Order Code RL33462
Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Updated November 2, 2007
Carol Hardy Vincent and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

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. 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 typically determines federal funding for NHAs in annual Interior
appropriations laws. NHAs can use federal funds for many purposes, including
staffing, planning, and projects. The FY2007 appropriation for the NPS for
assistance to heritage areas was $13.3 million. For FY2008, the Administration
requested a decrease to $10.0 million, while the House and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations supported increases to $20.0 million and $15.0 million, respectively.

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 110th Congress is considering legislation to designate NHAs, study the
suitability and feasibility of areas for heritage status, and amend existing heritage
areas. Omnibus heritage area legislation is being considered by both chambers. On
October 24, 2007, the House passed H.R. 1483, while on October 18, 2007, S. 2180
was placed on the Senate calendar. The bills would designate new NHAs, require
area studies, increase the authorization of funding for several NHAs, and expand the
boundaries or make other changes to several NHAs. Another bill on the Senate
calendar, S. 817, would make changes to several NHAs and increase the
authorization of funding for several areas. The sizeable number of existing NHAs
and proposals to study and designate new ones has generated interest in enacting a
law providing criteria for designating NHAs, standards for their management, and
limits on federal funding support. Such legislation (S. 278 and S. 2180) is on the
Senate calendar. Some opponents believe that NHAs present numerous problems
and challenges and that Congress should oppose efforts to designate new areas and/or
to create a system of NHAs.

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
110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Bills to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing National Heritage Areas, by Date of Authorization . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Bills in the 110th Congress to Establish Heritage Areas or
Authorize Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


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
WV
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage
OH
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
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: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, National Heritage Areas: Legislative
History 98th-109th Congresses
, at [http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/LEG/index.htm], visited March
16, 2007.
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 391 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 oldest heritage area 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

CRS-4
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. However, at
July 2007 hearings, among others, the Administration recommended deferring action
on certain bills seeking to establish additional heritage areas, despite favorable
studies of the areas, until systemic NHA legislation is enacted.1
In the past few Congresses, dozens of proposals to designate heritage areas or
study lands for heritage status have been introduced, and Congress has held many
hearings on heritage bills and issues. The many bills introduced in the 110th
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 announced 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.2
The first Preserve America grants, awarded on March 9, 2006, included grants for
nine projects within NHAs. 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 16, 2007.)
The ANHA also operates a resource center for heritage areas, organizes educational
workshops and programs, and promotes heritage tourism.
1 See, for example, testimony of Janet Snyder Matthews of the National Park Service on July
12, 2007, before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources, at
[http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2
66&Itemid=1].
2 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 full and permanent federal funding, but rather encourage NHAs
to develop alternative sources of funding. 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.3 A report of the Alliance of
National Heritage Areas with data over a longer period shows the federal
contribution at about one-third (35%) of total funding from 1985 through 2006.4
State and local governments also contributed about one-third (36%) of NHA funds,
with private funding sources providing 25% and the remaining 4% from other
sources. For 2006, the report indicates that the combined state and local (49%)
3 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/].
4 See Alliance of National Heritage Areas, 2006 Annual Report, p. 10, at
[http://nationalheritageareas.com/resources.php?recordID=36&code=54].

CRS-6
shares of NHA funding were higher than federal (37%) and private contributions
(12%).
In the past, Congress has determined the total level of federal funding for NHAs
and typically specified 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.5
Support, Opposition, and Challenges6
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
5 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://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate08ch108.html] on March 16, 2007.
6 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/2007/NatlHeritageAreas-AppearInnocent.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 before the House Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, September 16, 2003.

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 others 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.7
7 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 nongovernmental
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, 109th, and 110th
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. For instance, at a March 30, 2004, hearing of a Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Subcommittee, a DOI witness outlined the Administration’s draft
legislation to create a National Heritage Areas Program.8 At another subcommittee
hearing, the same witness expressed “strong support” for legislation to establish a
national heritage program, while suggesting modifications to S. 2543 (108th
Congress) on behalf of DOI.9 Further, in hearings during the last few Congresses, the
Administration has testified against establishing and expanding several NHAs under
7 (...continued)
Trust for Historic Preservation), vol. 17, no. 4 (summer 2003), pp. 5-12.
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, March 30, 2004,
at [http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1128].
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].

CRS-9
examination, until systemic NHA legislation is established.10 Other witnesses have
supported extending or establishing the NHAs being addressed at the hearings.

