Difference between revisions of "National Heritage Areas (NHA)"

From CCoWS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(How NHAs are formed)
(Links)
Line 109: Line 109:
 
* [[Range of the Condor National Heritage Area]]
 
* [[Range of the Condor National Heritage Area]]
 
* [[National Park Service (NPS)]]
 
* [[National Park Service (NPS)]]
 +
* [https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/index.htm NPS web site on NHAs]
 
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg95195/html/CHRG-108shrg95195.htm Senate hearing on NHAs (2004)]
 
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg95195/html/CHRG-108shrg95195.htm Senate hearing on NHAs (2004)]
  

Revision as of 13:07, 5 March 2021

An environmental summary by the ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems class at CSUMB with relevance to the Central Coast region and the Range of the Condor National Heritage Area.

National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are nationally important landscapes, recognized for their natural, cultural, and historical resources. NHAs are designated by Congress but created at the request of local organizations and state governments. These areas are administered by local coordinating entities (i.e., local organizations, state governments). The local coordinating entities form a partnership with the National Park Service (NPS), which has a limited advisory role.

The NHA designation fosters a community-driven approach to heritage conservation and economic development. Through public-private partnerships, NHA entities support historic preservation, natural resource conservation, recreation, heritage tourism, and educational projects. Leveraging funds and long-term support for projects, NHA partnerships foster pride of place and an enduring stewardship ethic [1]. NHAs receives limited federal funding and do not affect private property rights [1].

Currently, there are 55 NHAs [2].


How NHAs are formed

Designation as an NHA begins at the local level. A local initiative must consider applying, then following a series of steps:

  • Heritage groups, tourism groups, or jurisdictions decide to pursue designation as a National Heritage Area.
  • The original supporters work to build support, reaching out to other groups, jurisdictions, and the public.
  • A formal feasibility study evaluates the quality of the heritage resources, potential sustainability, and local support for the proposed Heritage Area
  • The National Park Service reviews the feasibility study and advises Congress on the eligibility of the proposed Heritage Area.
  • Congress passes legislation authorizing the Heritage Area (public laws)
  • The new Heritage Area has three years to complete a management plan to meet the local goals of the Heritage Area [3].

Legislation related to NHAs

There is no systemic law outlining a standardized process and criteria for designating NHAs.[4] Indeed the first four areas now included in the NHA system are named "National Heritage Corridors". The first NHA named "National Heritage Area" was the fifth NHA to be designated: the Cane River NHA authorized in 1994.

Some examples of specific legislation enabling NHAs are as follows:

  • On August 21, 1984, President Regan signed the first created NHA, the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor, into law.[5]
  • On March 30, 2009, President Obama signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11). This law is composed of 15 titles and designated millions of acres in the US are protected, it established a National Landscape Conservation System, and provided funding for programs and other activities by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture [6]. This act designated 10 new NHAs.
  • On March 12, 2019, President Trump signed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9). This was the first law to establish new NHAs since the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This law protects public lands and modified management provisions. This act designated six new NHAs.
  • Two bills (H.R. 1049 and S. 3217) created during the 116th Congress (January 3, 2019- January 3, 2021) aimed to establish a system to help govern the designation, management, and funding of NHAs [7]. H.R. 1049 passed the House and was read twice in the Senate and has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources [8]. S. 3217 S. 3217 has been introduced in the Senate. It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources [9]. The two laws have similar provisions that aim to establish a standardized NHA system and set out the relationship between the NHAs and the National Park System [10]. These provisions include ensuring that NHAs are not considered units of the National Park Service, requiring that the Secretary of the Interior conduct feasibility studies, or reviewing feasibility studies conducted by groups other than Congress.

Criteria

The National Park Service has the following ten criteria for evaluation of candidate areas by the National Park Service, Congress, and the public:

  • The area has an assemblage of natural, historic, or cultural resources that together represent distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and continuing use, and are best managed as such an assemblage through partnerships among public and private entities, and by combining diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and active communities
  • The area reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife that are a valuable part of the national story
  • The area provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, cultural, historic, and/or scenic features
  • The area provides outstanding recreational and educational opportunities
  • Resources that are important to the identified theme or themes of the area retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting interpretation
  • Residents, business interests, nonprofit organizations, and governments within the proposed area that are involved in the planning have developed a conceptual financial plan that outlines the roles for all participants including the federal government, and have demonstrated support for designation of the area
  • The proposed management entity and units of government supporting the designation are willing to commit to working in partnership to develop the heritage area
  • The proposal is consistent with continued economic activity in the area
  • A conceptual boundary map is supported by the public
  • The management entity proposed to plan and implement the project is described

The National Park Service uses these criteria to evaluate potential areas and references them in subsequent testimony before congressional authorizing committees regarding legislation proposing designation of specific national heritage areas.[11].

The function of NHAs

Need an explanation of what NHAs actually do. Are they active or passive (i.e. merely designations)? Do they have MOUs where partners commit to certain roles and activities? Are they funded?

The National Park Service (NPS) has been increasingly called upon by Congress to conduct feasibility studies on discreet areas throughout the US that may be candidates for NHA designation. NHA designation may be a management alternative to the designation of a unit of the National Park System and be evaluated for its feasibility. The NPS views a NHA as a vehicle for locally initiated protection and interpretation of natural, cultural, scenic and historic resources. The NPS assists in this effort primarily through financial and technical assistance, but local partnerships are responsible for planning and carrying out the strategies and specific tasks to achieve successful resource protection and interpretation. If the study is authorized by Congress as an NHA feasibility study, or is undertaken by a local sponsor without congressional authorization, this step should include management alternatives to NHA designation[11].

