[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 523, DOUGLAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
CONVEYANCE ACT; AND H.R. 1011, VIRGINIA RIDGE AND VALLEY ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 10, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-305 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Rick Renzi, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Carolina
Jim Costa, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
George Miller, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Rob Bishop, Utah
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Dean Heller, Nevada
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Sali, Idaho
Lois Capps, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Rick Renzi, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Carolina
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Louie Gohmert, Texas
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Dean Heller, Nevada
Jay Inslee, Washington Bill Sali, Idaho
Mark Udall, Colorado Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 10, 2007........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Sali, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Idaho................................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Boucher, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 4
Davenport, Tom R., Business Manager, Mt. Rogers Outfitters,
Damascus, Virginia......................................... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 1011.......................... 23
Dobbins, William C., General Manager, Public Utility District
No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington........................ 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 523........................... 39
Ferguson, Mike, Assistant Director, Business and Fiscal
Resources, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior............................................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 523........................... 10
Gray, Gerald L., Clintwood, Virginia......................... 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 1011.......................... 28
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 523........................... 6
Henson, Steve, Executive Director, Southern Appalachian
Multiple-Use Council, Clyde, North Carolina................ 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 1011.......................... 32
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 1011.......................... 13
Muffo, John A., Supervisor, Montgomery County Board of
Supervisors, Blacksburg, Virginia.......................... 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 1011.......................... 26
Seebach, John C., National Coordinator, American Rivers,
Hydropower Reform Coalition, Washington, D.C............... 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 523........................... 48
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 523, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND LOCATED WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WELLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT OF PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON, TO THE UTILITY
DISTRICT. (DOUGLAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON, PUD CONVEYANCE ACT); AND H.R.
1011, TO DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA AS WILDERNESS OR A WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TO DESIGNATE THE
KIMBERLING CREEK POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREA FOR EVENTUAL INCORPORATION
IN THE KIMBERLING CREEK WILDERNESS, TO ESTABLISH THE SENG MOUNTAIN AND
BEAR CREEK SCENIC AREAS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAIL PLANS
FOR THE WILDERNESS AREAS AND SCENIC AREAS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
(VIRGINIA RIDGE AND VALLEY ACT OF 2007).
----------
Thursday, May 10, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Grijalva, Bishop, Sarbanes, Shuler, Sali, Lamborn.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Let me call to order the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands for this hearing
today.
I am pleased to welcome my colleagues, and our
distinguished panelists today, to today's Subcommittee hearing.
In particular, I want to thank those witnesses who have
traveled to Washington to join us.
Today we are meeting to consider two measures: H.R. 523,
the Douglas County Public Utility District Conveyance Act, and
H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.
H.R. 523 would authorize the conveyance of approximately
622 acres of land currently owned by the Bureau of Land
Management to the Public Utility District in Douglas County, in
Washington State. The Public Utility District is in the early
stages of the relicensing process before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and they feel that consolidating the
ownership of land within the boundary of the project will be
beneficial.
However, concerns regarding the effect of selling this land
on some of the natural resources in the area has been raised.
Input from today's witnesses will be helpful in assessing those
concerns.
Our second bill, H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley
Act, was introduced by our colleague, Rep. Boucher, and we
welcome him here today. H.R. 1011 designates nearly 43,000
acres in the Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia
as wilderness, and nearly 12,000 acres as national scenic
areas.
H.R. 1011 is a strong bipartisan measure that is
cosponsored by the five other Representatives from Virginia.
The Senate companion measure is sponsored by Sen. Warner and
Sen. Webb.
Furthermore, H.R. 1011 has broad support from other
leaders, such as Gov. Tim Kaine, four County Boards of
Supervisors, local businesses, state organizations, and faith
groups.
I am pleased that we will hear from Rep. Boucher on our
first panel. I understand the measure before us today
represents several years of fine-tuning to iron out concerns
with previous proposals.
Each of the areas within H.R. 1011 are either recommended
wilderness area, areas in the 2004 Jefferson National Forest
Plan, or have been endorsed by the local Board of Supervisors
of a relevant county.
Some may argue that the wilderness legislation should be
bound to the forest plan. While we value the Forest Service's
input, the Wilderness Act clearly gives Congress the sole
authority and responsibility to designate wilderness.
There are also those who have argued that wilderness
designation is in conflict with the multiple-use mandate of the
National Forest System, and therefore oppose any designation of
wilderness. Wilderness is a multi-use resource, a fact Congress
affirmed in the Wilderness Act, and as well as the Multi-Use
Sustained Yield Act.
Once again, we look forward to our witnesses' insights and
thank them for their effort. And I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Sali, for any opening statements he may
have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL SALI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I would like to
welcome Representatives Rick Boucher and Doc Hastings to the
hearing today.
Rep. Hastings' bill I find to be a common-sense effort that
would convey 382 acres of BLM land at fair market value to the
public utility district that is referenced. Due to the
isolation of these parcels, the BLM has difficulty managing
them, and has left management up to this public utility
district. That district has a stellar environmental record and
will continue to use this land to provide recreational
opportunities to the surrounding communities.
The public utility district will cover all costs, and this
conveyance will have no determination on its ongoing hydropower
licensing proceedings.
I do have some concerns, though, with Rep. Boucher's bill,
H.R. 1011. It would designate 13,856 more acres of wilderness,
more than the 25,200 acres that were recommended by the Forest
Service Forest Plan. Development of the recently revised
Jefferson National Forest Plan consumed 11 years, millions of
dollars, and extensive public involvement that included over
3,000 members of the public. It was developed by career civil
servants, who are among the best and brightest of our
professional land managers.
Unfortunately, this bill ignores many of the
recommendations of those professionals. Several of the proposed
wilderness areas in H.R. 1011 are currently managed to maintain
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.
The Forest Service needs to use mechanized equipment to
manage these lands to comply with the ESA. H.R. 1011 would take
away these prudent management options.
This bill also ties the hands of professional land managers
who need to perform proactive treatments that could reduce the
risk of wildfires.
In my state, there are over 4 million acres of designated
wilderness. A lot of it looks like the picture that is on the
screen. This is wilderness that meets the 1964 Wilderness Act
standards of land that is pristine and untrammeled by man.
H.R. 1011 would designate thousands of acres that have
roads, utility corridors, towers, mountain biking areas. Some
areas, like the Brush Mountain proposal, are so surrounded by
development that the Forest Service is concerned about fire
spreading quickly to highly developed housing areas in the city
of Blacksburg, Virginia, home of Virginia Tech.
I will conclude by saying that recreation is a valuable use
of the National Forest System, along with all the other uses.
As recreation pressures increase on the nation's public lands,
we should be creating more opportunities for the average
visitor, not less.
This bill reduces recreational opportunities for 99 percent
of visitors, while enhancing opportunities for just 1 percent.
As baby boomers age and gain a few pounds, Congress needs to
make our Federal lands more user-friendly to these folks. And
designated wilderness, as we find in this bill, takes those
recreational opportunities away from these folks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Sali. And for all the panels,
we limit the oral testimony to five minutes. Without objection,
the statements of all the witnesses today will be made part of
the record in its entirety.
And with that, let me turn to the first panel, our
distinguished colleagues, and begin with Congressman Boucher on
H.R. 1011. Sir?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Subcommittee. It is a privilege for me to have the
opportunity this morning to testify before you in support of
bipartisan wilderness legislation, which we have introduced for
the State of Virginia.
All of the proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study
areas and national scenic areas that would be designated in
this legislation reside within the Congressional District that
I have the privilege of representing. But I am pleased to be
joined in cosponsorship of the measure by a bipartisan majority
of Virginia's House delegation. A majority of our entire
delegation is cosponsoring, including our Democratic colleagues
Bobby Scott and Jim Moran, and Republican colleagues Frank
Wolf, Tom Davis, and JoAnn Davis.
An identical bill has been introduced in the Senate, as the
Chairman indicated, with the chief sponsor Senator John Warner,
and cosponsored by our other United States Senator from
Virginia, Jim Webb. And we have worked very closely with
Senators Warner and Webb in the construction of the legislation
that we are presenting to you this morning.
The bill designates 43,000 acres of wilderness or
wilderness study areas, and designates 12,000 acres of national
scenic areas. The bill has been constructed over a number of
years in a very careful process that involves conservation
organizations, civic organizations, faith-based organizations,
business owners, local governments, and scores of interested
citizens. It has been broadly endorsed by those with whom we
have worked in order to construct it.
It carries the recommendation for wilderness designation of
either the U.S. Forest Service, as reflected in the management
plan, or of the local governing body for each county in which a
proposed wilderness area is situated. And I would note that
testifying on today's panel of witnesses is a representative of
the local governing body of Montgomery County, where the town
of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech is located, endorsing the
passage of the bill.
I have attached to my proposed written statement eight
pages containing a lengthy list of endorsing organizations and
individuals. I would note that the bill has been endorsed by
Virginia's Governor Tim Kaine, and in fact is the only
wilderness bill, to our knowledge, to be endorsed by the
International Mountain Bicycling Association.
All of the acreages protected in the bill have unique
features that merit preservation. The Appalachian Trail
traverses a number of these wilderness areas. Most of the
terrain is truly rugged, and is not suitable for timber
extraction.
I believe, and the local governments endorsing the bill
believe, that these new protected areas will place a broad
economic benefit to the advantage of our localities. Tourism is
our single fastest-growing industry, and the outdoor experience
that we offer in our region will clearly be enhanced by the
passage of this measure.
I would note, Mr. Chairman, that while we will not rely on
wilderness alone to attract large numbers of travelers, we know
from the experience that we have had with our existing
wilderness areas that the wilderness experience is a valuable
part of the outdoor recreation component of our tourism
development strategy.
The areas we propose to designate for protection will
provide solitude and superb wilderness recreational
opportunities for hiking, for hunting, for fishing, for
camping, bird watching, backpacking, and horseback riding.
