National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

National Heritage Areas: Background and
April 17, 2023
Issues for Congress
Mark K. DeSantis
Since 1984, Congress has established 61 national heritage areas (NHAs) to conserve,
Analyst in Natural
enhance, and interpret nationally significant natural, historic, scenic, and cultural
Resources Policy
resources of areas that illustrate aspects of the country’s heritage. NHAs are partnerships

among the National Park Service (NPS), states, and local communities, in which the
NPS supports state and local conservation efforts through federal recognition, seed

money, and technical assistance. Unlike lands within the National Park System, which are federally owned and
managed, lands within heritage areas typically remain in state, local, or private ownership or a combination
thereof.
The National Heritage Area Act (P.L. 117-339), enacted on January 5, 2023, established the National Heritage
Area System. This act was the first comprehensive statute outlining formal criteria for designating NHAs and
providing uniform standards for their funding and management. Previously, particulars for each area were
provided in each NHA’s enabling legislation, with no system-wide guidelines for how newly designated NHAs
were to be administered and managed.
NHAs are designated by acts of Congress. Prior to establishing a new NHA, Congress typically directs the
Secretary of the Interior to study the area for potential designation. Such studies address a range of considerations,
including the area’s suitability and feasibility. Suitability relates to whether the area contains resources
representative of distinct aspects of U.S. heritage; reflects U.S. traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife; and
provides opportunities for recreation and education. Feasibility relates to whether a designation has local support,
a conceptual financial plan, an identified management entity, and conceptual boundaries.
In establishing a new NHA, Congress designates a local coordinating entity—usually nonfederal—to coordinate
and oversee administration of the area. This entity typically develops and implements a plan for managing the
NHA, in collaboration with other stakeholders. The plan usually becomes the blueprint for managing the area. The
local coordinating entity typically receives funding from a wide variety of sources, including federal funding from
NPS through annual appropriations laws. The FY2023 appropriation for NPS assistance to heritage areas was
$29.2 million—a 7.7% increase from the FY2022 enacted level. Local coordinating entities for NHAs can use
federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and executing projects.
Supporters of heritage areas assert that NHAs protect the country’s history, traditions, and cultural landscapes and
serve as economic catalysts for communities across the country. In addition, proponents often point to NHAs as
being cost-effective models for public-private partnerships, given that most NHAs must match federal dollars
with nonfederal funding. Supporters also often point to NHAs as an alternative to other federally established
designations, in that lands typically remain in nonfederal ownership and are administered locally. They assert that
participation in NHAs is voluntary and that NHA legislation often explicitly protects property rights.
Opponents view NHAs as an inefficient or ineffective use of federal resources. For example, some stakeholders
have suggested that NHAs may be burdensome or costly to the federal government and have expressed a desire to
focus NPS resources on federally owned properties and on reducing the agency’s deferred maintenance backlog.
Some past Administrations expressed interest in having NHAs become financially self-sufficient. Some
appropriators and other Members of Congress have emphasized self-sufficiency for these areas, as well.
Opponents also contend that NHAs could interfere with nonfederal management of certain areas, threaten private
property rights, or lead to federal control of nonfederal areas.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 4 link to page 17 link to page 19 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Origin and Evolution of National Heritage Areas ..................................................................... 4
Study and Designation ..................................................................................................................... 4
Administration ................................................................................................................................. 5
Land Ownership .............................................................................................................................. 6
Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Authorizations and Funding Limits ................................................................................................. 8
Evaluations ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Perspectives and Legislative Activity ........................................................................ 10
National Heritage Area System: Consideration and Enactment .............................................. 13
The National Heritage Area Act, P.L. 117-339 ........................................................................ 14

Figures
Figure 1. Appropriations for the National Park Service’s Heritage Partnership Program,
FY2014-FY2023 .......................................................................................................................... 8

Tables
Table 1. National Heritage Areas (NHAs) by Date of Authorization .............................................. 1
Table 2. Overview of P.L. 117-339, the National Heritage Area Act ............................................ 14

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 16

Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Background
Since 1984, Congress has designated 61 national heritage areas (NHAs) to recognize and assist
with 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.2 A principal
feature of NHAs is their 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 their traditions. In a majority of cases, NHAs have as their foundation a
fundamental economic activity such as agriculture, water transportation, or industrial
development. Still, the attributes of these NHAs vary, as they reflect the distinctive cultural
characteristics of areas across the country.
The National Heritage Area Act (NHA Act; P.L. 117-339), enacted on January 5, 2023,
established the National Heritage Area System. This act was the first comprehensive statute
outlining formal criteria for designating NHAs and providing uniform standards for their funding
and management. Previously, particulars for each new NHA were provided in the enabling
legislation, with no general guidelines in law for how newly designated NHAs were to be
administered and managed.
The existing NHAs—including those designated prior to the establishment of the National
Heritage Area System—are in different stages of developing and implementing plans to protect
and promote their attributes. Table 1 identifies the NHAs established by Congress that make up
the National Heritage Area System.
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 Valley 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 Valley National Heritage Corridorc
CT/MA
Nov. 2, 1994
P.L. 103-449