At least two management alternatives should be analyzed.

  • The first is the “no action/use of existing authorities alternative.” It is the continuation of the status quo with references to any known changes that may occur including any state or local initiatives that may affect the region. A preliminary analysis of the positive and negative impacts of this alternative should be included.
  • The second management alternative is NHA designation. The preliminary analysis of this alternative should include a description of the likely increases in funding and potentials for resource protection, interpretive programming and other positive or negative results of designation. The experiences of other NHAs may be used to comparatively illustrate potential results and impacts.
  • A third management alternative might describe the potential for local or state operation of a heritage area, independent of a federal NHA designation. In this alternative, there should be a description of likely funding sources and potential for resource protection, interpretive programming and other potential outcomes under state or local administration. An analysis of impacts should be included.
  • Additional alternatives may be explored as relevant to the study and region. These could include other types of heritage partnerships, trails, or other NPS assisted or unassisted endeavors.

All management alternatives presented must be feasible to implement and their impacts described[11].


Heritage Management Plans

A heritage area management plan is completed by a local management entity[11]. Typically, the legislation for a NHA will require the development of a management plan within three years of designation. Management plan requirements often differ, but should include: long-range policies, goals, strategies, and actions; an implementation plan with short, mid and long range actions and performance goals; a business plan for the heritage area coordinating entity; and an interpretive plan. NHA management plans are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, which requires the plan to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal environmental laws. The NPS provides assistance to Heritage Area entities on the development of management plans to ensure that they address all Federal requirements.[12].

The NPS provides the following guidance documents for NHA management plans:

  • Interpretive Planning for Heritage Areas[13]
  • Business Planning Toolkit for Heritage Areas[14]
  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Guide for National Heritage Area Management Plans[15]

Funding

Contemporary NHA legislation provides federal funding authorizations of up to $1 million a year over a 15-year period with a required 50:50 non-federal match to any federal funds from this program, however, newly designated NHAs rarely receive $1 million in the first few years[11].

Edit Later The NPS has indicated that since FY2009, funds have been allocated to heritage areas using formula-based criteria. Such criteria may be established by Congress as part of the annual appropriations process. For example, 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 included $150,000 for each authorized area that was developing its management plan, known as Tier I areas; $300,000 for Tier II areas, which were those with recently approved management plans; and FY2016 funding levels for “longstanding areas.” For both FY2018 and FY2019, Congress directed this formula to remain constant with FY2017 levels, but “with the increase above the enacted level [of FY2017] to be equally distributed to Tier I areas or Tier II areas.” Congress appropriated $20.3 million for assistance to heritage areas in FY2018 and FY2019, $0.5 million higher than the FY2017 level. As a result, the total amount appropriated to each NHA was slightly higher than the Tier I and Tier II baseline levels from FY2017. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $21.9 million to support heritage areas. In the accompanying explanatory text, Congress directed that the distribution formula remain consistent with prior years and that the additional funding would be “sufficient to provide stable funding sources for both the newly authorized and existing NHAs.” For FY2021, the Administration seeks to eliminate nearly all funding for NHAs. Specifically, the Administration proposed a reduction of roughly $21.5 million for the NPS for heritage areas for FY2021. The FY2021 budget requests $0.4 million for administrative support and no funding for grants to existing heritage areas. In an overview of the major savings and reforms outlined in the FY2021 budget, the Administration stated that this reduction in funding was justified due to the heritage area program being “secondary to the primary mission of the National Park Service.” Instead, the Administration encourages existing heritage areas to use the federal designation to facilitate sustainable funding opportunities from local and private sources. Prior budget requests for each of FY2018-FY2020 also proposed funding only NHA administrative costs, with no funding provided to individual heritage areas. In July 2020, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 7612, the FY2021 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. In the related committee report, H.Rept. 116-448, the committee recommended $24.0 million in funding for the NPS Heritage Partnership Program. In addition, the bill included language waiving cost-share requirements for FY2021.31 On July 24, 2020, the House passed H.R. 7608, which included appropriations for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies in Division C. Although the bill did not specify the exact amount of funding provided for NHAs, funding for the National Recreation and Preservation account (from which Congress typically provides appropriations for heritage areas) is at the same level specified in H.R. 7612. In addition, H.R. 7608 provided a similar waiver of cost-share requirements for FY2021.

Notable NHAs

Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Area 
...
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area 
...
Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area 
...

NHAs in California's Central Coast Region

The only NHA in California's Central Coast region is the proposed Range of the Condor National Heritage Area. The only existing NHA in California is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area.

Links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 https://www.nps.gov/articles/what-is-a-national-heritage-area.htm
  2. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33462.pdf
  3. https://www.cityofgigharbor.net/DocumentCenter/View/561/Background-Information-PDF
  4. White paper on NHAs by Vincent and Comay (2013)
  5. P.L. 98-398
  6. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/146
  7. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33462.pdf
  8. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1049
  9. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3217
  10. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33462.pdf
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/upload/NHA-Feasibility-Study-Guidelines_FINAL-Revisions-2019_508-compliant.pdf
  12. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/management-plans.htm
  13. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/upload/Interp-Planning-Toolkit-for-Heritage-Areas-Historic-Trails-and-Gateways-2.pdf
  14. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/upload/Business_Planning_for_HeritageAreasToolkit.pdf
  15. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/upload/NHA-NEPA-Guidance_4-15-13-FINAL-2.pdf

Disclaimer

This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of CSUMB, its staff, or students.