Thousands of people travel to our region each year to enjoy
the outdoor experience in the Jefferson National Forest, and
the passage of this legislation will clearly enhance that
outdoor experience.
Senator Warner and I, over the last two years, have worked
extensively with the Forest Service and its very capable
representatives in attempting to address concerns that the
Forest Service has expressed with the legislation. In response
to that expression of concerns by the Forest Service, we have
made a number of modifications in the bill that is pending
before you today, from the version that we introduced during
the course of the last Congress. And we truly believe that we
have addressed the principal concerns that the Forest Service
has presented to us.
Today the Forest Service may express further reservations
about the legislation, and I ask that a point-by-point answer
that I have prepared to these reservations be received as a
part of this testimony, and be made a part of your record of
proceedings today.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for conducting today's
hearing, and I very much hope it will be the privilege and
pleasure of this committee to report our legislation to the
Floor. And I will look forward to any questions that you care
to ask.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
With that, let me turn to Congressman Hastings with regard
to H.R. 523. Sir?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member, for holding this important hearing on pending public
land legislation, including my bill, H.R. 523, a bill that
would convey certain BLM properties to the Douglas County
Public Utility District in central Washington, in my district.
The Douglas County PUD operates the Wells Hydropower
Project on the Columbia River in north-central Washington. As a
Federal project license holder, the PUD manages the Wells Dam
and the associated reservoir for multiple purposes, including
power generation, fish and wildlife protection, and recreation.
Almost all of the land encompassing the project area is
owned by the PUD, with the exception of several small BLM land
holdings, and that is what this bill is about.
I believe a higher level of resource and recreation
management can be achieved on these lands if they are under PUD
ownership. This would enable the PUD to manage the project
across the landscape, and would allow the BLM to concentrate
its limited resources elsewhere in the state, where there are
large contiguous blocks of BLM land.
The Douglas PUD has a stellar reputation as a steward of
the environment. They worked diligently with Federal and state
agencies, tribal governments and environmental groups, to
develop a model habitat conservation plan for salmon and
steelhead.
I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
committee, this was a very difficult thing to accomplish, and
it took many, many years to realize. In addition, the PUD
rigorously protects other forms of wildlife found in the area,
and provides for public access whenever possible. For all
intents and purposes, they are the day-to-day land managers in
this project area.
For those of you that are from areas of the country with
public power entities, I would just note that the Douglas PUD
is a public agency under Washington State law, with elected
commissioners who meet regularly in public meetings. This
legislation then would facilitate the conveyance of land from
one public agency to another. And for you Members of the
Subcommittee who were at this hearing on this issue last year,
I want to thank you for unanimously supporting this bill last
year, both in committee and later on the House Floor.
I regret, and I am sure that you regret, that a number of
common-sense land bills had to be reintroduced this year
because they were ultimately not passed by the other body. I
guess that seems to be something that we historically have to
go through every year, and this is one of those pieces of
legislation.
However, I hope that you will approve this legislation
again, and that it will move quickly through the House to the
other body for their consideration.
And again, I want to thank you and Members of this
committee for holding this hearing on this legislation. I urge
you once again to favorably act on this bill. And I am willing
to stand for any questions that you may want to ask.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, on H.R. 523, Douglas County, Washington
Land Conveyance
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member:
Thank you for holding this important hearing on pending public
lands legislation, including my bill--H.R. 523--that would convey
certain BLM properties to the Douglas County Public Utility District.
The Douglas County PUD operates the Wells Hydropower Project on the
Columbia River, in North Central Washington. As the federal project
license holder, the PUD manages the Wells dam and the associated
reservoir for multiple purposes, including power generation, fish and
wildlife protection, and recreation. Almost all of the land
encompassing the project area is owned by the PUD, with the exception
of several small BLM holdings.
I believe a higher level of resource and recreation management can
be achieved on these lands if they are under PUD ownership. This would
enable the PUD to manage the project across the landscape, and it would
allow the BLM to concentrate its limited resources elsewhere in the
state where there are large contiguous blocks of BLM land.
The Douglas PUD has a stellar reputation as a steward of the
environment. They worked diligently with federal and state agencies,
tribal governments, and environmental groups to develop a model Habitat
Conservation Plan for salmon and steelhead. This was a very difficult
thing to accomplish and took many years to realize. In addition, the
PUD rigorously protects other forms of wildlife found in the area and
provides for public access wherever possible. For all intents and
purposes, they are the day to day land managers of the project area.
For those of you from areas of the country without public power
entities, I would note that the Douglas PUD is a public agency under
Washington state law with elected commissioners who meet regularly in
public meetings. This legislation would facilitate the conveyance of
land from one public agency to another.
For members of the Subcommittee who were at the hearing on this
issue last year, I thank you for unanimously supporting this bill, both
in Committee and later on the House floor. I regret that a number of
common sense lands bills had to be reintroduced this year because they
were ultimately not passed by the other body. However, I hope that you
will approve this legislation again and that it will be moved quickly
to the full House for further consideration.
Again Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the Subcommittee
for holding a hearing on this legislation today. I urge the favorable
consideration of this bill and look forward to working with you and
your staff on this issue.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me extend appreciation and
thanks to the gentlemen for your testimony.
Before we begin any questions the colleagues on the
committee might have, let me indicate to you, both of you, that
you are welcome to join us at the dais and participate in the
rest of the hearing as we go through the other panels.
With that, I have no questions for the Congressman. And Mr.
Sali?
Mr. Sali. Congressman Boucher, I am sorry, I note that you
chair the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, and that you
also represent a district that is rich in coal reserves.
Under the Clean Air Act, Congressionally delegated
wilderness areas that are over 5,000 acres are eligible for
Class I air designations, and that would apparently prohibit
any new industrial emissions in the areas.
With this in mind, would the enactment of your bill affect
any future development, industrially, in the area? Or should we
address this issue in your bill?
Mr. Boucher. Well, I thank the gentleman for that question.
My understanding of the state of the law--and this is based on
some of those same questions having been posed more than 20
years ago, when we added Virginia's first acreages to our
wilderness inventory--is that it would take an Act of Congress
to make any designations of Class I status for wilderness areas
which today are Class II. And all of the wilderness areas that
we added in the 1980s are Class II. I think there is one
wilderness area--as memory serves, it is the James River Face
Wilderness Area, that is actually, I believe, in Representative
Goodlatte's district--which is Class I. But it is Class I by
virtue of having been so designated at the time the very first
wilderness legislation was passed many decades ago.
Everything else that we have in Virginia is Class II. It is
my intention that everything that we are adding here be Class
II. I assumed the Subcommittee that I chair would have some
jurisdiction over any effort to amend the Clean Air Act in
order to elevate the status to Class I, but that simply is not
going to happen.
But if the gentleman would be more comfortable with a
provision in this bill that would address that question, I
would not oppose it. I would leave it to the Chair and the
Ranking Member to decide whether that might invoke the
jurisdiction of another committee--mine, namely. And while I
can assure you that I would endorse it in that committee----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Boucher.--having it be referred to that committee might
slow down the progress of the bill through the House, and that
is an event I would not welcome.
But let me just give assurance to the gentleman that there
is no intention here that any of these areas ever become Class
I. It would take a further Act of Congress for them to become
Class I, and that simply is not going to happen. And certainly
not through the committee that I chair.
Mr. Sali. In the West we have a lot of public lands, and in
my state, and awful lot of wilderness. We consider recreation a
very valuable asset. And I guess it seems like the idea here
should be to create more recreational opportunities on public
lands, as we determine what designations we will give them.
It looks to me like this bill will reduce recreational
opportunities for probably about 99 percent of visitors, and
the trade-off being it will enhance those recreational
opportunities for about 1 percent.
First of all, am I correct in that assessment? Second of
all, if you would describe the recreational opportunities that
will be available for the lands that are the subject of this
bill? Who can use it, those kinds of things.
Mr. Boucher. I would say to the gentleman that I do not
agree with the assessment that passing this bill would broadly
restrict recreational opportunities. In fact, I think exactly
the opposite would be the case, because the wilderness areas
would prove attractive to people who are in search of solitude,
a remote experience for horseback riding, backpacking, camping,
hunting, fishing, winter sports of various kinds, including
snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, mountain bicycling.
And I would note, as I said in my opening statement, that
this is the only wilderness bill, to my knowledge, that has
ever been endorsed by the International Mountain Bicycling
Association. And we worked very closely with the International
Bicycling Association as we wrote this bill. We have assured
bicycling access to terrain that this organization very much
anticipates being made wilderness.
In fact, representatives of that organization told us that
there are thousands of people who enjoy mountain bicycling, who
are traveling through Virginia at the present time trying to
get to other areas where there is better terrain access and
more opportunity to engage in bicycling. And because of the
trail construction and management functions that are directed
in this legislation, the trails in our areas would be upgraded
and made more appropriate for mountain bicycling; and that, in
turn, would draw a large number of additional mountain
bicyclists to our region.
So I truly believe that when this bill becomes law, we are
going to see an increase, rather than a decrease, of outdoor
recreational opportunities.
Mr. Sali. Can I approach this just a little differently? I
have a bad back, and I am not likely to hike very far, and I am
not likely to bicycle very far. For people that are in my
circumstance, if we pass this bill, and you know, for those of
us who need to rely on motorized vehicles, what kind of
recreational opportunities will be precluded from the land that
are included in this bill?
Mr. Boucher. Well, the first thing I would say to the
gentleman is that he really should come to my Congressional
District, and I would be happy to help him make some
reservations in order to travel there, because we offer superb
outdoor recreational opportunities in our stretches of national
forest. I have some counties where the national forest is as
much as 65 percent of the entire land mass of the county. And
these are areas where the outdoor recreational opportunities
available to anyone, with motorized access or non-motorized
access, are ample.
