Order Code RL33462
Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Updated September 5, 2008
Carol Hardy Vincent and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
Summary
Over more than two decades, Congress has established 40 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 burdensome, costly, or leading
to federal control over nonfederal lands. This report focuses on heritage areas
designated by Congress (not other entities) 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 FY2008 appropriation for the NPS for
assistance to heritage areas was $15.3 million. The Administration requested a
decrease to $7.1 million for FY2009.

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 has enacted legislation (S. 2739, P.L. 110-229) to establish
three new NHAs, study the feasibility of two other areas for heritage status, increase
the total authorization of appropriations for several existing NHAs, require an
evaluation of several existing NHAs, and amend other heritage areas. Other omnibus
legislation is being considered by both chambers. For instance, S. 3213 and H.R.
1483 are on the Senate calendar. The bills would designate new NHAs, require area
studies, and expand the boundaries or make other changes to several NHAs. 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. 3213) is on the Senate calendar. In recent Congresses, the
Administration has expressed opposition to the designation of new areas until
systemic NHA legislation is enacted. Further, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Area-Specific Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Omnibus and Other Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bills to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
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 more then two decades, Congress has designated 40 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 the suitability and feasibility of
designating the study area as a heritage area.
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
Abraham Lincoln NHA
IL
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA
MD/PA/
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
VA/WV
Niagara Falls NHA
NY
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
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 May
19, 2008, and P.L. 110-229.
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.)

---

CRS-4
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
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. In the
past, the Bush Administration had 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
recent hearings the Administration has 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 potential 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, the absence over the decades
of such a systemic law has provided legislative flexibility in the creation of new
NHAs and the modification of existing ones. Further, some opponents of NHAs
believe that they threaten private property rights, are burdensome, or present other
problems and challenges, so 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
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
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].) The ANHA also operates a
resource center for heritage areas, organizes educational workshops and programs,
and promotes heritage tourism.
Overview of Operations
There is no comprehensive statute that establishes criteria for designating NHAs
or provides standards for their funding and management. Rather, particulars for an
area typically are provided in its enabling legislation. While there tended to be more
variety in the creation and operation of earlier heritage areas, the establishment and
management of heritage areas have become somewhat more standardized through the
inclusion of some similar provisions in their enabling legislation. 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

---

CRS-6
$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%)
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 usually has 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.
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].
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].
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
Advocates of NHAs assert that they foster cultural tourism, community
revitalization, and regional economic development. Heritage areas are advertised as
entertaining and educational places for tourists, and may involve activities such as
stories, music, food areas, walking tours, boat rides, and celebrations. Through
increased tourism, communities benefit locally when services and products are
purchased. In some cases, increased heritage tourism, together with an emphasis on
adaptive reuse of historic resources, has attracted broader business growth and
development.
Some supporters see NHAs as generally more desirable than other types of land
conservation. They often prefer the designation of NHAs, because the lands typically
remain in nonfederal ownership, to be administered locally. Other NHA backers
view establishing and managing federal areas, such as units of the National Park
System, as too costly, and observe that small federal investments in heritage areas
have been successful in attracting funds from other sources. Some proponents also
see NHAs as flexible enough to encompass a diverse array of initiatives and areas,
because the heritage concept lacks systemic laws or regulations, while 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

---

CRS-8
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
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 may provide 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 Administration/NPS has
sought legislation that would limit each heritage area to no more than $1 million per
year, not to exceed $10 million per area over 15 years. (See below.)
Once a heritage area is designated by Congress, the NPS typically enters into a
cooperative agreement, or compact, with the designated management entity, often
comprised of local activists, to help plan and organize the area. The compact outlines
the goals for the heritage area and defines the roles and contributions of the NPS and
other partners, typically setting out the parameters of the NPS’s technical assistance.
It also serves as the legal vehicle for channeling federal funds to 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. Legislation authorizing an
NHA might follow a positive study recommendation, although such recommendation
is not a requirement for enacting legislation to designate an NHA.