1 The National Park Service (NPS) reports 62 national heritage areas; see NPS, “National Heritage Areas,” at
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/index.htm. This is because NPS historically has provided funding to the
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District through the NPS Heritage Partnership Program budget
account alongside the 61 components of the newly established National Heritage Area System. However, in
establishing the new system under P.L. 117-339, Congress defined the components to include National Heritage Areas,
National Heritage Corridors, National Heritage Canalways, Cultural Heritage Corridors, National Heritage Routes, and
National Heritage Partnerships established before or on the date of enactment of the law. This definition appears to
exclude the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District; however, NPS has indicated it intends to
continue providing financial and technical support to the district through the Heritage Partnership Program, unless
otherwise directed (communication between NPS, Office of Legislative Affairs, and the Congressional Research
Service, January 2023).
2 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 have also developed their own heritage area programs.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislationa
Silos and Smokestacks NHAd
IA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
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 Valley NHAe
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 Valley Battlefields National Historic
VA
Nov. 12, 1996
P.L. 104-333
Districtf
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 NHAg
MI
Nov. 6, 1998
P.L. 105-355
Lackawanna Valley NHA
PA
Oct. 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
Schuylkil River Valley NHA
PA
Oct. 6, 2000
P.L. 106-278
Wheeling NHA
WV
Oct. 11, 2000
P.L. 106-291
Yuma Crossing NHA
AZ
Oct. 19, 2000
P.L. 106-319
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
NY
Dec. 21, 2000
P.L. 106-554
Blue Ridge NHA
NC
Nov. 10, 2003
P.L. 108-108
Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA
MS
Dec. 8, 2004
P.L. 108-447
National Aviation Heritage Area
OH/INh
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 Valley 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 NHAi
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 Valley NHA
CT/MA
Oct. 12, 2006
P.L. 109-338
Abraham Lincoln NHA
IL
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA
MD/PA/VA/WV
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Niagara Falls NHA
NY
May 8, 2008
P.L. 110-229
Baltimore NHA
MD
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Cache La Poudre River NHAj
CO
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Freedom’s Way NHA
MA/NH
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 6 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Date of
Enabling
National Heritage Area
State
Authorization
Legislationa
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm NHA
AK
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Mississippi Delta NHA
MS
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Mississippi Hil s NHA
MS
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Muscle Shoals NHA
AL
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Northern Plains NHA
ND
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Sangre de Cristo NHA
CO
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
South Park NHA
CO
Mar. 30, 2009
P.L. 111-11
Appalachian Forest NHA
WV/MD
Mar. 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Maritime Washington NHA
WA
Mar. 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Mountains to Sound Greenway NHA
WA
Mar. 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta NHA
CA
Mar. 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Santa Cruz Valley NHA
AZ
Mar. 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Susquehanna NHA
PA
Mar. 12, 2019
P.L. 116-9
Alabama Black Belt NHA
AL
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
Bronzeville-Black Metropolis NHA
IL
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
Downeast Maine NHA
ME
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
Northern Neck NHA
VA
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
St. Croix NHA
USVI
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
Southern Campaign of the Revolution National
NC/SC
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
Heritage Corridor
Southern Maryland NHA
MD
Jan. 5, 2023
P.L. 117-339
Sources: National Park Service (NPS) and Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes:
a. The term enabling legislation refers to the law that first designated a given heritage area.
b. Authorization and federal funding for the commission expired in 2008.
c. The heritage corridor originally was established as the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National
Heritage Corridor; in 2014, it was redesignated as The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor (P.L.
113-291).
d. The heritage area was originally established as the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership; in 2023, it
was redesignated as Silos and Smokestacks NHA (P.L. 117-339).
e. The heritage area was originally established as the Hudson River Valley NHA; in 2019, it was redesignated
as the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley NHA (P.L. 116-9).
f.
NPS reports 62 NHAs, which includes the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District.
However, P.L. 117-339 defines components of the National Heritage Area System in a manner that appears
to exclude the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. However, it is included here, as
NPS typically provides financial and technical support to the district through the Heritage Partnership
Program, and the district historically has been considered a heritage area for the purposes of the program.
g. The heritage area was originally established as the Automobile National Heritage Area; in 2014, it was
redesignated as the MotorCities National Heritage Area (P.L. 113-291).
h. 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 Alliance.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 13 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