We are declaring a relatively small percentage of the acres
in the national forest to be wilderness. And yes, it is true
that there will be some roads that exist within these areas
that will not be useable for motorized traffic once they are
declared to be wilderness. But given the tremendous acreages
where we do have that motorized access, that will remain in
multiple use, which constitute well more than 90 percent of the
entire national forest, there is no shortage of recreational
opportunity for people who require motorized access.
And I think the gentleman would find a vacation in my
district to be very satisfying and enjoyable, and I hope you
will bring the whole family.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Sali. I turn to my colleague,
Mr. Sarbanes. Any questions?
Mr. Sarbanes. Not at this time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lamborn?
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I have no
questions, either.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And again, let me thank the
witnesses, and you are welcome to join us and participate in
the remainder of the hearing.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me welcome the second panel, if we can
continue with that part of the hearing.
Let me welcome the panel and begin, if I may, with Mr.
Ferguson from the Bureau of Land Management. Sir, your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MIKE FERGUSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND
FISCAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 523. This legislation directs
the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain public lands
located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the Wells
Dam Hydroelectric Project to Public Utility District----
Mr. Grijalva. If you could turn on the microphone.
Mr. Ferguson. Is that better? All right. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R.
523. This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain public lands located wholly or partially within
the boundaries of the Wells Dam Hydroelectric Project to the
Public Utility District No. 1 in Douglas County, Washington.
The BLM supports this conveyance. When we testified on
similar legislation in the previous Congress, we raised several
concerns. We greatly appreciate the work by Representative
Hastings' staff and the Subcommittee staff to address our
concerns, as reflected in the text of H.R. 523. We look forward
to working with the bill's sponsor and the committee on a few
key concerns that are still outstanding.
Since 1998, the public utility district has expressed a
strong desire to purchase all BLM-managed public lands within
the project boundaries. After the previous Congressional
hearing, we worked with the utility district to identify
precisely which lands it wants to acquire. We also worked with
the bill's sponsor to develop a map that correctly identifies
these lands.
Some of the public lands the utility district wants are
located within the boundaries of the project. These were
reserved for power site purposes by the order of the Federal
Power Commission. Some of the lands lie outside the designated
project boundary.
We encourage the sponsor and the committee to provide
safeguards to protect the known resource values on these lands,
which include bald eagle roosts and approximately two miles of
Columbia River shoreline currently opened to the public.
Section 3[f] of H.R. 523 directs that proceeds from the
sales be deposited into the working capital fund of BLM. We
strongly recommend instead that these funds be deposited into
the Federal Land Disposal account, established by the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferguson follows:]
Statement of Mike Ferguson, Assistant Director, Business and Fiscal
Resources, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
on H.R. 523, Douglas County, Washington, PUD Conveyance Act
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 523. This
legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
public lands located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the
Wells Dam Hydroelectric Project [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Project No. 2149-19795] (Project) to Public Utility District No. 1 of
Douglas County, WA, (PUD). The BLM supports this conveyance. During
consideration of similar legislation in the 109th Congress (H.R. 4789),
we raised several concerns. The BLM greatly appreciates the work by
Rep. Hastings' staff and Subcommittee staff to address our concerns, as
the text of H.R. 523 reflects. We look forward to working with the
bill's sponsor and the Committee on the few key concerns still
outstanding.
Since 1998, the PUD has expressed a strong desire to purchase all
BLM-managed public lands within the Project boundaries. During the
109th Congress, we worked with the PUD to identify precisely which
public lands it wishes to acquire, and we worked with the bill's
sponsor to develop a map that correctly identifies these lands. Some of
the public lands the PUD wishes to acquire are located within the
boundaries of the Project. These were reserved for power site purposes
by order of the Federal Power Commission (FPC Order dated July 12,
1962, for Power Project No. 2149). Some of the lands requested by the
PUD lie outside (but contiguous to) the designated project boundary. We
encourage the sponsor and the Committee to provide safeguards to
protect the known resource values on these lands, which include Bald
Eagle roosts and approximately two miles of Columbia River shoreline
currently open to the public.
Section 3(f) of the legislation directs that the proceeds from the
sales be deposited into the ``working capital'' funds of the BLM. We
strongly recommend instead that these funds be deposited in the
``Federal Land Disposal Account'' established by P.L.106-248, the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer
questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide the Department's view on the Virginia Ridge and Valley
Act. I am Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System of
the Forest Service.
Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to appear before
your committee, and I look forward to working with you and this
committee on issues affecting the Forest Service.
We commend the sponsors and the committee for its
collaborative approach, how they have worked with us, and who
have sought local involvement that has contributed to support
for this bill. The Department supports several of the
designations included in the bill, but we object to other
designations in the bill, and to mandatory planning and
construction requirements.
The Department would like to work with the committee to
offer suggestions which we think will improve H.R. 1011. The
Department supports the provisions that would designate the
proposed Garden Mountain and Hunting Creek Camp Wilderness
Areas. The Department supports designation of the Stone
Mountain Wilderness Area, but is also willing to work with the
committee to look at other options for protection.
The Department supports the designation of many of the
additions to existing wilderness. The Department does not
oppose the designation of the Lynn Camp Creek Wilderness Study
Area, the Mountain Lake B Addition, the Shawvers Run Additions
B and C areas. However, we do have concerns about the
suitability of these additions as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System due to their size and
configuration.
The Department does not support the designation as
potential wilderness for the 349-acre portion of the Kimberling
Creek area. As it limits the Secretary's discretion in the
allocation of scarce resources and other management actions.
Future wilderness designation of this area could be reevaluated
after restoration activities occur.
The Department does not support wilderness designation for
the Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East areas. These areas
lie on the north side of Brush Mountain, and contain fire-
dependent forest habitat, which make up approximately 50
percent of these two areas.
Wildland-urban interface exists on the north and south
boundaries. If designated as wilderness, our ability to utilize
prescribed fire for the maintenance of southern yellow pine
forest communities, and to conduct hazardous fuels reduction
projects, would be hampered.
Additionally, the narrow width of, and the bisecting
powerline corridor within, these areas detract from their
naturalness, and offer few opportunities for solitude.
The Department could support the designation of the Racoon
Branch area as a wilderness if agreements are reached that
resolve trail maintenance issues in the area, and if the
requirement contained in Section 5[d] of the bill for a
sustainable trail is amended to provide more flexibility for
future alternative trail locations.
Nearly six miles of the Virginia Highlands Horse Trail and
the Dickey Knob Trail traverse this area. These trails are
heavily used by both equestrians and mountain bikers.
Wilderness designation would eliminate mountain bike use within
the area. While equestrian use is compatible with wilderness
designation, heavy use and ground conditions along the Virginia
Highlands Trail necessitate extensive maintenance to maintain
the integrity of the trail, and protect watershed and other
resource values.
To maintain the trail to the standards that are needed
without mechanized or motorized equipment will require
cooperative agreements and commitments from user groups to help
in maintenance, to protect the resources, and to provide for
continued equestrian use of the trail.
Section 4 of H.R. 1011 would establish Seng Mountain and
Bear Creek National Scenic Areas. Although we have some
concerns over the limitations on our ability to improve black
bear habitat as a result of this designation, the Department
could support designation of the Bear Creek National Scenic
Area if allowances were made for seasonal motorized use of
forest development road no. 6251 during hunting season, with
the road remaining closed the rest of the year.
The proposed Seng Mountain NSA is within the
Congressionally designated Mount Rogers National Recreation
Area. The Mount Rogers National Recreation Area is managed to
provide public premier outdoor recreation benefits, and the
continued use by a diversity of recreation users. The Seng
Mountain area contains a motorized trail, the Barton Gap Trail.
Motorized use of the trail would be prohibited under H.R. 1011.
The Barton Gap Trail is one of only five designated motorcycle
trails in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests,
and is an important part of the diversity of recreation
opportunities that we provide the visitors that use the forests
in the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area.
The Department could support designation of the Seng
Mountain National Scenic Area if the overlapping designation
issue is clarified, and if continued motorized use on the
Barton Gap Trail was allowed.
H.R. 1011 would require the Secretary to establish a trail
plan to develop hiking and equestrian trails on lands
designated as wilderness by this bill. The Department considers
the requirement to develop additional trail plans to be
unnecessary.
H.R. 1011 would also require the Secretary to develop a
trail to provide a continuous connection for non-motorized
travel. We believe that it would be costly and difficult to
provide a trail in this general location that would be safe.
The Department does not support a requirement to construct
trail facilities without adequate consideration for
alternatives, priorities, and funding sources.
This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1011, Virginia Ridge
and Valley Act of 2007
Thank you for the opportunity today to provide the Department's
view on H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. I am Joel
Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System of the Forest Service. I
look forward to working with this committee on issues affecting the
Forest Service.
H.R. 1011 would designate 27,817 acres in the Jefferson National
Forest as new components of the National Wilderness Preservation
System. Specifically, the bill would designate the following areas:
Brush Mountain East Wilderness, Brush Mountain Wilderness, Raccoon
Branch Wilderness, Stone Mountain Wilderness, Hunting Camp Creek
Wilderness, and Garden Mountain Wilderness. H.R. 1011 would also
designate 11,344 acres as additions to existing wilderness areas
namely, Mountain Lake Wilderness, Lewis Fork Wilderness, Little Wilson
Creek Wilderness, Shawvers Run Wilderness, Peters Mountain Wilderness
and Kimberling Creek Wilderness.
H.R. 1011 would designate 3,226 acres in the Jefferson National
Forest as the ``Lynn Camp Creek Wilderness Study Area.'' The bill also
would designate 349 acres depicted on the map as the ``Kimberling Creek
Additions Potential Wilderness Area'' as a potential wilderness area
for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness. The bill
would set forth requirements regarding ecological restoration within
this area and would provide for the designation of the area as a
wilderness within 5 years.
