National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional research reportApr 17, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

National Heritage Areas: Background and

Issues for Congress

Updated April 17, 2023

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

RL33462

SUMMARY

National Heritage Areas: Background and

Issues for Congress

RL33462

April 17, 2023

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural

Since 1984, Congress has established 61 national heritage areas (NHAs) to conserve,

Resources Policy

enhance, and interpret nationally significant natural, historic, scenic, and cultural

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

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

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

National Heritage Area

State

Date of

Authorization

Enabling

Legislationa

Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor

Aug. 24, 1984

P.L. 98-398

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor

MA/RI

Nov. 10, 1986

P.L. 99-647

Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor

Nov. 18, 1988

P.L. 100-692

Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation

Commission (Path of Progress)b

Nov. 19, 1988

P.L. 100-698

Cane River NHA

Nov. 2, 1994

P.L. 103-449

CT/MA

Nov. 2, 1994

P.L. 103-449

The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridorc

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

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

State

Date of

Authorization

Enabling

Legislationa

Silos and Smokestacks NHAd

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Augusta Canal NHA

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Essex NHA

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley NHAe

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

National Coal Heritage Area

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Rivers of Steel NHA

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic

Districtf

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

South Carolina National Heritage Corridor

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area

Nov. 12, 1996

P.L. 104-333

MotorCities NHAg

Nov. 6, 1998

P.L. 105-355

Lackawanna Valley NHA

Oct. 6, 2000

P.L. 106-278

Schuylkill River Valley NHA

Oct. 6, 2000

P.L. 106-278

Wheeling NHA

Oct. 11, 2000

P.L. 106-291

Yuma Crossing NHA

Oct. 19, 2000

P.L. 106-319

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor

Dec. 21, 2000

P.L. 106-554

Blue Ridge NHA

Nov. 10, 2003

P.L. 108-108

Mississippi Gulf Coast NHA

Dec. 8, 2004

P.L. 108-447

OH/INh

Dec. 8, 2004

P.L. 108-447

Oil Region NHA

Dec. 8, 2004

P.L. 108-447

Arabia Mountain NHA

Oct. 12, 2006

P.L. 109-338

Atchafalaya NHA

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

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

FL/GA/NC/SC

Oct. 12, 2006

P.L. 109-338

Mormon Pioneer NHA

Oct. 12, 2006

P.L. 109-338

Northern Rio Grande NHA

Oct. 12, 2006

P.L. 109-338

Upper Housatonic Valley NHA

CT/MA

Oct. 12, 2006

P.L. 109-338

May 8, 2008

P.L. 110-229

MD/PA/VA/WV

May 8, 2008

P.L. 110-229

Niagara Falls NHA

May 8, 2008

P.L. 110-229

Baltimore NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Cache La Poudre River NHAj

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

MA/NH

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

National Heritage Area

National Aviation Heritage Area

Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor

Abraham Lincoln NHA

Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA

Freedom’s Way NHA

Congressional Research Service

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

State

Date of

Authorization

Enabling

Legislationa

Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Mississippi Delta NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Mississippi Hills NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Muscle Shoals NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Northern Plains NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Sangre de Cristo NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

South Park NHA

Mar. 30, 2009

P.L. 111-11

Appalachian Forest NHA

WV/MD

Mar. 12, 2019

P.L. 116-9

Maritime Washington NHA

Mar. 12, 2019

P.L. 116-9

Mountains to Sound Greenway NHA

Mar. 12, 2019

P.L. 116-9

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta NHA

Mar. 12, 2019

P.L. 116-9

Santa Cruz Valley NHA

Mar. 12, 2019

P.L. 116-9

Susquehanna NHA

Mar. 12, 2019

P.L. 116-9

Alabama Black Belt NHA

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

Bronzeville-Black Metropolis NHA

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

Downeast Maine NHA

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

Northern Neck NHA

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

St. Croix NHA

USVI

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

Southern Campaign of the Revolution National

Heritage Corridor

NC/SC

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

Jan. 5, 2023

P.L. 117-339

National Heritage Area

Southern Maryland NHA

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).

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

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

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).

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

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

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

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

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 millions of dollars 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 dollars) 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

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

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

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, (108 th Congress), June 24, 2004,

before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the House Committee on Natural Resources, at

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96736/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96736.pdf.

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

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-neededtransfusion/. 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

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

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

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 million in appropriations for each new NHA with not more than $1 million 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 million 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 million 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

National Heritage Areas: Background and Issues for Congress

Notes:

a. P.L. 117-339 amends P.L. 116-9, which established a $1 million 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 million annual funding limits. The

provision of the law referred to in the table explicitly sets a $1 million 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.