59–010 

Calendar No. 582 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–310 

MARITIME WASHINGTON NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT 

AUGUST 30, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of July 14, 2016 

Ms. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1623] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 1623) to establish the Maritime Washington 

National Heritage Area in the State of Washington, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do 

pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

1. On page 14, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following: 

(6) alters, modifies, diminishes, or extinguishes the 

treaty rights of any Indian tribe within the National 

Heritage Area. 

2. On page 14, line 5, strike ‘‘(6)’’ and insert ‘‘(7)’’. 

3. On page 14, line 9, strike ‘‘(7)’’ and insert ‘‘(8)’’. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1623 is to establish the Maritime Washington 

National Heritage Area in the State of Washington. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Western Washington State’s heritage is shaped by its relationship to the waters of Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and 

the Pacific Ocean. Native communities found a bounty of resources 

in the waters and shorelines of this area. While salmon and sea life 

provided an abundance of sustenance, western red cedar provided 

the material to establish permanent settlements and a maritime 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

culture. Canoe culture allowed an extensive trade and social network to develop throughout the region, which was reliant on these 

open waterways. The very resources that provided for native peoples to thrive also attracted European and American explorers and 

settlers. 

Following the settlement of the international boundary between 

British North America and the United States west of the Rocky 

Mountains, in 1846, European American settlements began to gain 

strength. The timber industry spurred these settlements and the 

transformation of the region from a backwater to a center of maritime commerce. Pacific Northwest ships helped supply the Klondike Gold Rush. Lumber shipped from the region helped rebuild 

San Francisco after the earthquake of 1906 and was exported 

throughout the world. 

Shipyards followed soon after a spike in lumber exports. In fact, 

the history of ship building—both civilian and military—highlights 

a major economic activity of the region today. Naval activity at 

Bremerton, Bangor, and Everett provide a vital connection to the 

region’s maritime past. 

Today, the region continues to be tied to its saltwater heritage 

both in commerce and recreation. In 2010, the Washington State 

Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation undertook a 

feasibility study of the designation of a national heritage area to 

preserve and promote this heritage. Designation of a National Heritage Area and a coordinating organization would allow for the significant number of maritime resources (e.g., museums and interpretive centers, historic vessels, maritime education centers, lighthouses and locks, waterfronts, and public spaces, etc.) to actively 

develop opportunities for visitors. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1623 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Cantwell and 

Murray on June 18, 2015. The Subcommittee on National Parks 

held a hearing on the measure on June 15, 2016. 

Representative Kilmer introduced similar legislation in the 

House of Representatives, H.R. 2833, on June 18, 2015. 

In the 113th Congress, Senators Cantwell and Murray introduced similar legislation, S. 2576, on July 9, 2014. A hearing was 

held by the Subcommittee on National Parks on July 23, 2014 (S. 

Hrg. 113–493). The authorization to establish the Maritime Washington National Heritage Area was included as part of the text of 

S. 2602, which was ordered reported by the Senate Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources on November 13, 2014 (S. Rept. 

113–300). 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in open 

business session on July 13, 2016, and ordered S. 1623 favorably 

reported as amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 

open business session on July 13, 2016, by a majority voice vote of 

a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1623, if 

amended as described herein. Three Senators requested that their 

vote be recorded as follows: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

NAYS 

Mr. Barrasso 

Mr. Risch 

Mr. Lee 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

During its consideration of S. 1623, the Committee adopted 

amendments clarifying that nothing in this Act alters, modifies, diminishes, or extinguishes the treaty rights of any Indian tribe 

within the National Heritage Area. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 contains the short title. 

Section 2. Definitions 

Section 2 contains key definitions. 

Section 3. Maritime Washington National Heritage Area 

Section 3(a) establishes the Maritime Washington National Heritage Area in the State of Washington. 

Subsection (b) identifies the boundaries of the National Heritage 

Area and authorizes the boundaries’ revision if the revision is proposed in the management plan approved by the Secretary and 

placed on file. 

Subsection (c) requires the map to be on file for public inspection 

in the offices of the National Park Service (NPS) and the local coordinating entity. 

Subsection (d) deems the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation as the local coordinating entity for the National Heritage 

Area. 

