Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals,
and Current Issues
Updated August 20, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL33462

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Summary
Since 1984, Congress has established 55 national heritage areas (NHAs) to commemorate,
conserve, and promote important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources.
NHAs are partnerships among the National Park Service (NPS), states, and local communities, in
which the NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money,
and technical assistance. Unlike lands within the National Park System, which are federal y
owned and managed, lands within heritage areas typical y remain in state, local, or private
ownership or a combination thereof. Supporters of heritage areas assert that NHAs protect lands
and traditions and promote tourism and community revitalization. Opponents, however, contend
that NHAs may be burdensome or costly to the federal government, or that they may lead to
federal control over nonfederal lands.
No comprehensive statute establishes criteria for designating NHAs or provides standards for
their funding and management. Rather, particulars for each area are provided in the area’s
enabling legislation. Congress designates a management entity, usual y nonfederal, to coordinate
the work of the partners. This entity typical y 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.
NHAs might receive funding from a wide variety of sources. Congress typical y determines
federal funding for NHAs in annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. NHAs can use federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and
executing projects. The FY2020 appropriation for NPS for assistance to heritage areas was $21.9
mil ion. For FY2021, the Administration requests $0.4 mil ion for administrative support and no
funding for grantmaking purposes—a proposed a reduction of roughly $21.5 mil ion.
The Trump Administration has expressed interest in having NHAs become financial y self-
sufficient. Some appropriators and other Members have emphasized self-sufficiency for these
areas as wel . One role of the NPS is to evaluate certain heritage areas at least three years before
the expiration of the authorization for federal funds. The NPS has completed evaluations of 19
NHAs and continues to evaluate others.
Each Congress typical y considers bil s to establish new heritage areas, study areas for possible
heritage designation, and amend existing heritage areas. In the 116th Congress, designated six new
NHAs, authorized feasibility studies for other prospective areas, and made changes to existing
NHAs, including boundary adjustments. Other bil s pending in the 116th Congress seek to extend
the authorizations for NHAs to receive financial assistance.
Some Members of Congress have introduced legislation (H.R. 1049 and S. 3217) to establish a
system of NHAs and to provide criteria for their designation, standards for their management, and
limits on federal funding support. Proponents cite the number of existing NHAs and the growing
number of proposals to study and designate new ones as a rationale for establishing such a
system. Some opponents maintain that NHAs present numerous problems and chal enges and that
Congress should oppose efforts to designate new areas or create a system of NHAs. For example,
some stakeholders have expressed a desire to focus NPS resources on federal y owned properties
and on reducing the agency’s deferred maintenance backlog, and others maintain that heritage
areas have the potential to threaten private property rights.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Background
Since 1984, Congress has designated 55 national heritage areas (NHAs) to recognize and assist
efforts to protect, commemorate, and promote natural, cultural, historic, and recreational
resources that form distinctive landscapes.1 Congress regards these lands as distinctive because of
their resources; their built environment; and their culture, history, and residents. A principal
distinction of NHAs is an emphasis on the interaction of people and their environment. Heritage
area designations seek to highlight the story of people, over time, in areas where the landscape
helped shape tradition. In a majority of cases, NHAs have, or previously had, as their foundation
a fundamental economic activity such as agriculture, water transportation, or industrial
development.
The attributes of each NHA are set out in the area’s establishing law. Because NHAs are based on
distinctive cultural attributes, they vary in appearance and expression. They are at different stages
of developing and implementing plans to protect and promote their attributes. Table 1 identifies
the NHAs established by Congress.
Table 1. National Heritage Areas (NHAs), by Date of Authorization
Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislationa
Il inois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor
IL
Aug. 24, 1984
P.L. 98-398
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Val ey National
MA/RI
Nov. 10, 1986
P.L. 99-647
Heritage Corridor
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
PA
Nov. 18, 1988
P.L. 100-692
Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation
PA
Nov. 19, 1988
P.L. 100-698
Commission (Path of Progress)b
Cane River NHA
LA
Nov. 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449
The Last Green Val ey National Heritage Corridorc
CT/MA
Nov. 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449
America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos and
IA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Smokestacks)
Augusta Canal NHA
GA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Essex NHA
MA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Val ey NHAd
NY
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
National Coal Heritage Area
WV
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Ohio &Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor
OH
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Rivers of Steel NHA
PA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Shenandoah Val ey Battlefields National Historic District
VA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
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 NHAe
MI
Nov. 6, 1998
P.L. 105-355
Lackawanna Val ey NHA
PA
Oct. 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
Schuylkil River Val ey NHA
PA
Oct. 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278

