize Studies
(as of November 29, 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
P.L. 109-338
Atchafalaya NHA Act
LA
Desig.
H.R. 522
Introduced;
S. 203
P.L. 109-338;
S. 204
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-5)
Bleeding Kansas NHA Act/Freedom’s
KS, MO
Desig.
H.R. 413
Comm. Reported;
Frontier NHA Act
S. 175
Hearing Held;
S. 203
P.L. 109-338
Champlain Valley National Heritage
NY, VT
Desig.
S. 203
P.L. 109-338;
Partnership Act
S. 322
Hearing Held
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
Hearing Held;
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
P.L. 109-338
Freedom’s Way NHA Act
MA, NH
Desig.
H.R. 956/S. 1898
Introduced
Great Basin National Heritage Route Act
NV, UT
Desig.
S. 203
P.L. 109-338;
S. 249
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-6);
S. 3772
Hearing Held
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act
FL, GA,
Desig.
H.R. 694
Passed House;
NC, SC
S. 203
P.L. 109-338
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA
MD, PA,
Desig.
H.R. 5195/S. 2645
Hearing Held
Act
VA, WV
Land Between the Rivers Southern Illinois
IL
Desig.
H.R. 5724/S. 2985
Introduced
NHA Act
Mississippi River NHA Act
MS
Desig.
S. 1721
Hearing Held
Mormon Pioneer NHA Act
UT
Desig.
S. 163
Comm. Reported
(S.Rept. 109-2);
S. 203
P.L. 109-338
Muscle Shoals NHA Act
AL
Desig.
H.R. 5930
Introduced
Niagara Falls NHA Act
NY
Desig.
H.R. 6019/S. 3755
Introduced
Northeastern North Carolina Heritage Area
NC
Study
H.R. 1087
Introduced
Study Act
Northern Neck NHA Study Act
VA
Study
H.R. 73
Introduced

CRS-13
Title
State
Type
Bill Number
Status
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
P.L. 109-338
Sangre de Cristo NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 4383
Introduced;
S. 2037
Hearing Held
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
P.L. 109-338
St. Croix NHA Study Act
VI
Study
H.R. 61
Introduced;
H.R. 938
Passed House;
S. 203
P.L. 109-338
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. 203
P.L. 109-338;
S. 429
Hearing Held
Western Reserve Heritage Area Study Act
OH
Study
H.R. 412
Passed House;
S. 203
P.L. 109-338
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.

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.

CRS-14
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.
Three related bills were 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 and H.R. 6287). H.R. 760 is essentially identical to legislation
passed by the Senate but not enacted in the 108th Congress (S. 2543). The Senate
passed S. 243 on July 26, 2005, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. H.R.
6287 was introduced on September 29, 2006. The three bills are similar but some
provisions are different, and S. 243 and H.R. 6287 contain provisions not included in
H.R. 760. All three 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”
(H.R. 760 and S. 243) or “important” (H.R. 6287), terms 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, the Senate-passed bill includes $25 million, and
H.R. 6287 does not contain a total authorization of appropriations for NHAs. The
Senate-passed bill and H.R. 6287 include provisions on partnership support. S. 243
would authorize the 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.
H.R. 6287 would allow an NHA to receive financial assistance under any existing grant
program as long as it meets the eligibility requirements, and regardless of whether it
is receiving other financial assistance.
The three 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

CRS-15
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 and H.R. 6287 also set 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. For FY2004, Congress enacted $14.3 million for the
NPS for heritage areas (P.L. 108-108). 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 heritage areas for FY2005, including $500,000 for three NHAs
established in the law.
For FY2006, Congress appropriated $13.3 million for NHAs (P.L. 109-54). For
FY2007, the Administration requested $7.4 million, which was $2.4 million more than
requested for FY2006 but a significant decrease (44%) from the FY2006 appropriated
level. 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 then existing 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. In reporting its version of H.R. 5386, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.1 million for NHAs. The
accompanying report (S.Rept. 109-275) recommended levels of funding for 24 of the
then existing 27 NHAs, ranging from $100,000 to $800,000. Like the House, the
Senate Committee did not support merging heritage area funding within the Historic
Preservation Fund. Funding for FY2007 has not been enacted as of November 29,
2006.

CRS-16
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 Report RL33525, 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-17
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.