In addition, the bill would designate 11,583 acres of the Seng
Mountain and Bear Creek areas as National Scenic Areas for purposes of
ensuring the protection and preservation of scenic quality, water
quality, natural characteristics, and water resources; protecting
wildlife and fish habitat; protecting areas that may develop
characteristics of old-growth forests; and providing a variety of
recreation opportunities.
Finally the bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a management plan for the designated national scenic areas. The
Secretary also would be required to develop a trail plan for hiking and
equestrian trails on lands designated as wilderness by this Act and to
develop a plan for non-motorized recreation trails within the Seng
Mountain and Bear Creek National Scenic Areas. The bill also would
direct the Secretary to develop a sustainable non-motorized trail in
Smyth County, Virginia.
We recognize and commend the delegation and the committee for its
collaborative approach and local involvement that has contributed to
support for this bill. The Department is in support for several of the
designations included in the bill but we object to other designations
in the bill and to mandatory planning and construction requirements.
The Department would like to work with the Committee to offer
suggestions which we think will improve H.R. 1011.
Wilderness Proposals
During the development or revision of a forest land and resource
management plan (LRMP), a National Forest conducts an evaluation of
potential wilderness or wilderness study area that satisfies the
definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of
1964. On NFS lands in the eastern United States (east of the 100th
meridian) the criteria for evaluating potential wilderness recognizes
that much, if not all of the land, shows signs of human activity and
modification. The Record of Decision for the revised Jefferson National
Forest LRMP, signed on January 15, 2004, was developed over an eleven
year period with extensive public involvement. It contains
recommendations for 25,200 acres of wilderness study areas, including
new wilderness study areas and additions to existing areas designated
as wilderness.
The Department supports the provisions in H.R. 1011 that would
designate new components of the National Wilderness Preservation System
that are consistent with the Jefferson National Forest LRMP
recommendations for wilderness study. These areas include the proposed
Garden Mountain and Hunting Creek Camp Wilderness areas.
The Stone Mountain area (referred to as Cave Springs area in the
LRMP) is entirely underlain by Federal mineral ownership and is not
currently under mineral lease. The Jefferson National Forest LRMP
recommended this area for wilderness study. Congressional designation
would make this the only wilderness within the Cumberland Mountain
ecological section in Virginia. The Department supports designation of
the Stone Mountain Wilderness Area but is also willing to work with the
committee to look at other options for protection.
The Department supports the designation of additions to existing
wilderness areas for the following areas: Kimberling Creek A and B
additions, Lewis Fork addition, Little Wilson Creek addition, Mountain
Lake A and C additions, Peters Mountain addition, and Shawvers Run A
addition.
The Department does not oppose the designation of the ``Lynn Camp
Creek Wilderness Study Area'', the Mountain Lake B addition, and
Shawvers Run Additions B and C areas. However, we have concerns about
the suitability of these additions as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) due to their size and
configuration. An additional concern with the Mountain Lake addition B
is that it contains a 59 acre private inholding which could require
associated road access in the future if the parcel is developed.
The Department does not support the designation as ``potential
wilderness'' for the 349 acre portion of the Kimberling Creek area. The
designation ``Potential Wilderness'' is not a designation referenced in
the Wilderness Act of 1964. A subsequent designation of wilderness
following a fixed time period and associated compulsory changes in
conditions can serve to limit the Secretary's discretion in the
allocation of scarce resources and other management actions associated
with the administration of the National Forest System and the NWPS. We
use the term, potential wilderness, in our wilderness evaluation
process under our LRMP efforts to evaluate areas as potential additions
to the NWPS. The Kimberling Creek addition was recently acquired as NFS
land and in its current condition does not contain the basic natural
characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness due to an
extensive road network. We would recommend that the committee consider
allowing the Secretary to continue the current management prescription
for this area which is Dispersed Recreation-Unsuitable. This management
emphasis provides for a variety of dispersed recreation uses with
minimal vegetation management and would allow use of motorized and
mechanized equipment for needed road and trail rehabilitation work. We
plan to develop rehabilitation plans and implement these plans within
the next 5 to 10 years. While this area was not recommended as a
potential wilderness area in the LMP, future wilderness designation of
this area could be reevaluated after restoration activities occur.
The Department does not support wilderness designation for the
Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East areas. These areas lie on the
north side of Brush Mountain and are separated by a 345 Kilovolt
powerline corridor. They were not recommended for wilderness study in
LRMP. They contain fire-dependent forest habitat which make up
approximately 50 percent of these two areas. Additionally, the areas
are largely surrounded by private lands. Wildland urban interface
(subdivisions and housing developments) exists on the north and south
boundaries. If designated as wilderness, our ability to utilize
prescribed fire for the maintenance of southern yellow pine forest
communities and to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects would be
hampered in these interface areas. Our ability to use prescribed fire
is compromised when we cannot mechanically construct firelines to
better control fire management activities. Additionally, the narrow
width of, and the bisecting powerline corridor within these areas
detract from their naturalness and offer few opportunities for
solitude.
The Department could support the designation of the Raccoon Branch
area as a wilderness area if agreements are reached in resolving trail
maintenance issues in the area and if the requirement contained in
section 5(d) of the bill for a sustainable trail is amended to provide
more flexibility for any future alternative trail locations. Nearly six
miles of the Virginia Highlands Horse Trail (VHHT) and the Dickey Knob
Trail traverse this area. These trails are heavily used by both
equestrians and mountain bikers. Wilderness designation would eliminate
mountain bike use within the area. While equestrian use is compatible
with wilderness designation, heavy use and ground conditions along the
VHHT necessitate extensive maintenance to maintain the integrity of the
trail and protect watershed and other resources values. To maintain the
trail to the standards that are needed without mechanized or motorized
equipment will require cooperative agreements and commitments from user
groups to help in maintenance to protect the resources and to provide
for continued equestrian use of the trail.
National Scenic Area Proposals
Section 4 of H.R. 1011 would establish Seng Mountain and Bear Creek
National Scenic Areas (NSA). Although we have concerns over the
limitations on our ability to improve black bear habitat as a result of
this designation, the Department could support designation of the Bear
Creek NSA if allowances were made for seasonal motorized use of Forest
Development Road #6251 during hunting season, with the road remaining
closed the rest of the year.
The proposed Seng Mountain NSA is within the congressionally
designated Mount Rogers National Recreation Area (NRA). The Mount
Rogers NRA is managed to provide public outdoor recreation benefits and
the continued use by a diversity of recreation uses. The Seng Mountain
area contains a motorized trail, the Barton Gap Trail #4624. Motorized
use of the trail would be prohibited under H.R. 1011. The Barton Gap
Trail is one of only five designated motorcycle trails on the George
Washington and Jefferson National Forests and is an important part of
the diversity of recreation opportunities that we provide the visitors
that use the Forest and the Mount Rogers NRA. The Department would like
to work with the committee to resolve any confusion resulting from the
overlapping designations for the Seng Mountain area. The Department
could support designation of the Seng Mountain NSA if the overlapping
designation issue is clarified and if continued motorized use on the
Barton Gap Trail was allowed.
Trail Development Plans
H.R. 1011 would require the Secretary to establish a trail plan to
develop hiking and equestrian trails on lands designated as wilderness
by this bill. The designated lands would be administered in accordance
with the Wilderness Act. Trail development in wilderness rarely occurs
in order to preserve wilderness character. The Forest Service already
addresses trail management and planning standards within the LRMP
planning process. The Department considers the requirement to develop
additional trail plans to be unnecessary.
H.R. 1011 also would require the Secretary to develop a sustainable
trail to provide a continuous connection for non-motorized travel
between County Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018. This trail
would be along State Route 16. We believe that it would be costly and
difficult to provide a trail in this general location that would be
safe for both equestrians and mountain bikers. The existing gravel road
(State Route 650), is winding and narrow and contains several blind
curves. It receives high local use and is the main access road for
campers and recreational vehicles to enter Hurricane Campground.
Further, a potential connector trail for horses and bikes from Route
650 along the route of the old Marion-Rye Valley rail bed would require
crossing State Route 16, a 55-mph state highway that receives heavy
commercial use, in a location with poor sight distance. Trail
construction along the stream would be unlikely to meet our Forest
standards for riparian protection. The Department does not support such
a requirement to construct trail facilities without adequate
consideration for alternatives, priorities and funding sources.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. In my opening statement I
mentioned that, with regards to H.R. 523, that there was some
concerns and some need for clarification on some points. And to
that end, to get some clarification as this legislation moves,
let me ask Mr. Ferguson a couple of questions.
The BLM parcels that would be sold under the legislation,
have they been formally identified for disposal by BLM, on a
BLM land use plan?
Mr. Ferguson. None of the lands that are identified in this
bill are included as being identified for disposal under the
land use plan, which was approved in about 1987.
Mr. Grijalva. So that means that they could not be sold
administratively?
Mr. Ferguson. Generally, our focus is on either disposal
through exchange or sale only of parcels identified for sale or
disposal in our land use plans.
In this case, we cannot take any administrative action
because they have been reserved for power site purposes.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me go back. Why aren't they listed
for disposal?
Mr. Ferguson. Because they were reserved in 1962 for power
site purposes. So when we did the land use plan, that was the
driver for those parcels.
Mr. Grijalva. And so if we wanted, if BLM wanted to
identify these parcels for disposal, that would require
amending the land use plan as it stands currently?
Mr. Ferguson. It would actually require several steps. It
would require approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. It would require amending the land use plans. It
would require appraisals. And it would require public
notification.
Mr. Grijalva. Public notification, public comment would be
part of that.
Mr. Ferguson. Right. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. So if we legislate through this legislation,
do you have any concern that the public then would not have any
opportunity to, A, be notified, and B, comment?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, I believe, by virtue of having
hearings, it affords the public an opportunity to provide some
comment.
Mr. Grijalva. If BLM owns the land during the relicensing
process, do you anticipate, would you anticipate putting any
requirements on the license to, say, protect resources on those
public lands.
Mr. Ferguson. The current license runs through 2012. It is
too early for us to really know what kind of conditions or
recommendations we would provide for the proposal.
Mr. Grijalva. So at this point it would be, so any
different requirements, any conditions would be down the road,
as we approach 2012?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir. It is a little too early for us to
evaluate that.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask you about precedent, and then I
will move on.
Any concern on the part of BLM that we might set a
precedent here that could be a bad precedent, where anyone
seeking a new license would try to get BLM or other agencies to
sell any land they own within that boundary.
Mr. Ferguson. I believe that we can consider any future
proposals that are similar on a case-by-case basis. I am sure
there are people who may raise that concern, you know. In this
particular case we have on the order of a dozen small, isolated
parcels that total 622 acres. I suspect that we would want to
look a little deeper and a little more closely if it was a
large piece and involved more significant resources.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Last point. And if I may, the issue of
public access. What current rules do we have regarding public
access to the river on the parcels that are owned by BLM?
Mr. Ferguson. We have no specific rules. It is an
undeveloped site. It is just open to public access.
Mr. Grijalva. So the access is available----
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva.--pretty readily. How do you expect, if the
land is sold to the public utility, do you anticipate those
open-ended rule in terms of accessibility to continue, or not?
Mr. Ferguson. I wouldn't want to speculate on what the
public utility district would want to do. I think if there is a
concern over that, that may be something that Congress may want
to consider in providing some protections within the
legislation.
Mr. Grijalva. Very kind, thank you. And let me turn to Mr.
Sali. And I probably, I have some questions for Mr. Holtrop,
but in the second go-around. And my time is up now, sir.
Mr. Sali. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hastings has time problems. If
I could just trade spots with him, let him go right now.
Mr. Grijalva. Sir?
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you once again for your courtesy in allowing me to come up here
on the dais.
For Mr. Ferguson, thank you for being here and for your
agency working with the PUD on this over the last several
years.
One of the concerns that you referenced in your testimony
was the bald eagle. We have a lot of bald eagles up in our part
of the country.
Just to clarify, are bald eagles nesting on the BLM parcels
that are affected by this bill?
Mr. Ferguson. I am not aware of any nest sites on any of
these parcels. I know there are some roost sites. I am not
aware of any nesting.
Mr. Hastings. Right. One of these, it just dawned on me,
one of these sites to be transferred is underwater, is that
correct? That BLM owns, that is underwater?
Mr. Ferguson. I believe at least one of them, yes.
Mr. Hastings. Yes. Generally speaking, and this is I think
probably overall for your agency, is BLM seeking to consolidate
its smaller, isolated parcels into larger ones? And if, in
fact, you are, would this conveyance then be consistent with
that policy?
Mr. Ferguson. First of all, the conveyance would be
consistent with the policies that we have. In general, we look
at small, isolated tracts that are difficult to manage as being
available for disposal.
Again, that was not the case with these, because of the
power site withdrawal.
Mr. Hastings. And because the way they are physically
located within the project.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. But overall, though, I mean, if the desire is
to consolidate BLM land which happens, I know, sometimes in a
checkerboard pattern in various parts, this would be consistent
with at least that consolidation, because this is isolated.
Would that be a correct statement?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir, it would.
Mr. Hastings. OK. And finally, when you were responding to
the Chairman about the relicensing, to date you have not
indicated any interest in opposing any conditions at all, or
taken a position, on the relicensing of the Wells Dam.
Mr. Ferguson. To my knowledge, we have not even begun
conversations about what we might or might not consider in the
way of recommendations.
Mr. Hastings. OK. So it is fair to say, I mean, obviously
nothing is set in concrete, but your interest is zero right
now. That could change. But your interest is zero right now, is
that correct?
Mr. Ferguson. I hesitate to say our interest is zero. But
your point that we have not really taken an active role in
discussions is correct.
Mr. Hastings. OK, all right. Thank you. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for the courtesy; I
appreciate it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Sali, any
questions?
Mr. Sali. I think I heard you say just a few minutes ago
that mountain biking would be an excluded recreational activity
in wilderness areas, and yet I heard Congressman Boucher a few
moments ago describe mountain biking as one of the recreational
opportunities that would exist for the area in H.R. 1011.
Is he correct, or are you correct?
Mr. Ferguson. We are both correct. The National Wilderness
Preservation System, we do not allow mountain biking in
designated wilderness. This piece of legislation does also have
a couple of national scenic areas designated, which, through
negotiations and discussions with the Mountain Biking
Association, were decided to be national scenic areas so that
mountain biking could continue to be used in those areas, as
well as in the Raccoon Branch Wilderness Area, which has a
currently popular mountain bike trail.
Legislation designates an alternate route to be constructed
around that, which is one of those areas that we have some
concern over the designation of that specific route.
Mr. Sali. Can you describe for me, in terms of percentage
of the amount of land we are dealing with, what part will be
allowed, mountain biking be allowed on, and what part will it
be excluded from? What percentage?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, of the parcels of land that we are
describing in this particular piece of legislation, the 39,000
acres or so that would be designated wilderness would not have
mountain biking on it. The wilderness study and the potential
wilderness that are included in here would eventually, if they
became wilderness, would not allow mountain biking. And the
national scenic areas, which are nearly 12,000 acres, would
allow mountain biking.
Mr. Sali. And 12,000 acres for all three of those last
categories?
Mr. Ferguson. The national scenic areas is around, is
11,583 acres.
Mr. Sali. And the wilderness study areas, and there was one
other category?
Mr. Ferguson. The wilderness study area is 3,226 acres; the
potential wilderness, 349 acres. So it is another 3,500 acres.
Mr. Sali. So on about a third of it it would be allowed,
and--well, actually less than a third, I guess.
Mr. Ferguson. Of these particular parcels. Of course, that
has to be understood in the context of a 1.8 million acre
national forest.
Mr. Sali. Right. Can you describe what is a forest plan?
How it is developed, what does it cost. You know, why do we use
it, those kinds of things?
Mr. Ferguson. Certainly. The forest plans are required of
each of our national forest units, under the National Forest
Management Act. And they, under the regulations that the
Jefferson National Forest Plan was prepared, which was
completed in 2004, it took us many years of work and millions
of dollars to prepare this plan.
It provides long-term direction on the allocation of the
land resources, taking into account a consideration of the
various uses that the national forests are set aside for, both
providing opportunities for public services and recreational
opportunities, and timber opportunities, and oil and gas, and
mineral extraction, as well as protecting ecosystems.
And the forest plan is a publicly, is a public process that
we go through in order to make some determinations as to how we
recommend the forest is going to be managed in the long term.
Mr. Sali. Does H.R. 1011 follow the guidelines of the
forest plan?
Mr. Ferguson. There are aspects of H.R. 1011 that are very
specifically similar to what our forest plan has. There are
other aspects of it which are somewhat different than what our
forest plan recommendation was. And then there are some in
which it was different enough that we had a hard time becoming
comfortable with that.
The forest plan is, it is a plan that we are very
comfortable with. We are confident in the forest plan that we
put together. We are confident in the public process that we
used. But we aren't so certain that that is the only possible
appropriate approach to take, and that there are other public
processes that come into play, including Congress's ability to
take a look at both our forest plan and other input that they
get as to what wilderness designations, because Congress will
pass the laws to actually designate wilderness.
What we try to do is to encourage looking at what our
forest plan has included as its recommendation. And then, if
there are additional recommendations for additional wilderness
beyond what our forest plan said, we look at how we felt, why
we made the decisions that we made. Are there aspects of having
a wilderness that causes us such concern that we can't at least
be somewhat supportive of it? And so we do some weighing as we
look at a piece of legislation.
Mr. Sali. Can you kind of follow up and describe which
areas are outside of the forest plan, with respect to H.R.
1011? And your level of discomfort, I guess.
Mr. Ferguson. I can talk about that. Several of the
wilderness additions are consistent with the forest plan. A
couple of the new wilderness areas are consistent with the
forest plan.
The areas in the legislation that are significantly, that
are different enough from the forest plan for reasons--and it
is not just because it is different from the forest plan, but
the resource reasons that we considered in making our
recommendations.
The areas that created the greatest discomfort for us were
the Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East designations, as
well as we struggled with the Raccoon Branch designation,
mostly because of the trail issues associated with that,
recognizing the importance of continuing to provide mountain
biking opportunity, and also recognizing the difficulty of
providing a safe, economically feasible trail as an
alternative.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Sali. Let me, before they are
going to call us to vote, and hopefully we will get done with
this panel and the questions, let me, Mr. Holtrop, let me ask
you a couple of questions relative to the legislation
introduced by our colleague.
We are going to work on your comfort level for a little
while there. You raised some concerns about the term potential
wilderness. And the concept is not new. I am sure you are aware
that this concept was used in the Northern California Coastal
Wild Heritage Act, the Creek Wilderness, and the Illinois
Wilderness. Am I correct that that term was used in those
designations?
Mr. Holtrop. I don't recall for sure. I don't know that it
has been used before. And it is certainly used in even our own
planning process.
Mr. Grijalva. Let us go to another point that you mentioned
in your response to my colleague, the Ranking Member's,
questions. That had to do with, your testimony that you do not
support the wilderness designation for Brush Mountain and Brush
Mountain East areas.
However, the local County Board of Supervisors, the
neighborhood association closest to the areas, have endorsed
the proposal. And so the concern about the wildland-urban
interface I think has been addressed by these local landowners.
I also understand that the bill sponsors offered to work
with the Forest Service to incorporate fire language from the
Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Act. And was this
language offer accepted or rejected with regard to the Forest
Service, sir?
Mr. Holtrop. I can't address directly the question about
the language from the Northern California Forest Protection
Act. But what I can say is that there are a variety of reasons
why we do not support the Brush Mountain and the Brush Mountain
East wilderness proposal.
Some of those reasons are because there are some ecosystem
needs for the use of fire for maintaining an ecosystem in that
area, and that the burgeoning growth of the wild and urban
interface on both sides of that.