1 In addition to the federal heritage areas, other heritage areas have been designated by local governments or announced
by local preservation groups. A number of states also have developed their own heritage area programs.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislationa
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/INf
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
Atchafalaya NHA
LA
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Champlain Val ey National Heritage Partnership
NY/VT
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
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
Gul ah/Geechee Heritage Corridor
FL/GA/NC/SC
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
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 Val ey NHA
CT/MA
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Abraham Lincoln NHA
IL
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Journey Through Hal owed Ground NHA
MD/PA/VA/WV
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Niagara Fal s NHA
NY
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Baltimore NHA
MD
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Cache La Poudre River NHAg
CO
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Freedom’s Way NHA
MA/NH
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm NHA
AK
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Mississippi Delta NHA
MS
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Mississippi Hil s NHA
MS
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Muscle Shoals NHA
AL
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Northern Plains NHA
ND
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Sangre de Cristo NHA
CO
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
South Park NHA
CO
March 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Appalachian Forest NHA
WV/MD
March 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Maritime Washington NHA
WA
March 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Mountains to Sound Greenway NHA
WA
March 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta NHA
CA
March 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Santa Cruz Val ey NHA
AZ
March 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Susquehanna NHA
PA
March 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Sources: National Park Service (NPS) and Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 11 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Notes:
a. Here and throughout the report, the term enabling legislation refers to the law that first designated a given
heritage area.
b. Authorization and funding for the commission expired in 2008. The commission is inactive, according to the
NPS (email communication from NPS to CRS on January 21, 2016).
c. The heritage corridor was original y established as the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Val ey National
Heritage Corridor; in 2014, it was redesignated as The Last Green Val ey National Heritage Corridor (P.L.
113-291).
d. The heritage area was original y established as the Hudson River Val ey NHA; in 2019, it was redesignated
as the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Val ey NHA (P.L. 116-9).
e. The heritage area was original y established as the Automobile National Heritage Area; in 2014, it was
redesignated as the MotorCities National Heritage Area (P.L. 113-291).
f.
P.L. 108-447 established the area in the states of Ohio and Indiana. However, the boundaries in the law and
the associated map (referenced in the law) contain only areas in Ohio. The NHA as constituted does not
include areas in Indiana, according to the staff of the National Aviation Heritage Al iance.
g. In establishing this NHA, Section 8002 of P.L. 111-11 repealed P.L. 104-323, which had authorized the
Cache La Poudre River Corridor on October 19, 1996.
Origin and Evolution
Congress designated the first heritage area—the Il inois 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 range of land uses, management programs, and historical themes. A goal was
to facilitate grassroots preservation of natural resources and economic development in
communities and regions containing industries and historic structures. The federal government
would assist the effort (e.g., through technical assistance) but would not lead it. The ideas of
linking and maintaining a balance between nature and industry and encouraging economic
regeneration resonated with many states and communities, especial y in the eastern United States.
Interest in establishing heritage areas was commensurate with growing public interest in cultural
heritage tourism.
Since the creation of the first NHA in 1984, interest in additional NHA designations has grown
considerably. For example, from 2004 to 2009 (108th-111th Congresses), the number of heritage
areas more than doubled. Further, during this period, dozens of proposals to designate heritage
areas, study lands for heritage status, or amend laws establishing heritage areas were introduced,
and Congress held many hearings on heritage bil s and issues. Congress did not designate any
new heritage areas from 2010 to 2018. One factor accounting for this might be the establishment
of a relatively large number of NHAs in prior years, especial y 2004-2009. Another factor could
be changes in House and Senate rules and protocols regarding introduction and consideration of
legislation containing earmarks. In the 112th Congress, the House and Senate began observing
what has been referred to as an earmark moratorium or earmark ban, limiting congressional y
directed spending.2 In 2019, Congress enacted the John D. Dingel , Jr. Conservation,
Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9) designating six new heritage areas, as discussed in
the “Legislative Activity” section, below.
The number of existing NHAs, along with proposals to study and designate new ones, fostered
interest among some Members and Administrations in establishing a standardized process and
standardized criteria for designating NHAs. (See “Legislation to Establish Systemic NHA

2 For a more detailed discussion of the earmark moratorium, see CRS Report R45429, Lifting the Earmark
Moratorium : Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 11 link to page 15 link to page 15 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Procedures,” below.) Proponents identify potential benefits of such an approach, including
streamlining the administration of NHAs, creating more accountability, and encouraging regional
conservation and sustainability.3 Other stakeholders have opposed a standardized process on
various grounds. For example, they contend that the absence 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 heritage areas threaten private property rights, are
burdensome, or present other problems and chal enges, so Congress should oppose any efforts to
designate new areas and/or to create a “system” of NHAs. (See “Support, Opposition, and
Chal enges,” below.)
Ownership
NHAs reflect an evolution in roles and responsibilities in protecting lands. The traditional form of
land protection for the National Park Service (NPS) has been through government ownership,
management, and funding of lands set aside for protection and enjoyment. By contrast, NHAs
typical y are non-federal y owned, managed by local people with many partners and NPS advice,
funded from many sources, and intended to promote local economic development as wel as to
protect natural and cultural heritage resources and values. The NPS provides technical and
financial aid to NHAs, but these areas are not part of the National Park System.4
Heritage areas consist mainly of private properties, although some include publicly owned lands.
In most cases, the laws establishing NHAs do not provide for federal acquisition of land; once
designated, heritage areas general y 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 the creation of the Cane River Creole
National Historical Park (LA) within the Cane River NHA and the creation of the Blackstone
River Val ey National Historical Park within the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Val ey
National Heritage Corridor.
Many laws establishing national heritage areas contain provisions intended to address concerns
about potential loss of, or restrictions on use of, private property as a result of NHA designation.5
For example, P.L. 116-9, which established the six newest NHAs, stated for each area that the law
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 the NHA. For

3 Office of Congressman Paul D. T onko, “Tonko Champions Bills to Strengthen U.S. Heritage Areas Including Erie
Canalway,” press release, April 30, 2019, at https://tonko.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2848.
4 T hat system now has 419 diverse units: national parks, national monuments, national historic sites, national
battlefields, national preserves, and other designations. For information on establishing and managing units of the
National Park System, see CRS Report RS20158, National Park System : Establishing New Units, by Laura B. Comay;
CRS Report R41816, National Park System : What Do the Different Park Titles Sign ify?, by Laura B. Comay; and CRS
Report R42125, National Park System : Units Managed Through Partnerships, by Laura B. Comay.
5 T he effect of national heritage area (NHA) designation on the rights of pro perty owners was examined in 2004 by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). T he agency has not issued a report on this topic since that date. In 2004
written testimony for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, GAO (at that time known a s the General
Accounting Office) stated that “national heritage areas do not appear to have directly affected the rights of property
owners.” T he GAO research was based on the 24 NHAs in existence at that time. See GAO, National Park Service: A
More System atic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Im prove Their Accountability Are
Needed, GAO-04-593T , March 30, 2004, p. 3. Hereinafter referred to as GAO, 2004.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 link to page 10 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

additional information on P.L. 116-9 and its provisions, see “John D. Dingel , Jr. Conservation,
Management, and Recreation Act.”
Designation
No comprehensive statute establishes criteria for designating NHAs or provides standards for
their funding and management. NHA designation is often a two-step process, involving an initial
study of the suitability and feasibility of designating an area and then enactment of legislation to
designate the NHA. However, although legislation authorizing an NHA might follow a positive
study recommendation, an area study is not a requirement for enacting legislation to designate an
NHA.
When directed by Congress, the NPS prepares studies as to the suitability and feasibility of
designating an area as an NHA.6 Such studies typical y address a variety of topics, including
whether an area has resources reflecting aspects of American heritage that are worthy of
recognition, conservation, interpretation, and continued use. The studies usual y discuss whether
an area would benefit from being managed through a public-private partnership and if a
community of residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and state and local agencies would
work to support a heritage area. They also often identify a potential management entity and the
extent of financial resources for the area.
In other cases, a study is undertaken by another entity, such as a local nonprofit organization,
community members, or state or local government. The NPS does not fund these studies but
provides guidance to these efforts. For instance, the agency recommends that these studies
evaluate the importance of the resources, opportunities to increase public access to and
understanding of the resources, capacity of an organization to coordinate activities in the area,
and support in the region for a heritage designation.7 The NPS often assists communities
interested in attaining the NHA designation by reviewing studies and helping them craft a
regional vision for heritage preservation and development.
The particulars for establishment and management of a heritage area typical y are provided in the
NHA’s enabling legislation. Whereas earlier heritage areas tended to have more variety in their
creation and operation, the establishment and management of NHAs have become somewhat
more standardized in recent years through the inclusion of some similar provisions in different
areas’ enabling legislation. Common understandings and characteristics are discussed below.
Administration
NHAs usual y involve partnerships among the NPS, states, and local interests. In establishing
heritage areas, Congress typical y designates a management entity to coordinate the partners’
work. Management entities could include state or local government agencies, nonprofit
corporations, and independent federal commissions. The management entity usual y develops and
implements a plan for managing the NHA in collaboration with partners and other interested
parties. Although the plans’ components vary, in accordance with the authorizing legislation and
local needs, they often identify resources and themes; lay out policies and implementation

6 For instance, P.L. 116-9, §6003, directed the National Park Service (NPS) to study the Finger Lakes Area in New
York for designation as a national heritage area.
7 NPS guidance for communit y members and organizations interested in conducting area studies is on the agency’s
website. See NPS, “Feasibility Studies,” accessed August 4, 2020, at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/
feasibility-studies.htm.
Congressional Research Service

5

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

strategies for protection, use, and public education; describe needed restoration of physical sites;
discuss recreational opportunities; outline funding goals and possibilities; and define partners’
roles and responsibilities. Once the Secretary of the Interior approves a plan, it essential y
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.8
The NPS may provide various types of assistance to areas once designated by Congress—
administrative, financial, policy, technical, and public information. Following an area designation,
the NPS typical y enters into a cooperative agreement, or compact, with the designated
management entity, often composed of local stakeholders, 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, typical y 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.
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 ordinarily do not provide NHAs with full and permanent federal funding;
rather, they encourage NHAs to develop alternative sources of funding. Any federal
appropriations for the area typical y are provided to the management entity. 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.
The NPS seeks to evaluate heritage areas before the expiration of the authorization for federal
funds. At least three years before this expiration, the NPS evaluates a heritage area to make
recommendations on the future NPS role (if any). For example, P.L. 110-229 required the NPS to
evaluate nine heritage areas designated in 1996.9 The law required an evaluation of the
“accomplishments” of the areas; an assessment of the management entity in achieving the
purposes of the law designating the area and the goals and objectives of the management plan for
the area; an analysis of the impact of investments in the area; and a review of the management
structure, partnership arrangements, and funding for the area so as to identify components
required for sustainability. The law also required the NPS to report its results and
recommendations to Congress.
Between 2013 and 2015, NPS completed and submitted to Congress its evaluations for the nine
areas listed in P.L. 110-229: America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership, also known as Silos and
Smokestacks; Augusta Canal NHA; Essex NHA; Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Val ey
NHA; National Coal Heritage Area, also known as West Virginia National Coal Heritage Area;
Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor; Rivers of Steel NHA; South Carolina National
Heritage Corridor; and Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area.10 Based on the statute’s evaluation
requirements, NPS developed a program policy to evaluate al heritage areas prior to termination
of federal funding. Since 2015, NPS has completed 10 additional evaluations of heritage areas.11

