Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and
March 24, 2021
Current Issues
Mark K. DeSantis
Since 1984, Congress has established 55 national heritage areas (NHAs) to
Analyst in Natural
commemorate, conserve, and promote important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and
Resources Policy
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 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 FY2021 appropriation for NPS
for assistance to heritage areas was $23.9 mil ion—including $22.9 mil ion for grantmaking and direct support
and just over $1 mil ion for administrative support.
Past presidential Administrations expressed interest in having NHAs become financial y self-sufficient. Some
appropriators and other Members of Congress 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, P.L. 116-9 designated six new NHAs;
authorized feasibility studies for other prospective areas; and made changes to existing NHAs, including boundary
adjustments. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), also included provisions that extended
authorizations of existing NHAs to receive financial assistance.
Recent Congresses have considered legislation to establish a system of NHAs and to provide criteria for their
designation, standards for their management, and limits on federal funding support. In the 117th Congress, in
February 2021, the House passed H.R. 803, which includes provisions to establish such a system. Proponents cite
the number of existing NHAs and the growing number of proposals to study and designate new ones as a rationale
for such legislation. 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 reducing the
agency’s deferred maintenance backlog; others believe 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 areas 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. These attributes vary, as
they reflect the distinctive cultural characteristics of the various NHAs across the country. The 55
existing heritage areas are at different stages of developing and implementing plans to protect and
promote their attributes, as defined in statute. Table 1 identifies the 55 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
VA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
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 NHAe
MI
Nov. 6, 1998
P.L. 105-355

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
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
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
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 6 link to page 13 link to page 13 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislationa
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).
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.
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. The number of existing NHAs, along with proposals to study and
designate new ones, fostered interest among some Members of Congress and presidential
Administrations in establishing a standardized process and standardized criteria for designating
NHAs. (See “
Legislation to Establish Systemic NHA 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.2 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

2 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.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 14 link to page 12 link to page 12 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

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 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 not federal y owned, are managed by local entities with many partners, are funded
from many sources, and are 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.3
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.
Laws establishing national heritage areas often contain provisions intended to address concerns
about potential loss of, or restrictions on use of, private property resulting from NHA
designation.4 For example, P.L. 116-9, which established the six newest NHAs, included various
private property provisions. These provisions stated that designation of the new NHAs would not
abridge the rights 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 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

3 T hat system now has 423 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 Signify? , by Laura B. Comay; and CRS
Report R42125, National Park System : Units Managed Through Partnerships, by Laura B. Comay.
4 In 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO, at that time known as the General Accounting Office)
examined the effect of NHA designation on the rights of proper owners in 2004. 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
stated, “national heritage areas do not appear to have directly affected the rights of property owners.” T he GAO report
reflected the 24 national heritage areas (NHAs) in ex istence 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

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

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 funds and prepares studies as to the suitability and
feasibility of designating an area as an NHA.5 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 public-private management 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 nonfederal entity wil undertake a study in place of NPS. These entities could
include local nonprofit organizations, professional historians, community members, or state or
local government. The NPS does not fund studies undertaken by outside entities, but the agency
provides guidance to these efforts. For instance, the NPS recommends 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.6 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 more
standardized in recent years through the inclusion of some similar provisions in different areas’
enabling legislation.
Administration
The administration and management of NHAs usual y involve partnerships among the NPS,
states, and local interests. In establishing heritage areas, Congress typical y designates a
management entity—sometimes referred to as a local coordinating entity (LCE)—to coordinate
the partners’ work. Designated LCEs could include state or local government agencies, nonprofit
corporations, or independent commissions established in the enabling legislation. The LCE
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 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, the
plan essential y becomes the blueprint for managing the heritage area. The designated LCE is to

5 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.
6 NPS guidance for community members and organizations interested in conducting area studies is on the agency’s
website. See NPS, “Feasibility Studies,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/feasibility-studies.htm.
Congressional Research Service