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.11 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 proposed 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 nonfederal match would
be required. Legislation to create a process for designating, managing, and funding
NHAs was introduced in both chambers in the 109th Congress, and one bill (S. 243)
passed the Senate. Such legislation is pending on the Senate calendar in the 110th
Congress (S. 278 and S. 2180). (See “Legislative Activity,” below.)
Legislative Activity
The 110th Congress is considering measures to designate and study heritage
areas, amend existing heritage areas, and establish uniform criteria and procedures
for designating and managing heritage areas.
Area-Specific Legislation
110th Congress. The 110th Congress appears to be continuing a high level of
interest in heritage area bills and issues. As shown in Table 2, about 30 bills to
designate or study areas have been introduced (as of November 1, 2007). Some of
10 See, for instance, the testimony of Donald Murphy of the National Park Service 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].
11 A copy of the report was available at the NPS website on March 16, 2007, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/].

CRS-10
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. By comparison, in each of the 108th and 109th Congresses, some 50-60 bills
to create or designate heritage areas were introduced.
Table 2. Bills in the 110th Congress to Establish Heritage Areas
or Authorize Studies
(as of November 1, 2007)
Title
State
Type Bill Number
Status
Abraham Lincoln NHA Act
IL
Desig.
H.R. 1483
House Passed
H.R. 1625
Hearing Held
S. 955
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
(Abraham Lincoln)
KY
Study
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Study of Sites Relating to Abraham Lincoln in
Kentucky
Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor
AL, GA
Study
H.R. 1408
Introduced
Study Act
S. 637
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Columbia-Pacific NHA Study Act
OR, WA
Study
H.R. 407
Senate Calendar
S. 257
Hearing Held
S. 2179
Senate Calendar
Freedom’s Way NHA Act
MA, NH
Desig.
H.R. 1297
Hearing Held
H.R. 1483
House Passed
S. 827
Introduced
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA Act/
MD, PA,
Desig.
H.R. 319
House Calendar
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA
VA, WV
H.R. 1270
Introduced
Education and Tourism Act (H.R. 1270 only)
H.R. 1483
House Passed
S. 289
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Kentucky Artisan Heritage Trails NHA Act
KY
Desig.
H.R. 646
Introduced
Land Between the Rivers Southern Illinois NHA
IL
Desig.
H.R. 929
Hearing Held
Act
S. 956
Introduced
Mississippi Hills NHA Act
MS
Desig.
S. 2254
Introduced
Muscle Shoals NHA Act
AL
Desig.
H.R. 1145
Hearing Held
H.R. 1483
House Passed
Niagara Falls NHA Act
NY
Desig.
H.R. 713
House Calendar
H.R. 1483
House Passed
S. 800
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Northern Neck NHA Study Act
VA
Study
H.R. 105
Hearing Held
H.R. 1483
House Passed
Northern Plains Heritage Area Act
ND
Desig.
S. 2098
Introduced
Ocmulgee National Heritage Corridor Act
GA
Desig.
H.R. 2998
Introduced
Sangre de Cristo NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 859
Introduced
S. 443
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Santa Cruz Valley NHA Act
AZ
Desig.
H.R. 1483
House Passed
H.R. 1885
Hearing Held

CRS-11
Title
State
Type Bill Number
Status
South Park NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 3335
Introduced
S. 444
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress, 110th Congress data file.
Omnibus heritage bills are being considered in the House and Senate. On
October 24, 2007, the House passed H.R. 1483. For each of nine heritage areas, H.R.
1483 as passed would increase the total authorization of appropriations from $10
million to $15 million. As introduced, H.R. 1483 would have increased the total
authorization of appropriations for each of these areas from $10 million to $20
million and extended their authorization from September 30, 2012, to September 30,
2027. Some Members opposed extending the funding for NHAs as premature since
the original authorization would not expire for several years and because NHAs were
intended to be largely self-sufficient after an initial period of NPS assistance. Rather
than extending the authorization, H.R. 1483 as passed by the House would require
the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate each heritage area not later than three years
before its authority for federal funding would terminate. The evaluation is to assess
the progress of the area’s management entity in achieving goals and objectives,
determine the impact of investments in the area, and identify the components for
sustaining the area. The Secretary is to submit a report on the evaluation to the
congressional authorizing committees, and the report is to include recommendations
on the future role of the NPS. The bill further included Sense of Congress language
that the government should not fund an NHA in perpetuity.
H.R. 1483 would establish six heritage areas: Journey Through Hallowed
Ground (MD, PA, VA, WV); Niagara Falls (NY); Muscle Shoals (AL); Freedom’s
Way (MA, NH); Abraham Lincoln (IL); and Santa Cruz Valley (AZ). The measure
also required the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating a new NHA — the Northen Neck NHA (VA) — based on specified
criteria. The Secretary is to report findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the
congressional authorizing committees within three fiscal years after funds for the
study are provided.
Some Members opposed the designation of additional heritage areas because of
concerns about potential loss of, and restrictions on use of, private property. For each
of the proposed new heritage areas, the measure states that it does not abridge the
right of any property owner, require any property owner to permit public access to the
property, or alter any land use regulation. The House also agreed to an amendment
providing that lands within the heritage areas funded by the bill would be governed
by state and local laws regarding hunting, fishing, and the possession or use of a
weapon, trap, or net. The intent was to clarify the authority of states and localities
in these areas.

The bill also would make technical corrections and/or expand the boundaries of
several heritage areas. It would extend the boundary of the South Carolina National
Heritage Corridor (SC) and the Rivers of Steel NHA (PA). It would rename the Ohio
and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor (OH) as the Ohio and Erie National

CRS-12
Heritage Canalway, add additional counties to the National Coal Heritage Area
(WV), and make other changes to those areas. Further, the bill would make changes
to the staffing and membership of the management entity of the Erie Canalway
National Heritage Corridor.
Both S. 817 and S. 2180 would increase the total authorization of appropriations
from $10 million to $15 million for each of four heritage areas — the Ohio and Erie
Canal National Heritage Corridor (OH), Rivers of Steel NHA (PA), Essex NHA
(MA), and South Carolina National Heritage Corridor (SC). They would require a
report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior on the accomplishments of each
area, along the lines of the requirements of H.R. 1483. They also would make
changes to existing heritage areas. They would amend the Delaware and Lehigh
National Heritage Corridor (PA), primarily with regard to the local coordinating
entity. (H.R. 3809 has similar provisions.) Like H.R. 1483, both Senate bills would
add an additional county to the Rivers of Steel NHA (PA), rename the Ohio and Erie
Canal National Heritage Corridor (OH) as the Ohio and Erie National Heritage
Canalway, and make changes to the National Coal Heritage Area (WV). S. 817 was
placed on the Senate calendar on September 17, 2007, while S. 2180 was placed on
the calendar on October 18, 2007.
S. 2180 has additional provisions beyond those contained in S. 817. The bill
would create five new heritage areas: Journey Through Hallowed Ground (MD, PA,
VA, WV); Sangre de Cristo (CO); South Park (CO); Niagara Falls (NY); and
Abraham Lincoln (IL). For each new area, the bill contains “private property and
regulatory protections.” It requires the Secretary, within three years of the date on
which federal funding terminates, to evaluate each new area and report thereon to the
congressional authorizing committees. The bill includes provisions to study two
areas for possible NHA designation: Abraham Lincoln NHA (KY) and
Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor (AL, GA). The Secretary is to
report findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the congressional authorizing
committees within three fiscal years after funds for each study are provided. Further,
S. 2180 would establish systemic NHA procedures, as discussed below under “Bills
to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures.”

S. 2180, like H.R. 1949 and S. 1182, would amend the Quinebaug and
Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act to increase the total
authorization of appropriations and extend for six years the authority of the Secretary
of the Interior to provide assistance. The two Senate bills would require the
Secretary of the Interior to evaluate the heritage corridor not later than three years
before the authority for federal funding would terminate. The evaluation is to assess
the progress of the corridor’s management entity in achieving goals and objectives,
determine the leverage and impact of investments in the corridor, and identify the
components for sustaining the corridor. The report is to include recommendations
on the future role of the NPS and is to be submitted to the congressional authorizing
committees. Both Senate bills are on the Senate calendar.
The 110th Congress is considering other legislation to amend existing heritage
areas. H.R. 1083 seeks to amend the boundary of the Rivers of Steel NHA (PA) to
include an additional county. H.R. 591 and S. 128 would make changes to the Cache

CRS-13
La Poudre River Corridor NHA (CO), including designating a new management
entity and enhancing private property protections.
109th Congress. The 109th Congress enacted one omnibus bill to designate
and study numerous heritage areas (S. 203, P.L. 109-338). The law established 10
new heritage areas: Arabia Mountain NHA (GA), Atchafalaya NHA (LA),
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership (NY/VT), Crossroads of the
American Revolution NHA (NJ), Freedom’s Frontier NHA (KS/MO), Great Basin
National Heritage Route (NV/UT), Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor
(FL/GA/NC/SC), Mormon Pioneer NHA (UT), Northern Rio Grande NHA (NM),
and Upper Housatonic Valley NHA (CT/MA). 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 (OH), St.
Croix NHA (VI), and Southern Campaign of the Revolution NHA (SC/NC).12
Further, it amended the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor (IL)
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 (MA/RI), 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 (WV). The 109th Congress considered many other bills to designate
or study areas.