8 Guidance on how to develop a management plan, as well as examples of existing management plans, is on the NPS
website. See NPS, “Management Plans,” accessed August 4, 2020, at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/
management -plans.htm.
9 P.L. 110-229, §462.
10 See NPS, “Evaluations,” accessed August 4, 2020, at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/evaluations.html.
11 T hese heritage areas are Blue Ridge NHA, Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, National Aviation Heritage
Area, Oil Region NHA, Schuylkill River Valley NHA, MotorCities NHA, Lackawanna Valley NHA, T he Last Green
Valley National Heritage Corridor, Wheeling NHA, and Yuma Crossing NHA.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 10 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Legislative Activity
The 116th Congress, like other recent Congresses, is considering bil s pertaining to existing and
proposed NHAs. The 116th Congress also has enacted legislation related to NHAs. In March
2019, the John D. Dingel , Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act was signed into
law as P.L. 116-9; among various other provisions, the omnibus public lands bil created six new
NHAs. This section summarizes the NHA-related sections in that act. It also provides an
overview of other bil s introduced in the 116th Congress that exclusively or mainly focus on
NHAs and provisions related to NHAs contained in selected, broader measures, such as
appropriations bil s.
John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act
On March 12, 2019, President Trump signed into law the John D. Dingel , Jr. Conservation,
Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9), the first law to establish new national heritage
areas since the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11). Title VI of P.L.
116-9 contained sections for new designations, authorizations of feasibility studies for
prospective areas, adjustments to existing heritage area boundaries, and amendments to existing
heritage area authorizations.
Section 6001 of the law designated six new national heritage areas, bringing the total number of
heritage areas nationwide from 49 to 55. Table 2 shows each new heritage area along with the
local coordinating entity identified in the statute. Section 6001 of the law also authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to each of the new NHAs.12 It authorized
appropriations of $10 mil ion for each of the NHAs, of which not more than $1 mil ion is to be
made available for any fiscal year.13 It established a sunset date of 15 years after the date of
enactment for the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance.14
Table 2. National Heritage Areas Designated in P.L. 116-9
National Heritage Area
State(s)
Local Coordinating Entity
Appalachian Forest NHA
MD, WV
Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc.
Maritime Washington NHA
WA
Washington Trust for Historic
Preservation
Mountains to Sound Greenway NHA
WA
Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta NHA
CA
Delta Protection Commission
Santa Cruz Val ey NHA
AZ
Santa Cruz Val ey Heritage Al iance, Inc.
Susquehanna NHA
PA
Susquehanna Heritage Corporation
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 116-9 on August 7, 2020.
Section 6002 of the law adjusted the boundaries of the existing Lincoln National Heritage Area to
include Livingston County, the city of Jonesboro in Union County, and the city of Freeport in
Stephenson County.15 Section 6003 directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the

12 P.L. 116-9, T itle VI, §6001(b)(1).
13 P.L. 116-9, T itle VI, §6001(g).
14 P.L. 116-9, T itle VI, §6001(g)(4).
15 P.L. 116-9, §6002. T he Lincoln NHA in Illinois was established in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 11 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Finger Lakes area for potential designation as a national heritage area, based on the region’s
natural, historic, and cultural resources. The study is to include the counties of Cayuga, Chemung,
Cortland, Livingston, Monroe, Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins,
Wayne and Yates.16 Section 6004 made various types of changes to existing NHAs. Table 3
provides a list of changes enacted.
Table 3. NHA Amendments in §6004 of P.L. 116-9
Section
National Heritage Area
Amendment Action
§6004(a)
Rivers of Steel NHA
Increases authorized funding from $17m to $20m
§6004(b)
Essex NHA
Increases authorized funding from $17m to $20m
Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage
Increases authorized funding from $17m to $20m
§6004(c)
Corridor
Increases authorized funding from $12m to $14m
§6004(d)
Blue Ridge NHA
Extends authorization to 2021
§6004(e)
MotorCities NHA
Increases authorized funding from $10m to $12m
§6004(f)
Wheeling NHA
Increases authorized funding from $13m to $15m
§6004(g)
Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area
Extends authorization to 2021
§6004(h)
Augusta Canal NHA
Extends authorization to 2021
South Carolina National Heritage
Extends authorization to 2021
§6004(i)
Corridor
Designates Oil Regional Al iance of Business, Industry, and
§6004(j)
Oil Region NHA
Tourism as local coordinating entity
Redesignates NHA as Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Val ey
§6004(k)
Hudson River Val ey NHA
NHA
Source: P.L. 116-9, §6004.
Notes: m = mil ions.
Legislation to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures
Two bil s in the 116th Congress would establish a national heritage areas system governing the
designation, management, and funding of NHAs. H.R. 1049 and S. 3217 have a number of
similar provisions that aim to establish a standardized NHA system and set out the relationship
between the NHAs and the National Park System. For example, both bil s state explicitly that
NHAs are not to be considered units of the National Park System or subject to the authorities
applicable to that system. They also would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
feasibility studies, when directed by Congress, or to review such studies prepared by others.
Further, the bil s provide a procedure for developing NHA management plans and specify
components of such plans. However, the two bil s differ in a number of ways that could have
implications for NHA management moving forward.

(P.L. 110-229). T he newly expanded area now includes the sites of the historic Lincoln -Douglas debates and the area
where President Lincoln began his legal career within the Eighth Judicial District (“U.S. Senate Approves Expansion of
Lincoln Heritage Area,” State Journal-Register, February 12, 2019).
16 P.L. 116-9, §6003.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 18 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

For example, under H.R. 1049, the NHA system would expire 20 years after the bil ’s
enactment.17 By contrast, S. 3217 does not set a sunset date and thereby would permanently
authorize the proposed NHA system. In addition, although both H.R. 1049 and S. 3217 would
authorize appropriations for various purposes, the proposed funding levels differ between the
bil s. H.R. 1049 would authorize up to $700,000 per year for the activities of each local managing
entity. Additional provisions include up to $300,000 per year for al NPS feasibility studies, of
which not more than $100,000 could be used for any one study, and up to $750,000 per year for
the development of management plans for NHAs, of which not more than $250,000 could be used
for any one plan. The provision of federal funds to a local coordinating entity would be
contingent on specified matching requirements for each purpose. This differs from S. 3217, which
would authorize up to $1 mil ion per year for the activities of each local managing entity, with the
federal share set at not more than 50% of the total cost of an activity. The bil does not specify
funding for the purposes of conducting feasibility studies or the development of management
plans. For a more complete discussion and comparison of the provisions within H.R. 1049 and S.
3217, see the Appendix.
The development of systemic heritage area legislation has been advocated in the past by an
independent commission,18 the Obama Administration,19 and the George W. Bush Administration,
among others.20 The Trump Administration also has expressed support for developing systemic
NHA program legislation that would establish a statutory framework for the NPS role in
administering the NHAs. During hearings on H.R. 1049, the Trump Administration also testified
in favor of deferring action on the bil , “to work with the sponsor and the committee on revisions
that would more fully address the issues with the program.”21 In particular, the Trump
Administration did not support the extension of funding authority for national heritage areas
outlined in H.R. 1049 and several other individual heritage area bil s introduced in the 116th
Congress. Both in testimony and in annual NPS budget requests, the Trump Administration has
expressed a desire to focus resources on reducing NPS’s deferred maintenance backlog and to
transition funding for the heritage area program to the state, local, or private entities that manage
heritage areas.22