i.
The heritage area was originally established as the Great Basin National Heritage Route; in 2023, it was
redesignated as the Great Basin NHA (P.L. 117-339).
j.
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 of National Heritage Areas
Congress designated the first heritage area—the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage
Corridor—in 1984.3 This area was located in one of the nation’s most industrialized regions and,
in designating the area as a heritage area, Congress sought to combine a range of land uses,
management programs, and historical themes. In his dedication speech signing the legislation into
law, President Reagan referred to the heritage area as “a new kind of national park.”4 Unlike
national parks, however, the federal government would not directly manage heritage areas,
though the agency would assist with their administration (e.g., through technical and financial
assistance). Specifically, the legislation was designed to facilitate grassroots preservation of
natural resources and economic development in communities and regions containing industries
and historic structures.5 The ideas of linking, and maintaining a balance between, nature and
industry and of encouraging economic regeneration resonated with many states and communities,
especially in the eastern United States. Interest in establishing heritage areas increased
commensurate with growing public interest in cultural heritage tourism.6
Since the creation of the first NHA in 1984, interest in designating additional NHAs 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. Proponents identified potential benefits of such an approach, including streamlining the
administration of NHAs, creating more accountability, and encouraging regional conservation and
sustainability.7 Other stakeholders opposed a standardized process on various grounds, including
general concerns that heritage areas are burdensome or costly to the federal government, and
encouraged Congress to oppose any efforts to designate new areas or create a system of NHAs.
(For more information see “Stakeholder Perspectives and Legislative Activity”.) On January 5,
2023, the National Heritage Areas System Act was enacted, establishing a formal NHA System
and creating uniform guidelines to study, designate, and evaluate heritage areas.8
Study and Designation
NHA designation is often a two-step process. First, an initial study of the suitability and
feasibility of designating an area as an NHA may take place. Such studies may be conducted
either by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service (NPS) or by a nonfederal

3 P.L. 98-398.
4 NPS, “National Heritage Areas,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/index.htm.
5 S.Rept. 98-355.
6 J. Glenn Eugster, “Evolution of the Heritage Areas Movement,” The George Wright Forum, vol. 20, no. 2 (June
2003), pp. 50-59, at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43599030.
7 Office of Congressman Paul D. Tonko, “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.
8 P.L. 117-339.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 8 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

entity.9 NPS typically funds, conducts, and prepares feasibility studies for potential additions to
the NHA System when directed to do so by Congress.10 When one or more nonfederal entities
(e.g., local nonprofit organizations, professional historians, community members, or state or local
governments) undertake a study, NPS typically does not provide the funding—nonfederal sources
fund the study. The agency may, however, provide technical assistance to the nonfederal entities
throughout the study process. This assistance can include guidance concerning suggested
methodologies, techniques for public involvement, or potential options for crafting a regional
vision for preserving and developing the area’s heritage.
Regardless of who conducts the study, the feasibility study must meet certain requirements and
provide specific information to inform a recommendation from the Secretary to Congress. The
NHA Act requires studies to address, among other topics, whether an area has resources reflecting
aspects of American heritage that are worthy of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and
continued use; whether an area would benefit from public-private management; and whether a
community of residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and state and local agencies would
work to support a heritage area. Studies also must identify the possible boundaries of the
proposed NHA, a potential management entity for the NHA, and the extent of financial resources
available for the area. Once a study is complete, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress
that describes the findings of the study, correspondence reflecting support or opposition from
stakeholders, and a recommendation as to whether to establish the NHA.
After a report is submitted to Congress, Members may consider whether to introduce legislation
to establish the NHA. The NHA Act provides that NHAs may be designated only by acts of
Congress. Although legislation authorizing an NHA might follow a positive study
recommendation, a positive recommendation is not a requirement for enacting legislation to
designate an NHA. Congress could choose, for example, to designate an NHA absent a feasibility
study. An NHA’s enabling legislation typically provides for any particulars in the establishment
and management of a heritage area. For instance, enacting legislation might identify the local
coordinating entity (see “Administration”) or specify matching requirements for federal funding.
Administration
The administration and management of NHAs usually involve partnerships among the NPS,
states, and local interests. In establishing heritage areas, Congress typically 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
usually develops and implements a plan for managing the NHA in collaboration with partners and
other interested parties, which must be approved by the Secretary. Although the plans’
components vary in accordance with the authorizing legislation and local needs, they often
identify natural, historic, or cultural resources and themes for interpretation; 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 approves a plan, the plan
essentially becomes the blueprint for managing the heritage area. The designated LCE is expected

9 Hereinafter, the Secretary of the Interior sometimes is referred to as “the Secretary.”
10 For instance, P.L. 116-9, §6003, directed the NPS to study the Finger Lakes Area in New York for designation as a
national heritage area.
Congressional Research Service