But there is also the fact that it is a very long, narrow
corridor, with roads on both sides, a power line corridor
through it. It doesn't really provide the type of solitude
experience that you expect in wilderness.
Mr. Grijalva. Another point that you made, that the Forest
Service could support the Raccoon Branch wilderness area if
agreements were reached on trail maintenance on the Virginia
Highlands Horse Trail. I think you mentioned that.
Mr. Holtrop. That, and if we can address the issues of an
alternative trail for mountain biking.
Mr. Grijalva. I am going to submit for the record a
grievance submitted to the Forest Service for voluntary
services, from several local individuals and groups, to perform
the trail maintenance in the Raccoon Branch. The Forest Service
has been provided with copies of these documents. I would ask
you, and you could submit that later, to look at these
documents, and respond to us at some point whether they address
your concerns or not in terms of the maintenance question.
Mr. Holtrop. I would be happy to do that. I am aware that
that work has been done. I appreciate the work of the sponsors
in the committee to work on working out those types of
arrangements.
This is a trail that requires a considerable amount of
work. And the continuing dialogue we would have to have is the
long-term commitment and the clear recognition of the magnitude
of the tasks that these organizations are agreeing to take on.
Mr. Grijalva. My cursory look at those agreements, I think
that the commitment is a solid one, and I would hope that you
would review those documents that are available to you.
Mr. Holtrop. We would be happy to.
Mr. Grijalva. I wanted to mention one last thing. And Mr.
Bishop is here; I don't know if he has any questions.
You mentioned also, Mr. Holtrop, that the designation issue
that we are talking about, there is two levels of comfort. And
you know, it is a prerogative of Congress to do those
designations, given the information at the hearing and the
quality and content of the legislation that we are reviewing.
And I would hope that as we go through this process, that I
think many of the concerns that you raised have been addressed,
or attempted to be addressed, and we will review those. If
there is any additional issues that you want to raise, if you
could submit those to us. But at least my look at it, it seems
a lot of the points that you are bringing as points of
discomfort have been dealt with at some point or another with
that legislation. But that is an opinion at this point.
With that, any other questions? We have votes. Do you want
to come back, Mr. Bishop? You are next.
Mr. Sali. I am done.
[Discussion held off the record.]
Mr. Grijalva. Are there going to be any additional
questions, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Bishop, for the panel? No.
OK, thank you very much. And then we will resume I would
hope in an hour or less, after we take these votes. Thank you
very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. I reconvene the committee meeting, and
welcome our next panel. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And let
me begin with Mr. Davenport, please.
STATEMENT OF TOM DAVENPORT, MANAGER,
MOUNT ROGERS OUTFITTERS, DAMASCUS, VIRGINIA
Mr. Davenport. Mr. Chairman Grijalva, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to express my views
as a businessperson on H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley
Act, introduced by Representative Rick Boucher.
My name is Tom Davenport. I am the Business Manager for
Mount Rogers Outfitters, an outdoor recreation retail
establishment focused primarily on the backpacking and hiking
segment of the market, located in Damascus, Virginia. I have
lived in Damascus for the past 16 years.
First I want to highlight the significant role the outdoor
recreation retail industry plays in the U.S. economy,
generating $289 billion annually in sales and services. It
exceeds the sales of segments such as pharmaceutical and
medicine manufacturing, automobile and light truck
manufacturing, power generation and supply, and the motion
picture and video industry, among others.
Outdoor retailing is also significant in the Southeast,
generating $51.3 billion in sales annually, and supporting
nearly 800,000 jobs, more than any of the other eight census
regions in the U.S.
Outdoor retailing is also significant in small communities
such as ours, in the Ninth Congressional District. Over the
past 10 years, the town of Damascus has grown a respectable
tourism-based economy. We have achieved national recognition in
Backpacker Magazine and the Wall Street Journal.
Our local economic success rests largely on two factors: A
fair amount of entrepreneurial talent, and two, the proximity
of a significant outdoor-resource attraction.
People come to Damascus not because there is something to
do or see in the town, but because of the recreational
opportunities on the national forest. Because of the nature of
our business, because of our proximity to national forest
lands, and because of our interest in the quality of our
outdoor recreation opportunities, we are actively involved in
the management of national forests. We help maintain trails, we
collaborate in public-participation opportunities, and we
participate in forest plan processes.
The managers of the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area
have been supportive and responsive to the needs of our
business, as well as other outdoor recreation businesses in
Damascus. We view the Forest Service as a partner, and share a
credit with them for the economic revitalization in our
community.
We think we are being realistic, however, in recognizing
that the direction of national forest management can swing on
political considerations, independent of our ability to control
or influence them locally. We think that it is in our economic
self-interest to secure the present and future integrity of a
few of the best places on the national forest. We think it is
in the economic self-interest of much of the rural portion of
the region encompassed by the Ninth Congressional District.
We were pleased to see the Boards of Supervisors of Smyth
County, Bland County, Montgomery County, and Craig County
endorse the permanent protection of these Federal lands in
their district.
Given the scale and distribution of Federal lands in the
district, outdoor recreation retail sales could play a
significant role in other local economies, just as it does in
Damascus.
Economics is about how to best utilize our natural, human,
and capital resources to ensure our long-range future. The
designations contained in the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act we
think provide the most secure assurance that a key component of
our economic vitality, our resources attraction, remains a
high-quality resource.
We ask that you advance this legislation.
I will be glad to answer any questions the committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davenport follows:]
Statement of Tom R Davenport, Business Manager for Mt Rogers
Outfitters, on H.R. 1011, The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to express my views as a
businessperson on H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act,
introduced by Representative Rick Boucher.
I am the business manager for Mt Rogers Outfitters, an outdoor
recreation retail establishment focused primarily on the backpacking
and hiking segment of the market.
I am a relative newcomer to the retail industry; the first 25 years
of my career were in manufacturing management.
I am pleased now to be a part of a growing sector of the U.S.
economy rather than a declining one. Nationwide the outdoor recreation
retail industry generates $289 billion annually in retail sales and
services. This makes outdoor recreation retailing big business,
exceeding the sales contributions of several economic sectors,
including pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing; automobile and
light truck manufacturing; power generation and supply; securities,
commodity contracts, and investing; legal services; and the motion
picture and video industry.
Outdoor recreation retailing is also big business in the southeast.
Of nine geographic census divisions in the U. S., the South Atlantic
Region, which includes Virginia, generates more active outdoor
recreation sales than any other, followed by the Pacific Region. In our
region the industry generates $51.3 billion in retail sales annually
and supports nearly 800,000 jobs.
One significant feature about our industry is that you do not have
to be a big operator to participate. It does, however, require a fair
measure of entrepreneurial talent, and it requires a significant
natural resource attraction.
Our business is a small operation. We are located in Damascus, VA,
a small community (population 981) surrounded on three sides by
National Forest lands. Our business was the first outdoor retail
business in Damascus, founded in 1991 by Dave Patrick, who, the
previous year, was the first person from the area to complete a thru
hike of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT). The Appalachian
Trail, in fact, follows a course down the main street of Damascus and
on the sidewalk in front of our store.
Long distance hikers and backpacking enthusiasts recognize the area
around Damascus as an outstanding backpacking venue. The June, 2006
edition of Backpacker Magazine highlighted the section of the AT from
Grayson Highlands to Damascus as the best weekend hike on the entire
AT. The article refers to our store as ``the ATs top hiking store''.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal ran a feature about the ``Trail
Days'' festival in Damascus, an event that draws maybe 20,000 people to
our small town for a reunion and celebration of the hiking adventure.
The economy of the town of Damascus is highly dependent on the
National Forest and the natural resources and scenic quality of the
area. We do have one light industrial facility on the outskirts of town
and one general service grocery store. All other economic activity
revolves around outdoor recreation, mostly on National Forest. People
come to Damascus, not because there is something to do or see in the
town, but because of the recreational opportunities in the National
Forest.
So far, we have managed to build our economic base locally, meaning
that there are no regional or national chain-store franchises operating
in the town--with the exception of gasoline service stations and one
minor food establishment.
The vast majority of the customers and clients that we serve at Mt
Rogers Outfitters come from outside the area, even outside the state of
Virginia. North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Florida stand
out as major sources of our customer base. We are, therefore, bringing
``new'' money into the area. We provide a variety of products and
services for the customer. We emphasize gear that is functional (as
opposed to gadgetry or fashion); we emphasize fit and performance
(providing impromptu demonstrations and comparisons of products along
with fit workshops); we provide detailed consultation in planning the
ventures; we provide a bunkhouse for overnight stays in town; and we
provide transportation to and from various trailheads. More
importantly, we provide a gateway to a valued resource--one our
customers cannot access in their home area.
Many of our customers are, or become, long distance hikers or they
seek off trail adventures to strengthen their outdoor skills and
enhance their outdoor experience. Most of our customers value the
solitude, remoteness, and natural qualities associated with the
National Forests in our region. The comments we hear from these folks
show that they connect with the mountains and forest in a very powerful
and dynamic way, and that their experience elicits very strong
emotions.
Because of the nature of our business, because of our proximity to
National Forest lands, and because of our interest, and our customer's
interest, in the quality of our outdoor recreational opportunities and
experience, we have been actively involved in participation in the
management of the National Forest. We help maintain trails, we
collaborate in public participation opportunities, and we participated
in the forest plan revision process.
During that planning process we advocated for Wilderness
recommendations for Seng Mountain, Raccoon Branch, Garden Mountain,
Hunting Camp/Little Wolf Creek, and for the proposed additions to Lewis
Fork and Little Wilson Creek. These are the areas most frequently
visited by our customers according to our shuttle records.
We readily acknowledge that the management activities of the Forest
Service in our service area have been generally sound and reasonable.