17 Prior versions of this bill had various sunset dates. H.R. 581 in the 114th Congress had a sunset of 10 years after the
enactment of the bill, whereas H.R. 445 (113th) and H.R. 4099 (112th) had sunset dates of 25 years after enactment.
18 National Parks Second Century Commission, Advancing the National Park Idea, 2009, p. 23.
19 T estimony of Stephanie T oothman of the National Park Service, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Public Lands
and Environmental Regulation of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing, 113th Cong., 2nd
sess., July 29, 2014, H.Hrg. 113-84 (Washington: GPO, 2015), p. 47.
20 According to testimony from NPS, in July 2006, the George W. Bush Administration presented to Congress a draft
of systemic NHA legislation based on the findings and recommendations of the National Park System Advisory Board.
See testimony of Daniel Wenk of the National Park Service, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on National Parks of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Miscellaneous National Parks Bills, hearings, 110 th Cong., 1st
sess., March 20, 2007, S.Hrg. 110-73 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2007).
21 T estimony of P. Daniel Smith of the National Park Service, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands of the House Committee on Natural Resources, hearings, 116 th Cong., 1st sess., April 30,
2019, accessed at https://www.doi.gov/ocl/pending-legislation. Hereinafter referred to as P. Daniel Smith, 2019.
22 P. Daniel Smith, 2019. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, Exam ining the Departm ent of the Interior’s Spending Priorities and the President’s Fiscal Year
2018 Budget Proposal, 115th Cong., 1st sess., June 22, 2017, H.Hrg. 115-11 (Washington: GPO, 2017), pp. 26-27; and,
NPS, Budget Justifications and Perform ance Inform ation Fiscal Year 2021, p. NR&P -2, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2021-budget-justification-nps.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 7 link to page 15 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Opposition to an NHA system, as with opposition to individual NHAs, has come primarily from
advocates of private property rights.23 These opponents have expressed concerns that NHA
system legislation would lead to restrictive regulations and loss of private land ownership even
with legislative provisions to safeguard property rights.24 For example, they have stated that
heritage area management entities—though themselves lacking power to make regulatory
changes—could influence local legislators to change zoning laws and other regulations.
Additional NHA Legislation in the 116th Congress
Various other bil s pertaining to existing NHAs or the designation of new heritage areas have
been introduced in the 116th Congress. In some cases, some or al of the provisions in the
introduced bil s were enacted as part of P.L. 116-9. For example, S. 337 would increase the total
authorized funding amount of MotorCities NHA from $10 mil ion to $12 mil ion and extend the
funding authorization date from 2021 to 2025. P.L. 116-9 provided for the increase in funding but
did not address the expiration of the funding authorization. Other pending bil s not incorporated
in P.L. 116-9 are at different stages of consideration in the House and Senate.
Funding
As part of its annual budget justification, the Administration submits to Congress its desired
funding level for the NPS Heritage Partnership Program. Appropriations for heritage areas
typical y have been provided in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations laws. In general, the laws establishing NHAs require a 1:1 match in funding
(federal vs. nonfederal) by the managing entities. NHAs can use funds for varied purposes,
including staffing, planning, and implementing projects. In recent years, Congress has provided
direction to the NPS as to how the total appropriation should be al ocated among NHAs.
The NPS has indicated that since FY2009, funds have been al ocated to heritage areas using
formula-based criteria. Such criteria may be established by Congress as part of the annual
appropriations process. For example, in the explanatory statement accompanying the FY2017
appropriations law for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Congress al ocated funding
to NHAs under a three-tier system. This system included $150,000 for each authorized area that
was developing its management plan, known as Tier I areas; $300,000 for Tier II areas, which
were those with recently approved management plans; and FY2016 funding levels for
“longstanding areas.”25

23 For additional discussion on private property issues, see the sections of this report entitled “ Ownership” and
“Support, Opposition, and Challenges.”
24 See, for example, American Policy Center, “National Heritage Areas: T he Land Grabs Continue,” by T om DeWeese,
October 11, 2012, at http://americanpolicy.org/2012/10/11/national-heritage-areas-the-land-grabs-continue/; and
T estimony of Robert J. Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Center for Private Conservation, in U.S. Congress,
Subcommitt ee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Heritage Areas,
hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., June 24, 2004, S.Hrg. 108-692 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1004), p. 23. T hese
commentators were considering earlier versions of NHA system legislation in the 112 th and 108th Congresses,
respectively.
25 P.L. 115-31, Division G, Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, p. H3878. Per communication
with NPS in June 2016, NPS considers “longstanding areas” to be those established prior to 2004, with the exception of
the National Coal Heritage Area, the Cache La Poudre River NHA, and the Illinois and Michigan Canal National
Heritage Corridor, none of which had a management plan in place at the time. Once a management plan was
established, NPS treated these NHAs as T ier II areas.
Congressional Research Service