Section 4. Management plan 

Section 4(a) requires the local coordinating entity to submit to 

the Secretary a proposed management plan for the National Heritage Area for approval no later than three years after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

Subsection (b) sets forth the management plan’s requirements to 

include an integrated and cooperative approach for protection and 

interpretation of the natural, cultural, historic, scenic, and recreational resources of the National Heritage Area and the consideration of State and local plans, such as inventories of property resources, related themes, and significance of the property. The management plan must also include a resource inventory and produce 

comprehensive policies, strategies, and recommendations for funding and management of the National Heritage Area. In addition, in 

the management plan the local coordinating entity must develop 

actions that government, private organizations, and individuals 

agree to take to protect and manage the National Heritage Area 

and produce an implementation program. The management plan is 

also further required to identify funding sources and account for 

Federal, State, and local programs to carry out the management 

plan, including the role of the NPS. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

Subsection (c) establishes a deadline of three years after the date 

of the Act’s enactment for the local coordinating entity to provide 

the proposed management plan to the Secretary in order to be eligible for additional funding under the Act. 

Subsection (d) directs the Secretary, in consultation with the 

State, to approve or disapprove the management plan no later than 

180 days after receipt from the local coordinating entity. This section sets forth criteria that the Secretary must consider in evaluating the proposed management plan, including whether the local 

coordinating entity is representative of the diverse interests of the 

National Heritage Area, whether adequate opportunity for public 

involvement was provided, and whether the proposal’s implementation would result in the adequate protection of the National Heritage Area. If the Secretary disapproves the proposal, the local coordinating entity will be advised in writing, with recommendations 

for revision of the management plan, and the Secretary is required 

to review the revised management plan within 180 days after receipt. The Secretary has the discretion to approve or disapprove 

substantive amendments to the management plan and the local coordinating entity may use Federal funds to carry out any amendments to the plan upon the Secretary’s approval. 

Section 5. Administration 

Section 5(a) authorizes the Secretary, acting through the local coordinating entity, to make grants; enter into cooperative agreements; engage qualified staff; accept money or services from any 

source, including those provided under any other Federal law or 

program; enter into contracts for goods or services; and serve as a 

catalyst for any other activity that furthers the purposes of the National Heritage Area and is consistent with the management plan. 

Subsection (b) requires the local coordinating entity to prepare 

and submit the management plan to the Secretary and to assist 

local government entities, regional planning organizations and nonprofit organizations in implementing the approved management 

plan. In preparing and implementing the management plan, the 

local coordinating entity must consider diverse interests and conduct public meetings at least semiannually. The local coordinating 

entity is further required to prepare and submit an annual report 

to the Secretary for any year for which Federal funds have been 

received. The report must include all expenses, activities, income, 

expenditures, and matching funds that are in support of the National Heritage Area. The local coordinating entity will require any 

organizations receiving funds to also make available to the Secretary all records concerning the expenditure of the funds. 

Subsection (c) prohibits the local coordinating entity from using 

Federal Funds to acquire real property or any interest in real property. 

Section 6. Relationship to other federal agencies 

Section 6(a) states that the Act does not affect the authority of 

a Federal agency to provide technical or financial assistance under 

any other law. 

Subsection (b) encourages the head of any Federal agency to consult and coordinate with the Secretary and the local coordinating 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

entity in planning activities that may have an impact on the National Heritage Area. 

Subsection (c) affirms that any law or regulation authorizing a 

Federal agency to manage or use Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Federal agency is not modified, altered, or amended by 

this Act. 

Section 7. Private property and regulatory protections 

Section 7 specifies that nothing in the Act abridges the rights of 

property owners and that property owners are not required to permit public access to their property; modify use or public access of 

property under any Federal, State, or local law; alter any duly 

adopted land use regulation, use plan, or regulatory authority; 

transfer any land use or regulatory authority to the local coordinating entity; authorize or imply the reservation of water or water 

rights; modify, diminish, or extinguish the reserved treaty rights of 

any Indian tribe within the National Heritage Area; affect the jurisdiction of the State to manage fishing and hunting within the 

National Heritage Area; or create any liability to any person injured on private property. 

Section 8. Evaluation and report 

Section 8(a) tasks the Secretary with conducting an evaluation 

and preparing a report of the accomplishments of the National Heritage Area not later than 3 years before the termination date of 

Federal funding. 

Subsection (b) states that the evaluation components should include a progress assessment of the local coordinating entity; an 

analysis of investments, including funding made by Federal, State, 

tribal, and local government and private entities; and a review of 

the management and partnership structure for sustaining the National Heritage Area. 

Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to submit a report to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 

Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives 

that describes the findings and conclusions of the evaluation along 

with recommendations for the future role of the NPS with respect 

to the National Heritage Area. 

Section 9. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 9(a) authorizes $10 million to be appropriated, of which not more than $1 million may be authorized to be appropriated for 

any fiscal year to carry out the Act. 