The 109th Congress addressed legislation to amend existing heritage areas, and
enacted one such measure (H.R. 326, P.L. 109-318), to amend the boundary of the
Yuma Crossing NHA (AZ). Other legislation (H.R. 888 and S. 1721) would have
extended the authorization for each of nine heritage areas from September 30, 2012,
to September 30, 2027, and increased the total authorization of appropriations from
$10 million to $20 million.
Bills to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures
Legislation governing the evaluation, designation, and management of new
NHAs was considered but not enacted during the 108th and 109th Congresses. In both
Congresses, legislation passed the Senate but not the House. S. 243, as passed by the
Senate in the 109th Congress, was reintroduced in the 110th Congress as S. 278. S.
278 was placed on the Senate calendar on September 17, 2007. Further, another
Senate bill with nearly identical provisions on this topic — S. 2180 — was placed
on the Senate calendar on October 18, 2007. A companion bill has not been
introduced in the House to date (as of November 1, 2007).
S. 278 and S. 2180 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,
12 Under P.L. 109-338, the study area is to include specified counties in South Carolina and
“may include sites and locations in North Carolina as appropriate.”

CRS-14
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.13

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 or 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. They would cap
funding for all NHAs at $25 million per year, and include provisions on partnership
support. S. 278 and S. 2180 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.
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). They further 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.
The bills require the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate and report to Congress
on NHAs. They require the Secretary to evaluate an NHA not later than three years
before its authority for federal funding would terminate. The evaluation is to assess
the progress of the NHA’s management entity in achieving goals and objectives,
determine the leverage and impact of investments in the area, and identify the
components for sustaining the area. The report is to include recommendations on the
future role of the NPS with regard to the heritage area, and is to be submitted to the
congressional authorizing committees. Other heritage measures under consideration,
including some bills to establish individual NHAs, include a similar reporting
requirement.

13 NPS Management Policies establish criteria for determining national significance. Under
the criteria, an area will be regarded as nationally significant if it is an outstanding example
of a resource; exceptionally illustrates or interprets natural or cultural themes of our
country’s heritage; provides extraordinary opportunities for public enjoyment or scientific
study; and contains a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled resource. S. 278 and S. 2180
define national importance as possession of “unique natural, historical, cultural, educational,
scenic, or recreational resources of exceptional value or quality; and a high degree of
integrity of location, setting, or association in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the
United States.”

CRS-15
Funding
As part of its annual budget justification, the Administration submits its desired
funding level for the NPS Heritage Partnership Program. In the past, Congress
generally determined 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.
Over the past five years, funding for the NPS for national heritage areas has
been relatively stable. Specifically, for FY2002, Congress appropriated $13.2 million
for the NPS for heritage areas. The appropriation for each of FY2003 and FY2004
was $14.3 million, and the FY2005 appropriation was $14.6 million. For FY2006
and FY2007, the appropriation was $13.3 million, nearly equal to the FY2002
appropriation.

For FY2008, the Administration requested $10.0 million for the NPS for NHAs.
In its FY2008 budget justification, the NPS stated that funding for the program is
limited, and that the emphasis will be on encouraging NHAs to become self-
sufficient. The proposed FY2008 funding would be used in part to initiate
management plans for the ten NHAs created in 2006 (under P.L. 109-338). The
Administration’s FY2008 request would be a substantial decrease (25%) from the
FY2007 appropriated level, although the number of NHAs increased — from 27 to
37 — in October 2006. Historically, the Bush Administration’s requests for NHA
funding have been significantly lower than the previous year’s appropriation, but
Congress has appropriated higher levels than requested.
For FY2008, both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
supported increased funding for NHAs over the FY2007 level and the President’s
request for FY2008. Specifically, the House approved $20.0 million for NHAs,
while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $15.0 million.
For FY2007, the President had 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. Congress did not support merging heritage area
funding within the Historic Preservation Fund in FY2007, and the Administration did
not propose such a merger in the FY2008 budget request.
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’

CRS-16
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, Partnership Best Practices, at
[http://nationalheritageareas.com/resources.php?recordID=35&code=52] and
2006 Annual Report, at
[http://nationalheritageareas.com/resources.php?recordID=36&code=54], visited
on March 13, 2007.
American Policy Center, Property Rights, at
[http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.htm], visited on March 16, 2007.
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.
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 16, 2007.
The George Wright Society, “Stewardship of Heritage Areas,” The George Wright
Forum, v. 20, no. 2 (June 2003).
Hart, Judy, “Planning for and Preserving Cultural Resources through National
Heritage Areas,” Cultural Resource Management, v. 23, no. 7 (2000) pp. 29-32.
Knight, Peyton, “The Great National Land Grab,” Capitalism Magazine (June 13,
2003), at [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2850], visited on March 16,
2007.
—— National Heritage Areas — An Appearance of Innocence, Property Rights
Foundation of America, Inc., at
[http://prfamerica.org/2007/NatlHeritageAreas-AppearInnocent.html], visited
on March 16, 2007.

CRS-17
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).
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Areas, at
[http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/], visited on March 16, 2007. 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 16, 2007.
Utt, Ronald D. and Cheryl Chumley, “National Heritage Areas: Costly Economic
Development Schemes That Threaten Property Rights,” The Heritage
Foundation
, at [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1671.cfm],
visited on November 2, 2007.