10

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

For both FY2018 and FY2019, Congress directed this formula to remain constant with FY2017
levels, but “with the increase above the enacted level [of FY2017] to be equal y distributed to
Tier I areas or Tier II areas.”26 Congress appropriated $20.3 mil ion for assistance to heritage
areas in FY2018 and FY2019, $0.5 mil ion higher than the FY2017 level. As a result, the total
amount appropriated to each NHA was slightly higher than the Tier I and Tier II baseline levels
from FY2017. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $21.9 mil ion to support heritage areas.27 In the
accompanying explanatory text, Congress directed that the distribution formula remain consistent
with prior years and that the additional funding would be “sufficient to provide stable funding
sources for both the newly authorized and existing NHAs.”28
For FY2021, the Administration seeks to eliminate nearly al funding for NHAs. Specifical y, the
Administration proposed a reduction of roughly $21.5 mil ion for the NPS for heritage areas for
FY2021. The FY2021 budget requests $0.4 mil ion for administrative support and no funding for
grants to existing heritage areas. In an overview of the major savings and reforms outlined in the
FY2021 budget, the Administration stated that this reduction in funding was justified due to the
heritage area program being “secondary to the primary mission of the National Park Service.”29
Instead, the Administration encourages existing heritage areas to use the federal designation to
facilitate sustainable funding opportunities from local and private sources. Prior budget requests
for each of FY2018-FY2020 also proposed funding only NHA administrative costs, with no
funding provided to individual heritage areas.30
In July 2020, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 7612, the FY2021 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bil . In the related committee report, H.Rept.
116-448, the committee recommended $24.0 mil ion in funding for the NPS Heritage Partnership
Program. In addition, the bil included language waiving cost-share requirements for FY2021.31
On July 24, 2020, the House passed H.R. 7608, which included appropriations for Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies in Division C. Although the bil did not specify the exact
amount of funding provided for NHAs, funding for the National Recreation and Preservation
account (from which Congress typical y provides appropriations for heritage areas) is at the same
level specified in H.R. 7612. In addition, H.R. 7608 provided a similar waiver of cost-share
requirements for FY2021.

26 H.Rept. 116-9 for H.J.Res. 31, p. 721. Similar language was included in the FY2018 Committee Print, see U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, committee print, 115th Cong.,
2nd sess., H. Comm. Prnt. 115-66 (Washington: GPO, 2018), p. 1139.
27 FY2020 figures reflect enacted totals, whereas FY2018 and FY2019 figures reflect actual appropriations.
28 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, committee print, 116th
Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2020), p. 598.
29 Office of the President, Major Savings and Reforms, Budget of the United States Government, FY2021, February 10,
2020, p. 55. (“National Heritage Areas are not part of the National Park System, and the lands are not federally owned
and managed. T he lands within heritage areas tend to remain in State, local, or private ownership. T hus, these grants to
State and local entities are not a Federal responsibility. National Heritage Area managers should use the national
designation to facilitate more sustainable funding opportunities from local and private beneficiaries... T he proposed
funding elimination would also allow NPS to focus resources on core park and program operations, such as visitor
services.”)
30 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2018, 2019, and 2020 on the NPS website at
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm.
31 H.R. 7612 as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations. T he bill states “T hat notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the requirement for a local entity to provide a match for federal funding provided from the Heritage
Partnership Program is waived for fiscal year 2021.”
Congressional Research Service

11

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

A related issue of perennial interest to Congress is the expiration of funding authorizations for
existing NHAs. The laws establishing heritage areas typical y contain provisions explicitly
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the areas for certain
years. Were the authorization for federal funding to expire, the NHA itself would not necessarily
cease to exist. For example, the area could continue to be managed with funding from other
sources (unless the authority for the managing entity also expired). According to NPS, the
authorizations for appropriations for 30 of the existing 55 NHAs are set to expire in 2021. To
ensure that NHAs continue to receive federal funding, bil s have been introduced to extend dates
for the authorization of appropriations of individual NHAs.32
Congress sometimes chooses to increase the maximum lifetime funding for specific NHAs and to
extend the authorization period for appropriations. However, Congress also has expressed interest
in reducing or eliminating the federal funding role for individual heritage areas over time. In
S.Rept. 116-123, for example, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the NPS to
continue to encourage individual heritage areas to develop plans for long-term sufficiency.33
Support, Opposition, and Challenges
Some believe that the benefits of NHAs 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, especial y 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.34 Advocates see NHAs as
unifying forces that increase people’s pride in their traditions, foster a spirit of cooperation and
unity, and promote a stewardship ethic among the general public.35
Advocates of NHAs assert that they foster cultural tourism, community revitalization, and
regional economic development.36 Heritage areas are advertised as entertaining and educational
places for tourists, and they may involve activities such as stories, music, food areas, walking
tours, boat rides, and celebrations. Through increased tourism, communities benefit local y when
services and products are purchased.37 In some cases, increased heritage tourism, together with an
emphasis on adaptive reuse of historic resources, has attracted broader business growth and
development.38

32 For example, H.R. 7239 would extend authorization of appropriations for the Rivers of Steel NHA, the Lackawanna
Valley NHA, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, the Schuylkill River Valley NHA, and the Oil
Region NHA through 2036.
33 S.Rept. 116-123, p. 40.
34 T estimony of Sara Capen, Chair of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the House Committee on Natural Resources, hearings, 116 th Cong., 1st
sess., April 30, 2019, accessed at https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Capen,%20Sara%20-
%20Written%20Testimony.pdf.
35 National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), “National Heritage Areas Preserve America ’s Landscapes and
History,” web page accessed August 4, 2020, at https://www.npca.org/advocacy/59-national-heritage-areas-preserve-
america-s-landscapes-and-history. Hereinafter referred to as NPCA, “ National Heritage Areas.”
36 Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA), “Economic Impact,” accessed August 4, 2020, at
https://www.nationalheritageareas.us/issues/#econ. Hereinafter referred to as ANHA, “ Economic Impact.”
37 For examples of community benefits from NHAs, see NPS, “National Heritage Areas – Economic Impact Studies,”
web page accessed August 4, 2020, at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/economic_impact_studies.htm.
38 ANHA, “Economic Impact.”
Congressional Research Service