Subsection (b) denotes that amounts made available shall remain 

available until expended. 

Subsection (c) requires not more than a 50 percent share of nonFederal funding or in-kind contributions of goods or services for 

any activity under the Act. 

Subsection (d) specifies that the authority of the Secretary to provide assistance for this Act terminates 15 years after the Act is enacted. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of this 

measure has been requested but was not received at the time the 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
6 

report was filed. When the Congressional Budget Office completes 

its cost estimate, it will be posted on the internet at www.cbo.gov. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S. 1623. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 1623, as ordered reported. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

S. 1623, as ordered reported, does not contain any congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 

benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the NPS at the June 15, 2016, Subcommittee on National Parks hearing on S. 1623, follows: 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND

SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present 

the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 1623, a bill 

to establish the Maritime Washington National Heritage 

Area in the State of Washington. 

The Department supports the enactment of S. 1623, as 

the proposed Maritime Washington National Heritage 

Area has been found to meet the National Park Service’s 

interim criteria for designation as a national heritage area. 

However, along with designating any new national heritage areas, the Department recommends that Congress 

pass national heritage area program legislation. There are 

currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet there 

is no authority in law that guides the designation and administration of these areas. Program legislation that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified National 

heritage areas and a process for the designation, funding, 

and administration of these areas would provide a muchneeded framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas. It would offer guidelines for successful planning 

and management, clarify the roles and responsibilities of 

all parties, and standardize timeframes and funding for 

designated areas. The Department also notes that newlyauthorized national heritage areas will compete for limited 

resources in the Heritage Partnership Program. The President’s FY17 Budget proposes $9.4 million for the current 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
7 

49 areas. The authorization of additional national heritage 

areas will leave less funding for each individual national 

heritage area. 

The proposed area includes land that is as located within one-quarter mile landward of the shoreline in the counties of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, San Juan, Island, 

King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, Clallam, 

and Grays Harbor, approximately 3,000 linear miles of a 

‘‘Salt Water Coast.’’ The proposed local coordinating entity 

for the Maritime Washington National Heritage Area 

would be the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation. 

A Feasibility Study for a Washington State National Maritime Heritage Area was completed by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in 

April 2010. The National Park Service conducted a review 

of the study for consistency with the interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines, and with a subsequent revised Statement of Importance and boundary justification submitted March 5, 2012, and found that the 

area meets these criteria for national heritage area designation. The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation 

was informed of this decision in a letter on June 5, 2012. 

The proposed Maritime Washington National Heritage 

Area stretches from northern ports in Bellingham and 

Blaine to the protected harbors of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. 

The landscape tells the stories of a rich Native American 

civilization, development of the farthest territorial corner 

of the United States, of gold rushers and shipbuilders, and 

of a gateway to Alaska, Asia and the seaports of the world. 

Living between steep glacier-clad mountain ranges and 

a temperate saltwater shoreline, native people built a complex culture around canoe routes and salmon cycles. By 

the late 18th century, the region was being mapped and 

named by Spanish, English, and Russian explorers in the 

interest of science and the pursuit of colonial empire. After 

the 49th parallel was established as the nation’s northern 

border in 1846, this new corner of the country entered a 

dramatic period of social, political and military development. The vast conifer forests were easily accessible for 

timber production, and the coastal geography made possible its transportation to the developing American west. 

The timber trade and abundant marine resources, especially salmon, of the San Juan de Fuca straight, the Puget 

Sound and the Pacific Ocean attracted American, European and Pan-Asian settlers who provided the labor for 

thriving port economies in Port Angeles, Port Townsend, 

and Port Gamble. 

At the heart of the heritage area is the greater Puget 

Sound, a system of interconnected marine waterways, harbors, bays and inlets that wet the shores of the San Juan 

Archipelago and the many waterfront towns, cities, and 

ports that have grown up here over time. The naval facilities on Puget Sound have built and repaired vessels in our 

fleet for over a century. Even today the region relies on the 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
8 

country’s largest marine highway system—its famous ferries—for day-to-day transportation. 

These stories are represented in the traditional Native 

American sites, lumber towns, logging mills, salmon processing plants, historic ships, lighthouses, museums and 

the host of other maritime-related sites, scenes, and traditions that comprise the proposed Maritime Washington 

National Heritage Area. Under the leadership of the 

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, the heritage 

area would encourage and support the work of the many 

organizations committed to the recognition, preservation 

and continued economic, recreational and educational use 

of this unique and vital region and its resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you or any other members 

of the subcommittee may have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill as ordered reported. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN