[Senate Report 114-310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      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 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:
        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.
    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 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 
non-Federal 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 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 much-needed 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 newly-authorized 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 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 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.

                                  [all]