12

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Some supporters see NHAs as general y more desirable than other types of land conservation.
They often prefer the designation of NHAs over other federal y established designations, because
the lands typical y remain in nonfederal ownership, to be administered local y.39 Other NHA
backers view establishing and managing federal areas, such as units of the National Park System,
as too costly and observe that smal federal investments in heritage areas have been successful in
attracting funds from other sources.40 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; other supporters of NHAs favor a standardized program and process.41
Property rights advocates often oppose establishment of heritage areas. They contend that some
national heritage areas lack significant local support.42 These opponents promote routine
notification of private property owners when their lands fal within proposed heritage areas, on
the grounds that the NPS could exert a degree of federal control over nonfederal lands by
influencing zoning and land-use planning.43 Some raise concerns that the federal government
would not routinely adhere to any private property protections in legislation. They are concerned
that localities have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior for heritage area
management plans and assert that some plans are overly prescriptive in regulating details of
private property use.44
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.45 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. There are concerns that the enactment of
additional heritage bil s could substantial y increase the NPS’s administrative and financial
obligations. Some Trump Administration officials assert that federal funds would be more
appropriately spent on NPS park units and other existing protected areas rather than on the
creation of new heritage areas.46 Stil others cite a need for a mechanism to hold the management
entities accountable for the federal funds they receive and the decisions they make.47

39 Alan W. Barton, “From Parks to Partnerships: National Heritage Areas and the Path to Collaborative Participation in
the National Park Service’s First 100 Years,” Natural Resources Journal 56 (Winter 2016), at
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol56/iss1/5.
40 NPCA, “National Heritage Areas.”
41 For examples of proponents in support of the current regulatory structure for NHAs, see Susan Martin-Williams and
Steven Selin, “National Heritage Areas: Examining Organizational Development and the Role of the National Park
Service as a Federal Partner,” proceedings of the 2006 North eastern Recreation Research Symposium, Bolton Landing,
NY, April 9-11, 2006, pp. 367-376. For examples of advocates in support of systemic legislation, see ANHA, “ Program
Legislation,” accessed August 4, 2020, at https://www.nationalheritageareas.us/issues/#program. Hereinafter referred to
as ANHA, “Program Legislation.”
42 Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, National Center for Public Policy Research,
“National Heritage Areas—An Appearance of Innocence,” speech presented at T enth Annual National Conference on
Property Rights, Property Rights Foundation of America, Albany, New York, October 14, 2006, accessed at
https://prfamerica.org/speeches/10th/NatlHeritageAreas-AppearInnocent.html.
43 Cheryl Chumley and Ronald D. Utt, “National Heritage Areas: Costly Economic Development Schemes T hat
T hreaten Property Rights,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2080, October 23, 2007.
44 T estimony of Robert J. Smith, Director of the Center for Private Conservation, (108 th Congress), June 24, 2004,
before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the House Committee on Natural Resources, at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96736/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96736.pdf.
45 ANHA, “Program Legislation.”
46 P. Daniel Smith, 2019.
47 GAO, 2004, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service

13

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Some observers recommend caution in creating NHAs because in practice NHAs may face
various chal enges to success.48 For instance, heritage areas may have difficulty providing the
infrastructure that increased tourism requires, such as additional parking, lodging, and restaurants.
Some areas may need additional protective measures to ensure that increased tourism and
development do not degrade the resources and landscapes. Stil 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 not universal y accepted as a sustainable approach to resource preservation
or economic development.49 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. In addition, achieving and maintaining appropriate levels
of public commitment to implementation may be chal enging.50

48 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.
49 Brenda Barrett, “Why Is Funding Large Landscape Work So Darn Hard?” Living Landscape Observer, July 1, 2015,
at https//livinglandscapeobserver.net/why-is-funding-large-landscape-work-so-darn-hard/.
50 For additional information on challenges to NHA success, see Brenda Barrett, “NHA@30, New National Parks for
the 1990s: T hinning the Blood or a Much Needed T ransfusion?,” Living Landscape Observer, January 30, 2014, at
http://livinglandscape.observer.net/nha30-new-national-parks-in-the-1990s-thinning-of-the-blood-or-a-much-needed-
transfusion/. See also Alan W. Barton, “ From Parks to Partnerships: National Heritage Areas and the Path to
Collaborative Participation in the National Park Service’s First 100 Years,” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 56 (Winter
2016), pp. 23–54, at https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol56/iss1/5.
Congressional Research Service

14

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Appendix. Comparison of Provisions of H.R. 1049
and S. 3217
Table A-1. Comparison of Provisions of H.R. 1049 and S. 3217
H.R. 1049
S. 3217
Short Title
SECTION 1
SECTION 1
National Heritage Area Act of 2019
National Heritage Area Act
Findings and Purposes
SECTION 2
—
Definitions
SECTION 3
SECTION 2
Defines the fol owing terms:
Defines the fol owing terms:

Local Coordinating Entity

Local Coordinating Entity

National Heritage Area

National Heritage Area

Proposed National Heritage Area

Proposed National Heritage Area

Secretary

Secretary

National Heritage Area System

National Heritage Area System

Tribal Government

Tribal Government

Feasibility Study


Management Plan
National Heritage Area System
SECTION 4
SECTION 3
Establishes the National Heritage Area System to be
Establishes the National Heritage Area System to be
composed of existing NHAs and future NHAs
composed of existing NHAs and future NHAs
designated by Congress, unless a future law designating
designated by Congress, unless a future law designating
an area specifical y exempts if from the system.
an area specifical y exempts if from the system.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide
technical and financial assistance to NHAs. Sets out
technical and financial assistance to NHAs. Sets out
other responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior
other responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior
with regard to NHAs, such as preparing feasibility
with regard to NHAs, such as preparing feasibility
studies at the direction of Congress, reviewing and
studies at the direction of Congress, reviewing and
approving or disapproving management plans, entering
approving or disapproving management plans, entering
into cooperative agreements, and evaluating and
into cooperative agreements, and evaluating and
reporting on the accomplishments of NHAs.
reporting on the accomplishments of NHAs.
Establishes the relationship of the NHA System to the
Establishes the relationship of the NHA System to the
NPS and clarifies that NHAs are not to be considered
NPS and clarifies that NHAs are not to be considered
units of the National Park System.
units of the National Park System.
Congressional Research Service

