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.

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 (108^th-111^th 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 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 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. 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.

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 116^th and 117^th 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 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 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 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

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 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 116^th 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.