The managers of the Mt Rogers National Recreation Area have been
supportive and responsive to the needs of our business as well as the
other outdoor recreation businesses that have recently sprung up in
Damascus. We view the Forest Service as a partner and share credit with
them for the economic revitalization in our community.
We think we are being realistic, however, in recognizing that the
direction of National Forest management can swing on political
considerations independent of our ability to control or influence them.
We think it is in our economic self interest to secure the present
and future integrity of a few of the best places. Indeed we think it is
in the economic self-interest of much of the rural portion of the
region encompassed by the Ninth Congressional District. We were pleased
to see the Smyth County and Bland County boards of supervisors endorse
the permanent protection of these special areas in their counties.
Given the scale and distribution of Federal lands in the District,
outdoor recreation retail sales could play an increasingly significant
role in other local economies, just as it does in Damascus.
Economics is about how to best utilize our natural, human, and
capital resources to ensure our long range future. The designations
contained in the Ridge and Valley Act provide the most secure assurance
that a key component of our economic vitality--our resource
attraction--remains a high quality resource. We ask you to advance the
Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. We will turn to Mr.
Muffo, Montgomery County Board of Supervisors.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MUFFO, SUPERVISOR, MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA
Mr. Muffo. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Muffo, a member of the
Montgomery County Board of Supervisors. And I would like to
thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify
today in support of H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley
Act.
I have lived in this area for 22 years, and it is easy to
understand why the Montgomery County slogan is ``naturally good
for business.'' We are located along Virginia's technology
corridor and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Our county is home to
Virginia's largest and most technologically oriented
university, Virginia Tech.
The nationally renowned Virginia Tech Corporate Research
Center is home to a college of osteopathic medicine, and over
100 companies engaged in leading-edge technology research.
Amidst this growing development, Montgomery County is
blessed with beautiful mountains and valleys and streams.
Hiking, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, and other outdoor
activities are enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. The
Blue Ridge Parkway is easily accessible. The nearby Claytor
Lake State Park is one of the most popular parks in the entire
state.
The New River, which, by the way, is the second-oldest
river in North America, is a popular destination for canoeing,
fishing, and tubing. Hiking and mountain biking trails abound,
and are used widely. And most importantly, over 19,000 acres of
the Jefferson National Forest are located in Montgomery County.
During the Forest Service planning process in 2003, the
Montgomery County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution
supporting wilderness designation for portions of Brush
Mountain in Montgomery County. This resolution was adopted
after a series of public meetings by the Board, with
significant public input.
While the Forest Service did not include our
recommendations in the final plan, I am pleased that Senator
Warner and Congressman Boucher did listen to the citizens and
the Board of Supervisors, and did include the Brush Mountain
wilderness area in the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.
The Board considered a number of factors when we voted to
support a Brush Mountain Wilderness Area. First, and most
importantly, we believe that the designation of the Brush
Mountain Wilderness Area would enhance the quality of life for
our constituents.
The designation of portions of Brush Mountain as wilderness
area ensures that this section will be enjoyed by current and
future generations in its natural state. The protection of
viewsheds is a high priority for the Montgomery County Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Brush Mountain is a natural scenic backdrop for Blacksburg
and nearby communities, and should be preserved to the extent
possible.
The County Comprehensive Plan recognizes and promotes the
fundamental notion that the county's natural resources are
vital to the county's quality of life, and provides substantial
economic and recreational opportunities for the citizens of
Montgomery County.
Eco-tourism already benefits Montgomery County and has the
potential to grow. It is a key element of the county's economic
development plan. The Brush Mountain Wilderness Area, along
with other outdoor activities, would certainly enhance
Montgomery County as an attractive destination for outdoor
enthusiasts.
Looking at these factors, it is clear that the designation
of the Brush Mountain Wilderness Area is a good investment for
our community.
Mr. Chairman, we in Montgomery County appreciate our
national forest lands, and support responsible stewardship of
those lands. Certain timber harvesting is an integral part of
that forest plan, but so, too, should be other activities and
considerations, such as recreation and viewshed preservation.
As a member of the Board of Supervisors, I have learned
that as our county grows at a rate of 1,000 people a year,
approximately so, so do the demands for more recreational
opportunities. The Jefferson National Forest offers a wide
variety of outdoor activities that my constituents enjoy every
day.
Whether it is hiking, hunting, bird watching, fishing, or
just enjoying nature, this area is what makes Montgomery County
special. That is why the designation of the Brush Mountain
Wilderness Area is so important. Favorable Congressional action
would set aside a small portion of the forest for all to enjoy.
I urge that the committee pass the Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions that
you may have. And as an aside, I shared these comments with my
fellow supervisors before coming here, and there were no
negative comments in regards to them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muffo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John A. Muffo, Montgomery County Board of
Supervisors, on H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and members of the
Subcommittee, I am John Muffo, a member of the Montgomery County Board
of Supervisors, and I would like to thank you for providing me with the
opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 1011, the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act.
It is easy to understand why Montgomery County's slogan is
``Naturally good for business.'' We are located along Virginia's
Technology Corridor in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Our county is home to
Virginia's largest and most technologically oriented university,
Virginia Tech. The nationally renowned Virginia Tech Corporate Research
Center is home to a college of osteopathic medicine and over 100
companies engaged in leading-edge technology research.
Amidst this growing development, Montgomery County is blessed with
beautiful mountains and valleys and streams. Hiking, fishing, hunting,
mountain biking and other outdoor activities are enjoyed by residents
and visitors alike. The Blue Ridge Parkway is easily accessible. The
nearby Claytor Lake State Park is one of the most popular parks in the
entire state. The New River, which is the second oldest river in North
America, is a popular destination for canoeing, fishing, and tubing.
Hiking and mountain biking trails abound and are widely used. And most
importantly, over 19,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest are
located in Montgomery County.
During the Forest Service Planning process in 2003, the Montgomery
County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution supporting wilderness
designation for portions of Brush Mountain in Montgomery County. This
resolution was adopted after a series of public meetings by the Board
and with significant public input. While the Forest Service did not
include our recommendation in the final plan, I am pleased that Senator
Warner and Congressman Boucher did listen to the citizens and the Board
of Supervisors and did include the Brush Mountain Wilderness Area in
the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.
The Board considered a number of factors when we voted to support a
Brush Mountain Wilderness Area. First and most importantly, we believed
that the designation of the Brush Mountain Wilderness Area would
enhance the quality of life for our constituents. The designation of
portions of Brush Mountain as wilderness area ensures that this section
will be enjoyed by current and future generations in its natural state.
The protection of viewsheds is a high priority for the Montgomery
County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Brush Mountain
is a natural scenic backdrop for Blacksburg and nearby communities and
should be preserved to the extent possible.
The County Comprehensive Plan recognizes and promotes the
fundamental notion that the County's natural resources are vital to the
County's quality of life and provide substantial economic and
recreational opportunities for the citizens of Montgomery County.
Eco-tourism already benefits Montgomery County and has the
potential to grow. It is a key element of the county's Economic
Development Plan. The Brush Mountain Wilderness Area, along with other
outdoor activities, would certainly enhance Montgomery County as an
attractive destination for outdoor enthusiasts.
Looking at those factors, it is clear that the designation of the
Brush Mountain Wilderness Area is a good investment for our community.
Mr. Chairman, we in Montgomery County appreciate our national
forest lands and support responsible stewardship of those lands.
Certainly timber harvesting is an integral part of the forest plan, but
so too should be other activities and considerations such as recreation
and viewshed preservation.
As a member of the Board of Supervisors, I have learned that as our
county grows at a rate of approximately 1,000 people per year, so do
the demands for more recreational opportunities. The Jefferson National
Forest offers a wide variety of outdoor activities that my constituents
enjoy every day. Whether it is hiking, hunting, birdwatching, fishing
or just enjoying nature, this area is what makes Montgomery County
special.
That is why the designation of the Brush Mountain Wilderness Area
is so important. Favorable Congressional action would set aside a small
portion of the forest for all to enjoy. I urge that the Committee pass
the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Supervisor. We turn to Gerald
Gray.
STATEMENT OF GERALD GRAY, CLINTWOOD, VIRGINIA
Mr. Gray. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today in support of H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act.
My name is Gerald Gray; I am an attorney in Clintwood,
Virginia, in Dickenson County, in Congressman Boucher's
district. Dickenson County is located in far southwestern
Virginia. The northern boundary of the county borders Kentucky,
and on that state line there is a small portion of the
Jefferson National Forest which separates the two states.
Although my home county isn't slated for any proposed
wilderness designation, nearby also in the district is the
Stone Mountain Wilderness Area, which I think is a very good
addition to the Jefferson National Forest, and it is in nearby
Lee County.
I have lived and practiced law in Dickenson County since
1973. During that time I served two terms as the Commonwealth's
Attorney. I currently serve on the Industrial Development
Authority, the Chamber of Commerce Board, as well as the Board
of Directors of the Ralph Stanley Museum and Traditional
Mountain Music Center.
I am also President of the Virginia Forest Watch, and I
serve on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Conservation
Network. But I am not here to testify before you this afternoon
on behalf of any of these organizations or boards; I am here as
a user of the national forest area. I am a fisherman and a
horseback rider. I believe that it is very important to protect
these special places of the Jefferson National Forest, and this
proposed Act is going to accomplish just that.
I am a fly fisherman. I have fished many of the rivers and
creeks in the Jefferson National Forest, including those in the
existing wilderness areas and the areas that are going to be
expanded under this law. I have caught a lot of native trout
throughout the national forests in Virginia and elsewhere. I
fully support the public stewardship of our public lands.
My wife and I are avid horseback riders. We have ridden
many of the trails within the Jefferson National Forest,
including those in existing wilderness areas. We have many
friends who share our passion for the woods and the trails in
the national forests.
I believe that horseback riding gives a unique perspective
of the natural beauty of our forests. That is why I fully
support H.R. 1011. This legislation would protect nearly 55,000
acres in the Jefferson as wilderness, wilderness study, or a
national scenic area. It is a balanced bill, resulting from an
open process which took a number of years, which involved
public consultation and input.