15

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

H.R. 1049
S. 3217
Feasibility Studies
SECTION 5
SECTION 4(a)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
studies of the suitability and feasibility of establishing an
studies of the suitability and feasibility of establishing an
NHA or to review studies prepared by others. Sets out
NHA or to review studies prepared by others. Sets out
criteria by which areas would be evaluated, such as
criteria by which areas would be evaluated, such as
inclusion of worthy resources; availability of a local
inclusion of worthy resources; availability of a local
managing entity; and demonstration of support by local
managing entity; and demonstration of support by local
governments, residents, businesses, and nonprofit
governments, residents, businesses, and nonprofit
organizations.
organizations.

Requires the Secretary to review studies prepared by
others, and certify whether they meet the
requirements set out in the bil , within one year of
receipt.
Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a report
describing the findings of each study and the
conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
Report must be submitted within three years of funds
being provided for an NPS conducted study or within
180 days of the Secretary’s certification of a study
prepared by others.
Management Plans
SECTION 6
SECTION 4(c)
Requires each NHA to develop a management and
Requires each NHA to develop a management and
business plan. The bil sets out requirements of the
business plan. The bil sets out requirements of the
plan, including an inventory of resources and a strategy
plan, including an inventory of resources and a strategy
by which the local coordinating entity wil achieve
by which the local coordinating entity wil achieve
financial sustainability.
financial sustainability.
Requirements do not apply to management plans
Requirements do not apply to management plans
currently in effect.
currently in effect.
Requires the local coordinating entity to submit a
management plan to the Secretary for approval within
three years after designation of the NHA.
Designation of National Heritage Areas
SECTION 7
SECTION 4(b)
Specifies designation of an NHA is to be done only
Specifies designation of an NHA is to be done only
through an act of Congress.
through an act of Congress.
Prior to congressional designation, requires a
Prior to congressional designation, requires the
determination by the Secretary that an area meets the
Secretary to send to Congress a report (set out in 4(a))
criteria in the bil and completion of a management
that recommends designation of the area.
plan.
Evaluations
SECTION 8
SECTION 5
Sets out the authority of the Secretary of the Interior
Sets out the authority of the Secretary of the Interior
to evaluate the accomplishments of an NHA and submit to evaluate the accomplishments of an NHA and submit
a report to Congress with recommendations on the
a report to Congress with recommendations on the
NPS role regarding the area, including whether federal
NPS role regarding the area, including whether federal
funding should be continued, eliminated, or reduced.
funding should be continued, eliminated, or reduced.
Requires the Secretary to conduct an evaluation of
Provides the Secretary the authority to conduct
each NHA not later than10 years after the date of
evaluations of NHAs at “reasonable and appropriate
designation.
intervals.”
Congressional Research Service

16

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

H.R. 1049
S. 3217
Local Coordinating Entities
SECTION 9
Sets out roles, responsibilities, and authorities of local
coordinating entities.
[See Section 4(c) under “Management Plans,” above.]
Prohibits local coordinating entities from using federal
funds to acquire any interest in real property.
Relationship to Other Federal Agencies
SECTION 10
Requires federal agencies to coordinate with the
Secretary of the Interior and the local coordinating
entity of an NHA regarding activities that may have an
impact on the NHA.
—
Expresses the relationship of the bil to federal land
management, including that the bil does not modify
laws or regulations authorizing federal officials to
manage federal land.
Property Owners and Regulatory Protections
SECTION 11
SECTION 6
Identifies the rights of public and private property
Identifies the rights of public and private property
owners within NHA boundaries.
owners within NHA boundaries.
Funding
SECTION 12
SECTION 7
Authorizes up to $700,000 per NHA per year.
Authorizes up to $1 mil ion per NHA per year.
Requires 1:1 nonfederal to federal match to be
Provides that, in general, the federal share of the total
provided by local coordinating entity.
cost of any activity wil be no more than 50%.
Authorizes up to $300,000 per year to conduct
feasibility studies, with not more than $100,000 for any
one NHA. Requires 1:4 nonfederal to federal match to
be provided by local coordinating entity.
Authorizes up to $750,000 per year to conduct
management plans, with not more than $250,000 to any
one NHA. Requires 1:2 nonfederal to federal match to
be provided by local coordinating entity.
Sunset
SECTION 13
Establishes sunset of NHA system 20 years after the
—
date of enactment
Source: CRS with information from H.R. 1049 and S. 3217, both as introduced. No further action has been
taken as of August 6, 2020.
Notes: NHA = national heritage area; NPS = National Park Service. The table includes excerpted language from
the majority of sections but does not provide an exhaustive discussion of al provisions included in each bil . In
some cases, subsections within a section may be listed out of order to facilitate more direct comparison
between the language of the two bil s on a given issue. Although descriptions of bil provisions in Column 1 and
Column 2 may be presented with identical text, it is not intended to necessarily convey that the language in the
House and Senate bil s is identical. Moreover, the text of each chamber’s bil often has additional provisions,
some of which are included for emphasis.

Congressional Research Service

17

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Author Information

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Acknowledgments
Carol Hardy Vincent and Laura Comay, CRS Specialists in Natural Resources Policy, contributed to earlier
versions of this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL33462 · VERSION 45 · UPDATED
18