5

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

implement the management plan through voluntary actions as funding and resources become
available.7
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 LCE 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.
Funding
NHAs receive funding from an array of sources, including philanthropic organizations, private
donations, state and local governments, and federal appropriations. In its annual budget
justification, the Administration submits to Congress its desired funding level for the heritage area
program, with funding usual y divided between direct grantmaking support to NHAs and general
administrative costs for the program. Congress typical y provides federal funding to NHAs as part
of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations laws under the NPS
National Recreation and Preservation account.
NPS typical y al ocates federal funding for NHAs to the designated LCEs. In general, the laws
establishing NHAs require a 1:1 match in funding (federal vs. nonfederal) by the managing
entities.8 Nonfederal matching funds can be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. 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 highlight an
area’s natural and cultural heritage. Funding also may support staffing, planning, or
administrative needs of the LCE.
In recent years, Congress has provided direction to the NPS on how to al ocate appropriated
monies among the various NHAs. 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 al ocated $150,000 for each authorized
area that was stil in the process of developing its management plan, known as Tier I areas, and
$300,000 for Tier II areas, which were those with recently approved management plans; it
maintained FY2016 funding levels for “longstanding” Tier III areas.9 In subsequent years,
Congress has directed NPS to maintain this tiered al otment formula with adjustments based on
changes in annual funding amounts and the establishment of new heritage areas.10

7 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,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/management-plans.htm.
8 T here are some exceptions to 1:1 matching of funds; for example, the enabling legislation designating the Wheeling
NHA requires only a 25% nonfederal to federal match from the local coordinating entity (P.L. 106-291, Title I, §157,
Oct. 11, 2000, 114 Stat. 963).
9 P.L. 115-31, Division G, Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, p. H3878. T he 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.
10 For both FY2018 and FY2019, Congress directed this formula to rem ain constant with FY2017 levels, “with the
increase above the enacted level [of FY2017] to be equally distributed to T ier I areas or T ier II areas” (H.Rept. 116-9
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 14 link to page 10 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Although Congress has regularly provided appropriations to NHAs through the annual
appropriations process, some Members have 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.11 For more information on these
perspectives, see “Support, Opposition, and Chal enges.”
FY2021 Appropriations
For FY2021, the Trump Administration sought to eliminate nearly al funding for NHAs.
Specifical y, the Administration proposed a reduction of roughly $21.5 mil ion from FY2020
funding levels for heritage areas. The FY2021 budget requested $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 (NPS).”12 Instead, the Administration encouraged 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.13
P.L. 116-260, enacted in December 2020, included appropriations for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies in Division G. The law provides $23.9 mil ion in funding for the NPS Heritage
Partnership Program for FY2021—including $22.9 mil ion for grantmaking and direct support
and just over $1 mil ion for administrative support. 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 National Heritage Areas.”14

for H.J.Res. 31, p. 721). Congress appropriated $20.3 million for assistance to heritage areas in FY2018 and FY2019,
$0.5 million higher than the FY2017 level. As a result, the total amount appropriated to each NHA was slightly higher
than the T ier I and T ier II baseline levels from FY2017. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $21.9 million to support
heritage areas. 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” (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020, committee print, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 2020), p. 598). FY2021
appropriations are discussed further in the “ FY2021 Appropriations” section.
11 S.Rept. 116-123, p. 40.
12 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.
13 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2018, 2019, and 2020 on the NPS website at
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm.
14 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 166, part 218 (December 21, 2020), p. H8532.
Congressional Research Service