5

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

to implement the management plan through voluntary actions as funding and resources become
available.11
The NPS may provide various types of assistance (e.g., administrative, financial, policy,
technical) to LCEs. Following an NHA designation, the NPS typically enters into a cooperative
agreement, or compact, with the designated LCE to help plan and organize management of the
area. The compact outlines the goals for the heritage area and defines the roles and contributions
of the NPS and other partners, typically setting out the parameters of the NPS’s technical
assistance. It also serves as the legal vehicle for channeling federal funds to nongovernmental
management entities.
Land Ownership
NHAs reflect a departure from historical roles and responsibilities of the federal government in
protecting natural and cultural resources and lands. The traditional form of protection for land
administered by NPS has been through government ownership, management, and funding of
lands set aside for protection and public enjoyment. By contrast, NHAs typically are not federally
owned. Instead, they are managed by local entities with many partners and sources of funding to
promote local economic development as well 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.12
NHAs consist mainly of private properties, although some include publicly owned lands. In most
cases, NHA designation does not provide for federal acquisition of land; once designated,
heritage areas generally remain in private, state, or local government ownership or a combination
thereof.13 Laws establishing NHAs have often contained provisions intended to address concerns
about potential loss of, or restrictions on use of, private property resulting from NHA
designation.14 For example, P.L. 116-9 included various provisions stating that designation of six
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.

11 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.
12 That 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.
13 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 within the Cane River NHA and the
creation of the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park within the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley
National Heritage Corridor.
14 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 property owners. The 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.” The GAO report
reflected the 24 NHAs in existence at that time. See GAO, National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for
Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed, GAO-04-593T, March
30, 2004, p. 3. Hereinafter referred to as GAO, 2004.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

In 2023, P.L. 117-339 included similar language regarding private property rights, but did so
across the entire newly established National Heritage Area System.15
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 usually divided between direct grantmaking support to NHAs and general
administrative costs for the program. Congress typically 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 typically allocates 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 LCEs.16
Nonfederal matching funds can be provided 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, or 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 allocate appropriated
monies among the various NHAs. For instance, in the explanatory statement accompanying the
FY2017 appropriations law for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Congress allocated
funding to NHAs under a three-tier system. This system allocated $150,000 for each authorized
area that was still 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.17 In subsequent years,
Congress has directed NPS to maintain this tiered allotment formula with adjustments based on
changes in annual funding amounts and the establishment of new heritage areas.18 For an
overview of federal appropriations for heritage area programs, see Figure 1.

15 Specifically, the law specifies that designation of an NHA does not abridge any rights of a public or private property
owner, require a property owner to permit public access to a property, alter any land use regulation, convey authority to
any local coordinating entity, affects water rights, diminish state authority over wildlife, or create liability with respect
to any person injured on private property.
16 There are some exceptions to 1:1 matching of funds; for example, the enabling legislation designating the Wheeling
NHA requires a 25% nonfederal to federal match from the local coordinating entity (P.L. 106-291, Title I, §157.)
17 P.L. 115-31, Division G, Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, p. H3878. The 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 Tier II
areas.
18 In explanatory statements accompanying appropriations laws since FY2017, Congress has indicated that funding be
distributed in accordance with the directive established in FY2017. For example, in FY2023, Congress indicated that
“the directive contained in the explanatory statement that accompanied Public Law 116–6 with regards to funding
distribution is continued.” See the “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,” Proceedings and Debates of the 117th
Congress, Congressional Record, vol. 168, part 198 (December 22, 2022), p. S8649.
Congressional Research Service

7

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 1. Appropriations for the National Park Service’s Heritage Partnership
Program, FY2014-FY2023
($ in millions)

Source: Data for FY2014-FY2021 are from NPS budget justifications for FY2016-FY2022. Data for FY2022 and
FYa2023 are taken from annual House Appropriations Committee detailed tables for NPS.
Notes: The left-hand vertical axis is measured in mil ions of dol ars and reflects appropriations figures from
FY2014-FY2023. The right-hand vertical axis measures the number of national heritage areas over that same
period. Adjustments for inflation (shown in 2023 dol ars) use the GDP Chained Price Index from White House
Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 10.1, Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in
the Historical Tables—1940-2023, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/. The number of
designated heritage areas reflected in the line graph include the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District. Although this area does not appear to be included within the definition of the newly established
National Heritage Area System, NPS typically provides funding to the Historic District through the Heritage
Partnership Program annual appropriation.
Authorizations and Funding Limits
The laws establishing NHAs typically contain provisions explicitly authorizing the Secretary of
the Interior to provide financial assistance to LCEs to support the establishment, development,
and continuity of NHAs for a specified period. Were the authorization to provide assistance
expire, the NHA and the LCE would not necessarily cease to exist (e.g., the LCE could continue
to operate and manage the NHA with funding from nonfederal sources). However, an extension
of the provision authorizing the Secretary to provide financial assistance would be needed for an
LCE to continue receiving federal funding beyond the period specified in the enabling law.
Congress often considers legislation extending authorization limits for the Secretary to provide
federal funding to NHAs and their LCEs. For example, from September 30, 2021, to October 12,
2021, various provisions of law authorizing the Secretary to provide financial assistance (to 30 of
the 55 existing NHAs) were set to expire. Members introduced a variety of bills in the 116th and
Congressional Research Service

