Frequently asked questions

NHAs are managed through a Coordinating Entity- most are non-profits, but a few NHA Coordinating Entities are universities. The feasibility study includes different options for how a particular NHA could be managed. Ultimately, Congress decides what entity will initially come up with a management plan for the area. Following an intensive three year management plan with guidance from the National Park Service and input from stakeholders, local governments, and communities a final Coordinating Entity is selected. In some cases this is a non-profit organization that already exists, and in other cases non-profits are created specifically to fill this role. Most NHA Coordinating Entities are non-profit organizations typically run by non-elected board members made up of community members, professionals, and officials who volunteer their time. 

Many organizations - Rotary, Boys and Girls Clubs, YWCA, Chambers of Commerce and many more – function with non-elected boards. Nonprofit organizations are highly regulated by state laws, and subject to federal (IRS) scrutiny. Annual reports must be made to maintain donor status, and to retain tax-exempt status. There are a number of watchdog groups (Charity Navigator and GuideStar) that score and rate nonprofits, and these websites make public a nonprofit’s IRS filings, annual reports, and audits.

Additionally, NHA Coordinating Entities are accountable to Congress for any federal monies they receive. Those annual reports are in the public domain.

Like all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, no board members can receive financial gain from their work on this board. The board simply facilitates bringing people together to work on mutually agreeable projects with willing partners. Like museum boards, civic clubs and service organizations, the board has no authority to control or regulate anything. Its sole purpose is to advance the understanding and appreciation of local sites and to honor the stories of our ancestors.

NHAs might receive funding from a wide variety of sources. Congress typically determines federal funding for NHAs in annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. NHAs can use federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and executing projects. However, federal laws also restrict what funding can be used for. The FY2021 appropriation for NPS for assistance to heritage areas was $23.9 million—including $22.9 million for grantmaking and direct support and just over $1 million for administrative support. Federal funding for NHAs does not take away any monies from the National Park Service. National Parks receive appropriations from a specific line item in the federal budget governed by limits set in a federal budget agreement. Funding for NHAs is allocated from a completely separate line item than National Parks.

Each NHA receives a certain amount of recurring funding from this appropriation each year. This can range from $150,000 to $300,000 annually. Federal appropriations to NHAs are “seed funds” designed to attract additional investment (state, local, private foundations and donors). If federal funds were not allocated, matching non-federal investments would diminish. NHAs were never intended to be “self-sufficient.” Instead, the federal appropriations serve as a multiplier factor stimulating economic growth in communities. For example, many NHAs use the federal funding they receive as matching money for much larger grants they apply for to benefit local partners. NHAs are designed to be reauthorized by Congress every ten years, and if reauthorized, their receipt of federal funds continues. Congress can choose not to reauthorize an NHA when it reaches its reauthorization date. The reauthorization and additional funding are contingent on a comprehensive evaluation of an NHA’s operations, adherence to the legislation and management plan, and community desire to continue. Nothing is automatic nor guaranteed.

NHAs must match federal funds one-to-one, and the match can be with cash or in-kind contributions. Annually, each NHA must provide a fiscal report to validate their match and any expenditure of federal funds. Economic Impact Assessments are routinely prepared to ascertain the economic growth of NHAs.

Rivers of Steel NHA created in 1996 - An August 2020 economic impact assessment prepared by an independent private group for the Rivers of Steel NHA in Pittsburgh, PA confirms NHAs are economic drivers for their communities. The independent impact report indicates the activities of the Rivers of Steel support the generation of more than $92 million of economic benefit and 922 jobs each year.

More than 25,000 individuals visit Rivers of Steel attractions or programs annually and 400,000 more visit the region to enjoy programs offered by partner organizations who collaborate with Rivers of Steel to showcase the region. These visitors invest millions of dollars that ripple through the 8-county region in the form of increased revenue for businesses, income and jobs, and revenues for municipalities, counties and state government from new and existing taxable developments. The multiplier effect provides positive economic growth in communities. Rivers of Steel on average awards $71,000 in grants for partner organizations who have projects in mind. The annual budget for Rivers of Steel is $2.5 million, of that amount they receive $644,000 in federal appropriations, a tremendous return on a federal investment.

Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area created in 2008 – A 2017 economic impact assessment prepared by Tripp Umbach, an independent private group revealed the economic impact of this NHA is $258.6 million annually through a combination of tourism driven by the presence of the NHA (approx. $257 million) and operations of the NHA (approx. $1 million). This NHA supports a substantial number of jobs in the region – total employment impact is 3,234 jobs (2,557 direct jobs and 677 indirect jobs).

The NHA also supports state and local government with the generation of tax revenues. This NHA generates over $25.5 million in tax revenue annually for municipalities, counties and state government. NHAs thrive in the free market. They bring together businesses, governments, communities, and citizens, in ways that give birth to creative economies that generate tax revenues and create jobs.

Congress decides on the final boundary for the NHA. As required, any feasibility study proposes a project area based on the places, stories and the supporting resources that local citizens and partners identified as important to our national heritage.

The Florida Panhandle Maritime National Heritage Area feasibility study initially focused only on certain portions of the counties within the Northwest Florida region. These primarily included maritime resources along the coasts, rivers, and bay systems. However, based on feedback from stakeholders who attended the twelve public meetings held in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Washington, Bay, Gulf, Franklin, Leon, Jefferson, Wakulla, and Gadsden counties a recurring desire was expressed to include historic and cultural sites and natural resources that encompassed a larger portion of the region’s watershed. In particular, this would ensure that museums, nature centers, state parks, state forests, national forests, wildlife preserves, water management districts, and historical societies on the northern end of the counties would benefit from the designation. Limiting the project area to only part of some counties would eliminate the opportunity to collaborate with willing partners on places that citizens believe are important to our national heritage. Therefore, the proposed project area in the feasibility study currently includes the entirety of counties included in the region. However, this is only a proposed boundary line and is subject to change based on feedback from stakeholders throughout the process. If a community did not wish to be included in the area, they would be excluded. 