7

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Authorizations and Funding Limits
The laws establishing heritage areas typical y contain provisions explicitly authorizing the
Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for a specified period. Were the
authorization for federal funding to expire, the NHA itself would not necessarily cease to exist
(e.g., the area could continue to operate with funding from nonfederal sources). However, for a
heritage area to continue receiving federal funding beyond the period specified in the establishing
law, Congress typical y would need to extend or amend the authorization provision. Congress
regularly considers legislation extending authorization limits for federal funding to NHAs. For
example, according to the NPS, the funding authorizations for 30 of the existing 55 NHAs are set
to expire in 2021. As a result, Members have introduced a variety of bil s in the 116th and 117th
Congress to extend dates for the authorization of appropriations of these individual NHAs beyond
2021.15
In addition to setting sunset dates for federal funding authorizations, Congress has established
funding caps for some NHAs, either on an annual basis or over the lifetime of the authorized
funding period. Congress sometimes has chosen to increase these funding limits for specific
NHAs, particularly in instances where the limit has been met or is at risk of being met.
Evaluations
In recent years, the NPS has increasingly sought to conduct evaluations of heritage areas to make
recommendations on the future NPS role (if any) in the management of areas moving forward.
Such evaluations have been undertaken at the behest of the Secretary of the Interior, as wel as at
the direction of Congress. For example, P.L. 110-229 required the NPS to evaluate nine heritage
areas designated in 1996.16 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.17 Based on the statute’s evaluation
requirements, NPS developed a policy to evaluate al heritage areas prior to termination of federal
funding. Since 2015, NPS has completed 10 additional evaluations of heritage areas.18 Congress
also has included provisions requiring evaluations for newly established heritage areas in most

15 For example, in the 116th Congress, H.R. 7239 would have extended 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.
16 P.L. 110-229, §462.
17 See NPS, “Evaluations,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/evaluations.html.
18 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, Last Green
Valley National Heritage Corridor, Wheeling NHA, and Yuma Crossing NHA.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 12 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

legislation considered in recent years. In general, these provisions direct NPS to evaluate heritage
areas within a specific period, typical y before the expiration of the authorization for federal
funds.19
Legislative Activity
Congress considers bil s pertaining to existing and proposed NHAs on a perennial basis. 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 selected other bil s introduced in the 116th and 117th Congress that exclusively or
mainly focus on NHAs and provisions related to NHAs 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.20 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.21 It established a sunset date of 15 years after the date of
enactment for the authority of the Secretary to provide assistance.22
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.

19 For example, P.L. 116-9 required NPS to conduct an evaluation for each newly established heritage area “not later
than 3 years before the date on which authority for Federal funding terminates.”
20 P.L. 116-9, T itle VI, §6001(b)(1).
21 P.L. 116-9, T itle VI, §6001(g).
22 P.L. 116-9, T itle VI, §6001(g)(4).
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 17 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

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.23 Section 6003 directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the
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.24 Section 6004 made various types of changes to existing NHAs.
Legislation to Establish Systemic NHA Procedures
Congress has considered a number of bil s in recent years that would establish a national heritage
areas system. In the 116th Congress, two bil s—H.R. 1049 and S. 3217—would have established
such a system and set out the relationship between the NHAs and the National Park System. For
example, both bil s stated explicitly that NHAs were not to be considered units of the National
Park System or subject to the authorities applicable to that system. They also would have required
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies, when directed by Congress, or to
review such studies prepared by others. The bil s differed in a number of ways, as authorization
for federal assistance would have expired under H.R. 1049 in 2034 and S. 3217 would have
permanently authorized federal assistance. In December 2020, the House passed H.R. 1049, as
amended; the Senate did not take up the bil for a vote in the 116th Congress.
In February 2021, the House passed H.R. 803, the Protecting America’s Wilderness and Public
Lands Act. Title XVII of the bil includes provisions that would establish a national heritage area
system similar to those passed by the 116th Congress as part of H.R. 1049. Specifical y, H.R. 803
would standardize a system governing the designation, management, and funding of NHAs.
Among other provisions, the bil outlines a procedure for developing NHA management plans and
specifies components of such plans; directs the Secretary to conduct evaluations for al NHAs;
and authorizes up to $750,000 in appropriations per year for each NHA until 2037. For a more
complete analysis of the provisions within H.R. 803 see the Appendix.
The development of systemic heritage area legislation has been advocated in the past by an
independent commission,25 the Obama Administration,26 and the George W. Bush Administration,
among others.27 The Trump Administration also 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 in the 116th Congress, the Trump Administration also
testified in favor of deferring action on the bil , “to work with the sponsor and the committee on