8

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

117th Congress to extend the authorization dates beyond 2021.19 As part of the NHA Act, the
authorization for the majority of NHAs was extended through 2037.20
Congress also has established funding caps for some NHAs, either on an annual basis or over the
lifetime of the authorized funding period.21 Most NHAs have an annual funding limit of $1
million; in practice, annual funding levels for individual NHAs have historically tended to be
lower than that amount. By contrast, total lifetime funding caps vary across individual NHAs.
This is in part due to Congress periodically increasing funding limits for specific NHAs in
instances where funding has reached or is approaching the limit.22 In 2023, the NHA Act
increased the total lifetime authorization for appropriations for 11 NHAs.23
Evaluations
In recent years, the NPS has increasingly undertaken evaluations of NHAs to inform
recommendations on the future NPS role (if any) in the management of such areas moving
forward. Such evaluations have been undertaken at the behest of the Secretary of the Interior and
at the direction of Congress. For example, P.L. 110-229 required the NPS to evaluate nine
heritage areas designated in 1996.24 The law required an evaluation of the “accomplishments” of
each area; the management entity’s success in achieving the enabling law’s purposes and the
management plan’s goals and objectives; the impact of investments in the area; and 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
NHAs listed in P.L. 110-229.25 After completing these statutorily mandated evaluations, NPS

19 For example, in the 116th Congress, H.R. 7239 would have extended the 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. Multiple bills were introduced in the 117th
Congress that would have extended the funding authorization for the 30 areas in question. Prior to the enactment of
P.L. 117-339, Congress passed and the President signed a continuing resolution that authorized the Secretary to
continue to provide financial assistance to heritage areas, notwithstanding any sunset authorization date or funding
limitation (P.L. 117-43).
20 Certain exceptions apply. P.L. 117-339 does not extend the funding authorization for the 6 NHAs established as part
of P.L. 116-9. The funding authority for these NHAs is set to expire in 2034. In addition, the funding authority for the 7
NHAs established as part of P.L. 117-339 terminates in January 2038. In addition, certain longstanding NHAs that do
not have a statutorily set funding authorization (e.g., Cane River NHA and Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA) were not
impacted by the legislation.
21 Not every NHA has an annual funding limit. For example, the Cane River NHA does not have an annual funding
cap.
22 Congress has not established total funding limits for every NHA. For example, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River
Valley National Heritage Corridor, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the Cane River NHA do
not have statutorily established total funding limits.
23 These areas are the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (now Silos and Smokestacks NHA), Blue Ridge
NHA, Essex NHA, Lackawanna Valley NHA, Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor, Maurice D. Hinchey
Hudson River Valley NHA, MotorCities NHA, Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway, Rivers of Steel NHA, South
Carolina National Heritage Corridor, and Wheeling NHA.
24 P.L. 110-229, §462.
25 See NPS, “Evaluations,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/evaluations.htm. These areas are the
America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (now designated as the Silos & Smokestacks NHA); Augusta Canal NHA;
Essex NHA; Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley 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
Congressional Research Service

9

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

developed a policy to evaluate all NHAs before federal funding terminated. Since 2015, NPS has
completed 11 additional evaluations of NHAs.26
In 2023, the NHA Act authorized the Secretary to conduct evaluations for all NHAs at
“reasonable and appropriate intervals” and to submit a report to Congress following completion
of each evaluation that provides a recommendation as to the continued role of NPS.27 The law
also standardized the required components of such evaluations, which are similar to those that
were in place under NPS policy.28 The NHA Act establishes certain additional requirements for
reports submitted to Congress that include a recommendation regarding continued federal
funding. If the report recommends that funding for an NHA should be continued, it must contain
information on how that funding could be reduced over time. If the report recommends that
funding should be eliminated, the report must contain a description of potential impacts to the
NHA in question.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Legislative Activity
Since the creation of the first NHA, stakeholders have had divergent views on the benefits and
appropriateness of NHAs and the federal role in creating, managing, and funding such designated
areas. Some stakeholders 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, 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.29 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 public.30
Advocates of NHAs assert that heritage areas foster cultural tourism, community revitalization,
and regional economic development.31 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