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
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
Trust for Historic Preservation), vol. 17, no. 4 (summer 2003), pp. 5-12.

---

CRS-9
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
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. 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 aimed 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.)
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].
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].

---

CRS-10
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
The 110th Congress appears to be continuing a high level of interest in heritage
area bills and issues. As shown in Table 2, bills to designate or study various areas
have been introduced (as of May 15, 2008). 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. Similarly, 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 September 3, 2008)
Title
State
Type Bill Number
Status
Abraham Lincoln NHA
IL
Desig.
S. 2739
P.L. 110-229
(Title IV, Subtitle C)
(Abraham Lincoln)
KY
Study
S. 2739
P.L. 110-229, §482
Study of Sites Relating to Abraham Lincoln in
Kentucky
Baltimore NHA Act
MD
Desig.
H.R. 5279
Introduced
S. 2604
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Black Metropolis District NHA Study Act
IL
Study
H.R. 5505
Introduced
Cache La Poudre River NHA Act11
CO
Desig.
S. 128
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor
AL, GA
Study
H.R. 1408
Introduced
Study Act
S. 637
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Indefinitely Postponed
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Columbia-Pacific NHA Study
OR, WA
Study
S. 2739
P.L. 110-229, §481
Freedom’s Way NHA Act
MA, NH
Desig.
H.R. 1297
Hearing Held
S. 827
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA
MD, PA,
Desig.
S. 2739
P.L. 110-229
VA, WV
(Title IV, Subtitle A)
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest
AK
Desig.
S. 3045
Hearing Held
Heritage Area Act
11 The legislation would repeal P.L. 104-323, which established an existing heritage area —
the Cache La Poudre River Corridor.

---

CRS-11
Title
State
Type Bill Number
Status
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
Hearing Held
Mississippi Delta NHA Act
MS
Desig.
H.R. 4457
Introduced
S. 2512
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Mississippi Hills NHA Act
MS
Desig.
H.R. 4457
Introduced
S. 2254
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Muscle Shoals NHA Act
AL
Desig.
H.R. 1145
Hearing Held
H.R. 1483
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Niagara Falls NHA
NY
Desig.
S. 2739
P.L. 110-229
(Title IV, Subtitle B)
Northeastern North Carolina Heritage Area Study
NC
Study
H.R. 4285
Introduced
Act
Northern Neck NHA Study Act
VA
Study
H.R. 105
Hearing Held
H.R. 1483
Senate Calendar
S. 3039
Introduced
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Northern Plains NHA Act
ND
Desig.
H.R. 6678
Introduced
S. 2098
Senate Calendar
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Ocmulgee National Heritage Corridor Act
GA
Desig.
H.R. 2998
Introduced
Sangre de Cristo NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 859
Hearing Held
S. 443
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Indefinitely Postponed
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Santa Cruz Valley NHA Act
AZ
Desig.
H.R. 1483
Senate Calendar
H.R. 1885
Hearing Held
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
South Park NHA Act
CO
Desig.
H.R. 3335
Introduced
S. 444
Senate Calendar
S. 2180
Indefinitely Postponed
S. 3213
Senate Calendar
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress, 110th Congress data
file.
Note: This table does not identify bills to designate or study areas that were designated or authorized for
study in P.L. 110-229.

---

CRS-12
Omnibus and Other Legislation
Omnibus heritage legislation — S. 2739 — was enacted on May 8, 2008, as P.L.
110-229.12 Other omnibus bills remain pending in the House and Senate; some of
them have provisions similar to those enacted in P.L. 110-229, as well as additional
provisions.
P.L. 110-229 established three new heritage areas: Abraham Lincoln (IL);
Journey Through Hallowed Ground (MD, PA, VA, WV); and Niagara Falls (NY).
For each of the new heritage areas, the law contained provisions to address concerns
about potential loss of, and restrictions on use of, private property as a result of NHA
designation. Among the provisions, for each new area the law stated that it does not
abridge the right of any property owner; require any property owner to permit public
access to the property; alter any land use regulation; or diminish the authority of the
state to manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting
within an NHA.
The law also provided for the study of the Columbia-Pacific NHA (OR, WA)
and the Abraham Lincoln NHA (KY). The Secretary of the Interior is to study the
feasibility of designating these new NHAs based on specified criteria. These include
whether the area (1) provides outstanding educational opportunities; (2) has a
potential management entity to develop an NHA while encouraging local and state
economic activity, and (3) has resources representing distinctive aspects of American
heritage that are worthy of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and continuing
use, and are best managed by private partnerships. The Secretary is to report
findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the congressional authorizing
committees within three fiscal years after funds for the studies are provided. As part
of the study of the Columbia-Pacific, the Secretary is to analyze the potential impact
of an NHA designation on private land within or bordering on the area.
For each of nine heritage areas,13 the law increased the total authorization of
appropriations from $10 million to $15 million. The law also required 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 provided for in the law
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. In lieu of these evaluation and
reporting provisions, earlier legislation originally had proposed extending the
authorization for the nine areas. However, some Members had opposed extending
the funding for NHAs as premature since the original authorization would not expire
12 Omnibus measures with similar provisions, S. 2483 and S. 2616, had been introduced
previously.
13 The areas are: America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos and Smokestacks);
Augusta Canal NHA; Essex NHA; Hudson River Valley NHA; National Coal Heritage
Area; Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor; Rivers of Steel NHA; South Carolina
National Heritage Corridor; and Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area.

---

CRS-13
for several years and because NHAs were intended to be largely self-sufficient after
an initial period of NPS assistance.
P.L. 110-229 made technical corrections and/or expanded the boundaries of
several heritage areas. It extended the boundary of the South Carolina National
Heritage Corridor (SC) and the Rivers of Steel NHA (PA). It renamed the Ohio and
Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor (OH) as the Ohio and Erie National Heritage
Canalway, added additional counties to the National Coal Heritage Area (WV), and
made other changes to those areas.
Several other omnibus heritage area bills remain pending.14 S. 3213, which is
on the Senate calendar, would create ten additional heritage areas: Sangre de Cristo
(CO), Cache La Poudre River (CO), South Park (CO), Northern Plains (ND),
Baltimore (MD), Freedom’s Way (MA, NH), Mississippi Hills (MS), Mississippi
Delta (MS), Muscle Shoals (AL), and Santa Cruz Valley (AZ). For each area, the bill
contains provisions regarding private property, land use regulations, and state
authority regarding fish and wildlife management which are similar to those enacted
in P.L. 110-229 for the three new NHAs. The bill 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 the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor (AL, GA)
and the Northern Neck (VA) for possible NHA designation. 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.
Further, S. 3213, 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. S. 3213 also would amend the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage
Corridor (PA), primarily with regard to the local coordinating entity (as would H.R.
3809). It would establish a National Heritage Areas Program, as discussed below
under “Bills to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures.”
Further, S. 3213, like H.R. 1483, would make changes to the staffing and
membership of the management entity of the Erie Canalway National Heritage
Corridor and make changes to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National
Heritage Corridor. H.R. 1483 (as reported by a Senate committee) also would
establish two NHAs — Santa Cruz Valley (AZ) and Muscle Shoals (AL). The
Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to provide financial assistance to these
14 In general, this section does not cover omnibus and other heritage bills which have been
indefinitely postponed by the Senate.

---

CRS-14
two areas for 15 years. H.R. 1483 calls for a study of the Northern Neck (like S.
3213), and would require the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of designating the area as an NHA based on specified criteria.
The 110th Congress is considering other legislation to amend existing heritage
areas. H.R. 4191 includes a provision to amend the boundary of the National
Aviation Heritage Area (OH, IN) (similar provisions are in H.R. 4199). S. 128, like
S. 3213, would establish the Cache La Poudre River NHA(CO), and repeal P.L. 104-
323, which established the Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA (CO). H.R. 591
would make changes to the Cache La Poudre River Corridor NHA, including
designating a new management entity and enhancing private property protections.
S. 3448 would expand the boundary of the Cane River NHA, reauthorize the area’s
commission and alter its membership, and make other changes.
The 110th Congress also is considering legislation to limit the designation of
NHAs, and restrict access to private property in NHAs, until certain conditions are
met. Specifically, S. 2807 and S. 2808 provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall
not approve a management plan for an NHA unless the local coordinating entity
provides written notification of the designation to each person residing, or owning
property, in the NHA. The bills also provide that no NPS employee or member of
the local coordinating entity of an NHA may enter private property in the NHA
without the written consent of the property owner. Further, S. 2807, as well as S.
2809, provide that an NHA designation shall not take effect until the President
certifies that (1) the designation will not cause specific adverse impacts, for instance,
on agriculture or livestock production within the proposed NHA, and (2) the total
NPS deferred maintenance backlog in the state in which the NHA is proposed is not
greater than $50.0 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. Two other Senate
bills with nearly identical provisions on this topic have been subsequently introduced.
S. 3213 is on the Senate calendar, while S. 2180 has been indefinitely postponed by
the Senate. A companion bill has not been introduced in the House to date (as of
September 3, 2008).
The Senate 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

---

CRS-15
national importance, a term used to avoid confusion with the national significance
needed for designating units of the National Park System.15

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. The Senate bills 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.
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),
15 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-16
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).16
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.
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 has 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 fiscal years (FY2004-FY2008), funding for the NPS for
national heritage areas has fluctuated between $13.3 million and $15.3 million.
During this period, 14 new NHAs were created.17 Specifically, the appropriation for
FY2004 was $14.3 million; for FY2005, $14.6 million; for FY2006 and FY2007,
$13.3 million; and for FY2008, $15.3 million.

For FY2009, the Administration requested $7.1 million for the NPS for NHAs,
a 53% reduction from the FY2008 level. In its FY2009 budget justification, the NPS
expressed support for reduced funding because of the lack of a law authorizing an
overall heritage program, setting out criteria for establishing new areas, and
providing a time frame for federal funds to established areas. Historically, the Bush
Administration’s requests for NHA funding have been significantly lower than the
16 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.”
17 Three additional NHAs were established in P.L. 110-229 after the enactment of
appropriations for FY2008 for heritage areas.

---

CRS-17
previous year’s appropriation, but Congress has appropriated higher levels than
requested. The NPS anticipates pursuing several efforts with FY2009 funding,
including the promotion of legislation to establish a system of NHAs, publication of
a handbook on NHA policies, and implementation of a system of evaluation and
performance measures for NHAs.
For FY2008, both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
supported increased funding for NHAs over the FY2007 level and the President’s
request of $10.0 million for FY2008. Specifically, the House approved $20.0 million
for NHAs, while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $15.0 million.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) included $15.3
million for NHAs. The explanatory statement contained guidance as to how the
funds were to be distributed. It stated the agreement of the Appropriations
Committees that $13.0 million would be allocated in identical amounts to each area
that received funding under the NPS competitive process for FY2007, $150,000
would be allocated to each of the 10 new NHAs created in the 109th Congress, and
$1.0 million would be used for administrative costs of the program.18
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.
18 These funding levels do not reflect a 1.56% across-the-board cut in funding for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies.

---

CRS-18
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 December 27, 2007.
American Policy Center, Property Rights, at
[http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.htm], visited on December 27, 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 December 27, 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 December
27, 2007.
—— National Heritage Areas — An Appearance of Innocence, Property Rights
Foundation of America, Inc., at [http://prfamerica.org/speeches/10th/
NatlHeritageAreas-AppearInnocent.html], visited on December 27, 2007.
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 December 27, 2007. Includes
a monthly heritage areas bulletin.

---

CRS-19
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
December 27, 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 December 27, 2007.

---