23 P.L. 116-9, §6002. The Lincoln NHA in Illinois was established in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
(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,” T he State Journal-Register, February 12, 2019).
24 P.L. 116-9, §6003.
25 National Parks Second Century Commission, Advancing the National Park Idea, 2009, p. 23.
26 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.
27 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).
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 7 link to page 14 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

revisions that would more fully address the issues with the program.”28 In particular, the Trump
Administration did not support the extension of funding authority for national heritage areas
outlined in H.R. 1049, as amended, 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 expressed a desire to focus resources on reducing the National Park Service’s
deferred maintenance backlog and to transition funding for the heritage area program to the state,
local, or private entities that manage heritage areas.29
Opposition to an NHA system, as with opposition to individual NHAs, has come primarily from
advocates of private property rights.30 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.31 For example, they have stated that
heritage area LCEs—though themselves lacking power to make regulatory changes—could
influence local legislators to change zoning laws and other regulations.
Additional NHA Legislation in the 117th Congress
In addition to H.R. 803, various other bil s pertaining to existing NHAs or the designation of new
heritage areas have been introduced in the 117th Congress. The majority of these bil s seek to
extend authorization limits for the 30 NHAs whose authorization is set to expire in 2021. For
example, H.R. 956 would extend the authorization of federal funding for the National Aviation
Heritage Area through 2036. Other bil s would establish new national heritage areas, such as H.R.
670, which would establish the Bronzevil e-Black Metropolis National Heritage Area in Chicago,
IL.
Support, Opposition, and Challenges
Some believe 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, 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.32 Advocates see NHAs as

28 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.
29 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.
30 For additional discussion on private property issues, see the sections of this report entitled “ Ownership” and
“Support, Opposition, and Challenges.”
31 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,
Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on Ener gy 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.
32 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
Congressional Research Service

11

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

unifying forces that increase people’s pride in their traditions, foster a spirit of cooperation and
unity, and promote a stewardship ethic among the public.33
Advocates of NHAs assert that heritage areas foster cultural tourism, community revitalization,
and regional economic development.34 Local governments and management entities often
advertise heritage areas as entertaining and educational places for tourists and may offer activities
such as stories, music, food areas, walking tours, boat rides, and celebrations. Through increased
tourism, communities benefit local y when tourists visit and purchase services and products.35 In
some cases, increased heritage tourism, together with an emphasis on adaptive reuse of historic
resources, has attracted broader business growth and development.36
Some supporters see NHAs as general y more desirable than other types of land conservation.
They often prefer the designation of NHAs to other federal y established designations, because
the lands typical y remain in nonfederal ownership and are administered local y.37 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.38 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.39
Property rights advocates often oppose establishment of heritage areas. They contend that some
national heritage areas lack significant local support.40 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.41 Some raise concerns that the federal government
would not routinely adhere to any private property protections in legislation. They are concerned

sess., April 30, 2019, accessed at https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Capen,%20Sara%20-
%20Written%20Testimony.pdf.
33 National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), “National Heritage Areas Preserve America’s Landscapes and
History,” at https://www.npca.org/advocacy/59-national-heritage-areas-preserve-america-s-landscapes-and-history.
Hereinafter referred to as NPCA, “National Heritage Areas.”
34 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.”
35 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.
36 ANHA, “Economic Impact.”
37 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.
38 NPCA, “National Heritage Areas.”
39 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 Northeastern 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.”
40 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.
41 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.
Congressional Research Service

12

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

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.42
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.43 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 asserted 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.44 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.45
Some observers recommend caution in creating NHAs because, in practice, NHAs may face
various chal enges to success.46 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 have trouble attracting funds because the
concept is not universal y accepted as a sustainable approach to resource preservation or
economic development.47 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.48