Carolina National Heritage Corridor; and Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area.
26 These heritage areas are the Blue Ridge NHA, Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, National Aviation
Heritage Area, Niagara Falls NHA, Oil Region NHA, Schuylkill River Valley NHA, MotorCities NHA, Lackawanna
Valley NHA, Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor, Wheeling NHA, and Yuma Crossing NHA.
27 Although the evaluation authority provided in P.L. 117-339 is discretionary, NPS may have requirements under other
laws to conduct evaluations for certain NHAs. For example, P.L. 116-9 requires 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.”
28 Specifically, the law requires NPS assess the progress of the local coordinating entity in accomplishing the purposes
of the NHA and achieving the goals and objectives of the management plan for the area. It also requires 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.
29 Testimony 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, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., October 6, 2021. Hereinafter “Capen (2021).”
30 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.”
31 Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA), “Economic Impact,” at https://www.nationalheritageareas.us/issues/
#econ. Hereinafter referred to as ANHA, “Economic Impact.”
Congressional Research Service

10

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

tourism, communities benefit locally when tourists visit and purchase services and products.32 In
some cases, increased heritage tourism, together with an emphasis on adaptive reuse of historic
resources, has attracted broader business growth and development.33
Some supporters see NHAs as generally more desirable than other types of land conservation.
They often prefer the designation of NHAs to other federally established designations because the
lands typically remain in nonfederal ownership and are administered locally.34 Proponents often
point to NHAs as an alternative to other federally established designations, in that lands typically
remain in nonfederal ownership and are administered locally. They assert that participation in
NHAs is voluntary and that NHA legislation often explicitly prohibits infringement on private
property and federal land acquisition.35 Other NHA backers view establishing and managing
federal areas, such as units of the National Park System, as too costly and observe that small
federal investments in heritage areas have been successful in attracting funds from other
sources.36 NHAs are often pointed to as being cost-effective models for public-private
partnerships, given that most NHAs must match federal dollars with nonfederal funding.
Property rights advocates often oppose establishment of heritage areas. They contend that some
NHAs lack significant local support.37 These opponents promote routine notifications to private
property owners when their lands fall 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.38 Some raise concerns that the federal government would not routinely adhere to any
private property protections in legislation. They contend 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.39
Some observers recommend caution in creating more NHAs because, in practice, NHAs may face
various challenges to success.40 For instance, LCEs managing heritage areas may have difficulty

32 For examples of community benefits from NHAs, see NPS, “National Heritage Areas – Economic Impact Studies,”
at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/economic_impact_studies.htm.
33 ANHA, “Economic Impact.”
34 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.
35 Capen (2021). “NHAs have absolutely no impact on private property, mineral, or water rights, do not allow for
federal land acquisition; and have no impact to local, state, or federal regulatory authority or jurisdiction.” In addition, a
2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO, at that time known as the General Accounting Office) report found that
“national heritage areas do not appear to have directly affected the rights of property owners.” (GAO, National Park
Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their
Accountability Are Needed, GAO-04-593T, March 30, 2004, p. 3. The GAO report reflected the 24 national heritage
areas (NHAs) in existence at that time.)
36 NPCA, “National Heritage Areas.” See also, NPS, “National Heritage Areas By the Numbers 2020,” at
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/upload/By-the-Numbers-2020_508-Compliant.pdf. NPS reports that in
FY2020, heritage areas matched the $20.9 million in federal funding with $88.5 million in cash and in-kind support.
37 Tom DeWeese, “Why are National Heritage Areas a Threat?” American Policy Center, June 30, 2021, at
https://americanpolicy.org/2021/06/30/why-are-national-heritage-areas-a-threat/.
38 Cheryl Chumley and Ronald D. Utt, “National Heritage Areas: Costly Economic Development Schemes That
Threaten Property Rights,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2080, October 23, 2007.
39 Testimony of Robert J. Smith, Director of the Center for Private Conservation, (108th 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.
40 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),
Congressional Research Service

11

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

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.41 Still other NHAs may
require assistance and improvements in their leadership and organizational structure to ensure
they effectively communicate their messages and accomplishments. Some NHAs may have
trouble attracting funds because the concept of a heritage area is not universally accepted as a
sustainable approach to resource preservation or economic development.42 In addition, achieving
and maintaining appropriate levels of public commitment to implementation may be
challenging.43
Other concerns relate to ongoing federal funding for NHAs and the potential impact this support
might have on NPS’s other administrative and financial obligations. Some officials during the
Trump and Obama Administrations 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 Some Members of Congress and past Administrations have also raised concerns regarding
continued reauthorization of federal funding for certain heritage areas. They discourage perpetual
federal support for the program and see the statutorily set funding limitations often set in enabling
legislation as intended to promote self-sufficiency.45 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.46 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