While NHAs have overwhelming support, a few partisan groups have come out in opposition to the creation of new NHAs over the past few years. These opponents primarily base their concerns on federal spending in general and speculation that NHAs could impact private property rights by pushing zoning laws on communities. However, these concerns are simply unfounded. 

NHAs were created by President Ronald Reagan (1984) to actually save taxpayer funding and to empower local control over the interpretation and care of local historic sites. They are public-private partnerships, in which the federal government plays a subordinate role to locally initiated and driven efforts to nurture and celebrate the most important elements of America’s heritage. It was founded by the Reagan administration BECAUSE it would preserve history and heritage with FAR LESS reliance on the government and at far less cost than establishing additional federally run parks, monuments, and centers. Having an NHA saves federal funding because local communities through partnerships maintain these sites. The local partnerships established with NHA assistance are more cost-effective than creating a new National Park unit, which requires the hiring of federal employees, office space and ongoing operational responsibilities, all which would be totally financed with federal appropriations.

The implication that zoning regulations have been altered as a result of NHA designation has not been proven by the opposition; rather they have only suggested that it has happened or may happen sometime in the future. The opposition has provided no evidence that a landowner has ever had to change their land management practices or been forced to sell their private property to an NHA. Again, the Government Accounting Office found no evidence of this ever happening. Also, in order for NHAs to receive designation, feasibility studies must demonstrate broad community support and stakeholder input. 

NHAs are overwhelmingly seen as bipartisan wins for areas that receive the designation from Congress. In fact, as recently as 2022 a bill for establishing the “Nation’s Oldest Port National Heritage Area” in St. Augustine, Florida was sponsored by a Republican lawmaker (Congressman John Rutherford FL-04) and cosponsored by ten Republican and eight Democratic colleagues in the state. The last six NHAs were added after passing the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Donald Trump. And the National Heritage Area Act (passed in 2022 and signed into law in 2023) includes specific language that designation and funding cannot be construed in any way to impact private property and any partner can opt out at any time (it also explicitly states that the NHA is not allowed to use the federal money to buy any land). You can read the entire bill here.

Also, federal law forbids using federal funds to lobby local, state, or federal officials to either support or oppose legislation. 

In short, since President Ronald Reagan created them nearly four decades ago, out of the 62 that currently exist they have not impacted private property nor have they influenced local government to pass any zoning laws or regulations. 

National Heritage Areas do not impact property rights and they have absolutely no legislative authority whatsoever at any level. NHAs are not units of the National Park Service, and the Park Service only provides technical assistance and advice when needed. At no time has it been proven that NHAs have adversely affected private property rights or influenced local officials to change any regulations. A 2004 Government Accounting Office (GAO) review of all NHAs found no evidence of any infringement on private property rights due to an NHA.

Following designation, the NHA Coordinating Entity does not have the authority to control or change local city/county laws, regulations or ordinances, nor any state or federal regulations. Only elected officials have that authority, and any changes require considerable public engagement. Local, state, and federal governments have very public processes requiring public hearings, planning board reviews, and city/county commission meetings that include public engagement before decisions are made.

A 2021 report from the Congressional Research Service addressed the private property rights issue with this statement: “Laws establishing national heritage areas often contain provisions intended to address concerns about potential loss of, or restrictions on use of, private property resulting from NHA designation. For example, P.L. 116-9, which established the six newest NHAs, included various private property provisions. These provisions stated that designation of the new NHAs would not abridge the rights of any property owner; require any property owner to permit public access to the property; alter any land use regulation; or diminish the authority of the state to manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting within the NHA.”

Federal legislation prohibits NHAs from using federal funds to purchase land/property. The legislation does not prohibit an NHA from purchasing land/property with non-federal funds, and many NHAs have purchased or leased buildings for their operations. In some instances, an NHA Coordinating Entity has purchased land/property from a willing seller at an agreed-upon, fair-market price.

An NHA does not possess condemnation or eminent domain powers. NHA Coordinating Entities are non-elected boards with no jurisdictional authority to create or change federal, state, tribal, or local regulations. 

Most NHAs have private land within their project area. NHAs only work with willing landowners on projects, and no one is ever required to participate in a project unless they desire to do so. The Tennessee Civil War NHA encompasses the entire state, all 95 counties. As the NHA Executive Director Carroll Van West relayed in the September 23, 2020 guest opinion piece in the Fort Benton River Press, “In its 20 years, the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area has never been involved in land use controls, land use regulations, none of those things. Tennesseans are a conservative bunch who believe fiercely in local decision-making. The Heritage Area embraces that philosophy, and assists those who wish to take advantage of its programs and expertise. Heritage Areas are no threats to your rights and your property; they are the most efficient way for federal dollars--matched by monies, time, and resources from local groups, citizens, and governments—to enhance the region’s heritage tourism potential, create greater pride of place and community to keep more of the next generation here.” 

In 2023, the National Heritage Area Act was passed. This bipartisan bill establishes, for the first time, standard criteria for designating new National Heritage Areas and creates a rigorous process for maintaining existing National Heritage Areas. It also modernizes the program to allow for long-term sustainability and strong accountability, and defines an oversight structure that will allow these popular public-private partnerships to better preserve the nation’s heritage and spur economic growth with minimal federal support. Further, this act has specific language that guarantees private property rights will not be affected.