42 T estimony of Robert J. Smith, Director of the Center for Private Conservation, (10 8th 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.
43 ANHA, “Program Legislation.”
44 P. Daniel Smith, 2019.
45 GAO, 2004, p. 11.
46 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.
47 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/.
48 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

13

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Appendix. Overview of Title XVII Provisions of
H.R. 803
Table A-1. Overview of Title XVII Provisions of H.R. 803
Section 1701. Short Title
“National Heritage Area Act of 2021”
Section 1702. Definitions
Defines the fol owing terms:

Feasibility Study

Indian Tribe

Local Coordinating Entity

Management Plan

National Heritage Area

Secretary

Study Area

Tribal Government
Section 1703. National Heritage Area System
Establishes the National Heritage Area System to be composed of existing NHAs and future NHAs designated by
Congress, unless a future law designating an area specifical y exempts if from the system.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance to NHAs. Sets out other
responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to NHAs, such as preparing feasibility studies at the
direction of Congress, reviewing and approving or disapproving management plans, entering into cooperative
agreements, and evaluating and reporting on the accomplishments of NHAs.
Establishes the relationship of the NHA System to the NPS and clarifies that NHAs are not to be considered units
of the national park system.
Section 1704. National Heritage Area System Management
MANAGEMENT PLAN—
Requires each NHA to develop a management and business plan. The bil sets out requirements of the plan
including an inventory of resources and a strategy by which the local coordinating entity wil achieve financial
sustainability.
Requirements do not apply to management plans 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.
EVALUATIONS—
Requires the Secretary to conduct an evaluation of each NHA not later than one year before the authorization for
Federal funding expires.
Directs the Secretary to submit evaluations to Congress with recommendations on the NPS role regarding the
area, including whether federal funding should be continued, eliminated, or reduced.
Al ows for Secretary to meet evaluation requirement by updating an existing evaluation not more than five years
before another evaluation would otherwise be required.
Provides Secretary with authority to conduct additional evaluations as deemed appropriate.
Section 1705. Study Areas
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies of the suitability and feasibility of establishing an NHA
or to review studies prepared by others. The bil sets out criteria by which areas would be evaluated, such as
inclusion of worthy resources; availability of a local managing entity; and demonstration of support by local
governments, residents, businesses, and nonprofit organizations.
Congressional Research Service

14

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

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.
Section 1706. Local Coordinating Entities
Sets out roles, responsibilities, and authorities of local coordinating entities.
Prohibits local coordinating entities from using federal funds to acquire any interest in real property.
Extends authorities of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission and the Gul ah/Geechee
Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission through September 30, 2035.
Section 1707. Property Owners and Regulatory Protections
Identifies the rights of public and private property owners, as wel as treaty rights of any Indian Tribe within
designated NHAs.
Section 1708. Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes up to $750,000 per NHA per year for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2037.
Provides that, in general, the federal share of the total cost of any activity wil be no more than 50%.
Provides that for NHAs with an existing federal match of less than 50%, the non -federal requirement wil remain
unchanged for two fiscal years after enactment, with a 10% increase annual y thereafter until the nonfederal share
is consistent with the 50% requirement for other NHAs.
Section 1709. Statutory Clarification
Specifies that any existing provisions of law that provide for authorization sunset dates, funding limitations, or
evaluation requirements, are superceded and shal have no effect.
Specifies that any existing provisions of law that provide for the establishment management, administration, or
operation of existing heritage areas are not affected by the bil unless otherwise specified.
Source: CRS with information from H.R. 803, as referred in the Senate. No further action has been taken as of
March 15, 2021.
Notes: The table includes excerpted language from the majority of sections, but does not provide an exhaustive
discussion of al provisions included in the bil .

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.
Congressional Research Service

15

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

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 47 · UPDATED
16