pp. 5-12.
41 For example, in certain instances, NHA designation has been opposed due to concerns around how potential
increases in visitation and tourism might impact local residents. Proposals to establish an NHA at Kaena Point in
Hawaii have been met with concerns around how increased traffic to the area might impact areas that some claim are
already overused. See Ku‘u Kauanoe, “'It’s the People That Mess It Up’: Why Kaena Point Could Be Hawaii’s First
National Heritage Area,” USA Today, September 29, 2022.
42 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/.
43 For additional information on challenges to NHA success, see Brenda Barrett, “NHA@30, New National Parks for
the 1990s: Thinning the Blood or a Much Needed Transfusion?,” Living Landscape Observer, January 30, 2014, at
https://livinglandscapeobserver.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.
44 For Trump Administration statements, see Testimony 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, 116th Cong., 1st sess., April 30, 2019, at https://www.doi.gov/ocl/pending-legislation. Hereinafter referred to
as “P. Daniel Smith (2019).” (“[t]he Administration has proposed no funding for national heritage areas in FY 2020 in
order to focus resources on reducing the National Park Service’s $11.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog and other
critical national park needs. The National Park Service encourages national heritage area managers to continue to use
the designation, which continues in perpetuity, to facilitate sustainable funding from local and private beneficiaries.”).
For Obama Administration statements, see NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2013,
p. Overview-26. (“This proposed reduction [in heritage area funding] would allow the Park Service to focus its
available resources on sustaining park operations and other critical community partnership programs.”).
45 Testimony of P. Daniel Smith of the National Park Service, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on National Parks of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, hearings, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 15, 2018.
46 For example, in S.Rept. 116-123, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the NPS to continue to
encourage individual heritage areas to develop plans for long-term sufficiency (p. 40).
47 GAO, 2004, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service

12

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

National Heritage Area System: Consideration and Enactment
For many years before the NHA Act was established, the lack of a general statute providing a
framework for heritage area establishment, management, and funding prompted criticism that
these processes were inconsistent and fragmented.48 Some saw 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. Others raised concerns regarding the ongoing cycle of reauthorizing
federal funding limitations for each of the individual heritage areas.49 The development of
systemic heritage area legislation was advocated for in the past by an independent commission,50
the Obama Administration,51 and the George W. Bush Administration, among others.52 The Trump
and Biden Administrations also expressed support for developing systemic NHA program
legislation that would establish a statutory framework for the NPS role in administering the
NHAs.53 Still others generally opposed the creation of a heritage area system. Some of this
opposition came from stakeholders who were generally opposed to the heritage area concept as a
whole, whereas others raised concerns around whether the government should seek a continued
role in heritage area management.54
Before the NHA Act was enacted, multiple bills were introduced and considered that would have
established such a system and set out the relationship between the NHAs and the National Park
System.55 Although the provisions of these bills varied, in general, these bills would have
standardized the process governing the designation, management, evaluation, and funding of
NHAs. In addition, they also stated explicitly that NHAs were not to be considered units of the
National Park System or subject to the authorities applicable to that system.
Debate around these bills and the establishment of a national system centered largely around the
continued role of the federal government in administering and funding heritage areas, and the
degree to which certain bills provided for such ongoing or limited support. Some lawmakers and
others have objected to extensions of federal funding authorizations included in such bills and
have sought to reduce such authorizations and transition funding for the heritage area program to

48 ANHA, “Program Legislation.”
49 Capen (2021). (“For too long now, the lack of a long-term legislative solution has led to a challenging two-year cycle
of reauthorizations that expends the time and energy of this Committee, Members of Congress, National Park Service,
National Heritage Area boards and staff.”)
50 National Parks Second Century Commission, Advancing the National Park Idea, 2009, p. 23.
51 Testimony of Stephanie Toothman 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.
52 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, 110th Cong., 1st
sess., March 20, 2007, S.Hrg. 110-73 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2007).
53 P. Daniel Smith (2019). Although the Trump Administration testified in favor of establishing a national heritage area
system, officials asked to defer action on a bill “to work with the sponsor and the committee on revisions that would
more fully address the issues with the program.” Specifically, the Administration expressed a desire to focus resources
on reducing the NPS’s deferred maintenance backlog. For the Biden Administration’s position on similar legislation,
see testimony of Joy Beasley, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands, House Committee on Natural Resources, Legislation Pertaining to National Heritage
Areas, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 2021.
54 For example, see H.Rept. 116-601 and Congressional Record, vol. 166, part 204 (December 3, 2020), p. H6095.
55 For example, see H.R. 1002 (115th), H.R. 1049 and S. 3217 (116th), and H.R. 1316 and S. 1942 (117th).
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 17 link to page 4 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

the state, local, or private entities that manage heritage areas.56 Others advocated for the removal
of lifetime funding caps altogether, thereby facilitating ongoing federal funding and avoiding any
need to increase funding limits on an individual basis.57 In the 116th Congress, two bills—H.R.
1049 and S. 3217—provided two different approaches to funding authorization limits for the
proposed NHA System. Under H.R. 1049, authorization for federal funding for most NHAs
would have expired after 15 years, whereas under S. 3217 federal funding would have been
permanently authorized.58
The National Heritage Area Act, P.L. 117-339
On January 5, 2023, the National Heritage Area Act was signed into law (P.L. 117-339), enacting
a number of provisions included in earlier legislative proposals. The law established a formal
NHA System and created uniform guidelines for the Secretary to study, designate, and evaluate
heritage areas. It also designated seven new NHAs, authorized the study of three proposed NHAs,
and extended the funding authorization for most NHAs until at least 2037. An overview of the
law is included below in Table 2.
Table 2. Overview of P.L. 117-339, the National Heritage Area Act
National Heritage Area System
Establishes the National Heritage Area System to be composed of existing NHAs and future NHAs designated by
Congress. NHAs are defined in this provision (see Table 1).
Establishes the relationship of the NHA System to the NPS, including participation in NHA initiatives from NPS
units near or encompassed within NHA boundaries. Clarifies that NHAs are not to be considered units of the
National Park System.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance to NHAs in the system. 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.
Studies
Authorizes the Secretary to conduct studies of the suitability and feasibility of establishing an NHA or to review
studies prepared by others. Sets out criteria by which areas are to 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.
Requires the Secretary to review studies prepared by others, and certify whether they meet the requirements set
out in the law, 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.
Designation
States that an area shall be designated as a NHA only by an act of Congress.

56 See H.Rept. 116-601. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, Examining the Department 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 Performance Information Fiscal Year 2021, p. NR&P-2, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2021-budget-justification-nps.pdf.
57 For example, S. 3217 in the 116th Congress would have authorized financial assistance in perpetuity for NHAs.
58 In addition, H.R. 1049 would have authorized up to $750,000 in appropriations per year for each NHA whereas S.
3217 would have authorized up to $1,000,000 per year per NHA.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19 link to page 19 National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Evaluations
Provides Secretary with authority to conduct evaluations of NHAs at reasonable and appropriate intervals, as
determined by the Secretary.
Requires NHA evaluations to assess the progress and accomplishments of a local coordinating entity, analyze the
impact of investments in a NHA, and review the management structure for a NHA, among other components.
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.
Private Property Rights
Specifies that nothing in the act abridges any rights of a public or private property owner, requires a property
owner to permit public access to a property, alters any land use regulation, conveys authority to any local
coordinating entity, affects water rights, diminishes state authority over wildlife, or creates liability with respect to
any person injured on private property.
Authorization of New Studies
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating areas in:

Hawaii as the “Kaena Point National Heritage Area”;

Virginia and North Carolina as the ‘ Great Dismal Swamp National Heritage Area”; and

Guam as the “Guam National Heritage Area.”
National Heritage Area Designations
Designates seven new heritage areas:

Alabama Black Belt NHA

Bronzeville-Black Metropolis NHA

Downeast Maine NHA

Northern Neck NHA

St. Croix NHA

Southern Campaign of the Revolution National Heritage Corridor

Southern Maryland NHA
Requires local coordinating entities of the newly designated NHAs to submit management plans to the Secretary
for approval within three years.
Authorizes $10 mil ion in appropriations for each new NHA with not more than $1 mil ion to be made available in
any fiscal year.
Terminates authority for the Secretary to provide funding for the seven new NHAs and the six NHAs established
under P.L. 116-9 to 15 years after the date of enactment (January 5, 2038).
Extension of NHA Authorizations
Extends the legislative authorization (including funding authorization) for 45 NHAs through FY2037.
Authorizes appropriations of not more than $1 mil ion annually for FY2023 through FY2037 for the 45 heritage
areas extended, subject to 50–50 matching requirement with non-federal funds.a
Increase of Appropriations Authorizations
Increases the total authorization of appropriations by $2 mil ion for each of 11 NHAs.
Redesignations
Redesignates the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership as the ‘ Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area”
and the Great Basin National Heritage Route as the ‘ Great Basin National Heritage Area.’
Extension of Management Plan Deadline
Extends the timeframe for the local coordinating entities of six NHAs designated under P.L. 116-9 to submit their
management plans to the Secretary.b
Source: CRS with information from P.L. 117-339.
Congressional Research Service

15

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Notes:
a. P.L. 117-339 amends P.L. 116-9, which established a $1 mil ion annual funding limit for six NHAs established
by that law. As a result, the 6 NHAs initially established by P.L. 116-9, the 7 new NHAs established under
P.L. 117-339, and the 45 NHAs listed in this section all now have $1 mil ion annual funding limits. The
provision of the law referred to in the table explicitly sets a $1 mil ion annual funding limit for 45 other
NHAs included in the system.
b. Completion and approval of management plans for the six NHAs designated pursuant to P.L. 116-9 were
delayed, in part, to the coronavirus pandemic.

Author Information

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

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 not 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 49 · UPDATED
16