As a result of this inclusive process, the bill enjoys
broad support in the local communities that would be affected
by these designations.
I particularly want to commend Senator Warner and my
Congressman, Rick Boucher. I think that this Act is a good
example of a collaborative effort in developing legislation. As
the committee may be aware, the areas included in H.R. 1011 are
based on either the recommendations of the National Forest
Service, or were endorsed by the local County Board
Supervisors, such as Mr. Muffo's board in Montgomery County.
These criteria to develop and determine which areas ought to be
designated, developed by Congressman Boucher and Senator
Warner, have maximized, in my opinion they have maximized
public participation.
My wife and I, in fact, did participate in the forest
planning process for the Jefferson. We attended planning
meetings held throughout the area, participated in the various
working groups, and submitted our comments.
And while I appreciate the effort that went into the final
plan, I do believe that the final plan fell short of providing
a level of protection and wilderness that a majority of the
public had supported. I believe that it is essential that we
protect and preserve these rare treasures available in the
Jefferson, and it is essential that our children and their
children have the opportunity, the same one that we have had,
to experience the wonder and beauty of the national forest.
To reach the final result, as expressed in the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act, the Forest Service process was
supplemented by several boards' and supervisors' actions. Under
this process, citizens were able to present their views to
their local elected officials, who were able to consider areas
within the local context. At a local level, the citizen voices
were heard. The result, expressed in the Act, was a blending of
the Forest Service process and local input. I like the
comprehensive approach, and I ask that this Subcommittee
support that approach.
Some critics of the legislation claim wilderness
designation will put these areas off limits to hunting,
fishing, or horseback riding. Although I am not a hunter, I can
tell you from the aspect of fishing and horseback riding, that
is simply not true. I believe that the wilderness designation
is essential to maintain the pristine quality of these areas.
By so doing, the quality of the experience is maintained and
improved.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to approve H.R. 1011.
The bill's result, as I stated before, of extensive public
input is crucial to maintaining and improving a high quality of
life in southwestern Virginia.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]
Statement of Gerald L. Gray, Clintwood Virginia,
on H.R. 1011, The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today in support of
H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.
I am Gerald Gray. I am a resident of Dickenson County, in
Southwestern Virginia. Dickenson County borders Kentucky, and is home
to a portion of the Jefferson National Forest near the top of the
mountain ridge which separates the two states. Although my home county
is not slated for wilderness or other designation, the proposed Stone
Mountain Wilderness is located in nearby Lee County.
I have lived and practiced law in Dickenson County for over 30
years. During that time, I have served as the Commonwealth?s Attorney
(1984-1991). I am currently a member of the Boards of the Dickenson
County Industrial Development Authority, The Ralph Stanley Museum and
Traditional Mountain Music Center, and the Dickenson County Chamber of
Commerce.
I also am the President and Chair of the Board of Directors of
Virginia Forest Watch, ahttp://www.virginiaforestwatch.org) grass-roots
based coalition of individuals and environmental groups, and I am a
board member and serve on the Executive Committee of the Virginia
Conservation Network, http://www.vcnva.org)a statewide coalition of
conservation groups, which is also the Virginia affiliate of the
National Wildlife Federation.
I am here to testify today, not as a representative of any of those
organizations, but as an individual who personally enjoys our
forestlands and who recognizes the need to protect the special places
of the Jefferson National Forest.
Mr. Chairman, I enjoy the woods. I am a fly-fisherman and have
fished many of the rivers and creeks in the Jefferson National Forest,
including those in existing wilderness areas. I have caught many (and
released most) native trout throughout the National Forests in Virginia
and elsewhere. I fully support public ownership and stewardship of our
public lands.
My wife and I are avid horseback riders. We have ridden many of the
trails within the Jefferson National Forest, including those in
existing wilderness areas. We have many friends who share our passion
for the woods, and the trails in the National Forests. I believe that
horseback riding gives a unique perspective of the natural beauty of
our forests.
That is why I fully support H.R. 1011. This legislation would
protect nearly 55,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest as
wilderness, wilderness study or national scenic areas. It is a balanced
bill resulting from an open process of public consultation and input.
As a result of this inclusive process the bill enjoys broad support in
the local communities.
I particularly want to commend Senator Warner and my Congressman,
Rick Boucher, for introducing the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act and for
the process that they used in developing their bill.
As the Committee may be aware, most of the areas included in H.R.
1011 are based upon the recommendations of the National Forest Service
or else were endorsed by the local County Boards of Supervisors. These
criteria, developed by Congressman Boucher and Senator Warner,
maximized public participation.
My wife and I participated in the forest planning process for the
Jefferson. We attended planning meetings held throughout the area,
participated in the various working groups and submitted our comments.
I believe that the final Forest Plan fell short of providing the
level of protection and wilderness that a majority of the public had
supported. I believe that it is essential that we protect and preserve
those rare treasures available in the Jefferson. I believe that it is
essential that our children and their children have the opportunity to
experience the wonder and beauty of our National Forests.
To reach the final result as expressed in the Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act, the Forest Service process was supplemented by several
Boards of Supervisors? actions. Under this process, citizens were able
to present their views to their local elected officials who were able
to consider areas within the local context. At the local level, the
citizen?s voices were heard. The result as expressed in the Act was a
blending of the Forest Service process and local input. It is a
comprehensive approach, which I hope that the Sub-Committee will
support.
Some critics of this legislation claim wilderness designation will
put these areas off-limits to hunting, fishing or horseback riding. I
can assure the Committee that nothing is further from the truth. In
fact, I believe that wilderness designation is essential to maintain
the pristine quality of these areas. By so doing, the quality of the
experience is maintained and improved.
Southwestern Virginia is blessed with many creeks and rivers within
our forestlands. These waters are a crucial lifeline for native trout
and for local communities.
Unfortunately these rivers and streams face problems of
development, more contaminants and increased sedimentation from
logging--absent the protection offered by the Wilderness and other
designation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Committee to approve
H.R. 1011. This bill is the result of extensive public input and is
crucial to maintaining--and improving--a high quality of life in
Southwestern Virginia.
Thank you. I will be glad to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Now let me turn to our last witness on this
panel, Mr. Steve Henson. Sir?
STATEMENT OF STEVE HENSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN
APPALACHIAN MULTIPLE-USE COUNCIL, CLYDE, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Henson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for
the opportunity to come here today and be invited to talk about
H.R. 1011.
My name is Steve Henson. I am here today representing my
organization, the Southern Appalachian Multiple-Use Council. We
were established in 1975 by a group of businessmen who thought
the multi-use concept of land management for our national
forest was a pretty good idea toward landscape management. Our
mission is to promote the balanced protection of forest land
values across our region.
With membership in several Appalachian states, including
Virginia, we regularly participate in forest planning
throughout the region on seven national forests. We have
supported many activities initiated by Congress,
Administrations, and U.S. Forest Service. We have also opposed
plans that we felt weren't consistent with long-standing
directives by Congress, or showed bad judgment regarding
natural resource management.
H.R. 1011 is one of those proposed actions we adamantly
oppose, for it does not follow the direction of Congress, and
in our view is bad judgment for managing large areas of public
lands.
The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 came as quite a
shock to us publics who monitor Federal land issues in the
region. It virtually tosses out eight years of contentious
debate on the revision of the Jefferson National Forest Plan,
approved by the Forest Service in 2004.
During the Jefferson debate, wilderness potential,
according to the planning process and the Wilderness Act of
1964, was highly scrutinized by teams of stakeholders. The
result was 25,243 acres of suitable national forest lands
designated as wilderness study areas. This designation means
that the Forest Service has studied the areas, and recommends
them for wilderness through the legislative process.
We disagree with the Forest Service about the plan's
recommendations regarding wilderness study areas for a number
of reasons. We felt that some areas were completely surrounded
by private lands; some contained important infrastructure and
private inholdings. These designations would also eliminate
many recreational activities long established in the areas, and
restrict needed active management for wildlife, including
threatened and endangered species.
It was our view that these lands should have been removed
from wilderness consideration because they didn't meet the
basic criteria for wilderness designation, as defined by
Congress.
After reading the bill, we were astounded to find that not
only had recommended wilderness areas been expanded, but also a
new wilderness study area had been created; and the bill
included a new category of highly restricted national scenic
areas. The total acres involved amounted to over 54,000 acres,
all of which can be characterized as wilderness or de facto
wilderness. These additions contain many of the same elements
that should, under Congress's direction for wilderness and
special areas designations, disqualify them from consideration,
and remain in active management status.
Obviously the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 is an
attempt to circumvent the longstanding process of public input
and evaluation, established by Congress, for permanent
dedication of public lands to the most restrictive of Federal
designations.
Just how restrictive? Congressionally designated wilderness
areas allow motorized vehicles and equipment by administrative
agency only under catastrophic conditions. The only wildlife
management technique allowed is prescribed burning; and to our
knowledge, there has never been a prescribed burning in any
wilderness area in the region.
Any preventative measures for catastrophic health, forest
health issues, such a fire, insect, and disease, can be
employed only after many hoops and approval at the highest
levels of the bureaucracy.
In the specific case of H.R. 1011, 19,241 acres of proposed
additional wilderness or de facto wilderness are already
designated in the Jefferson plan as back country. Back country
provides near-wilderness-like experience for man and beast. The
difference is there is a lot of routine maintenance for forest
health and fire control.
In Montgomery County, some of these acres back up to an
extensive housing development only a step away from wilderness
wildfire. Back country protects the land, wilderness limits the
human endeavor.
What wasn't surprising about H.R. 1011, the environmental
groups that worked with Congressional offices to draft the bill
and promote it in the region. The Southern Environmental Law
Center and their offspring, Southern Appalachian Forest
Coalition, have lobbied long and hard for permanent land
protections across the region. We know this because we have had
to fight them every step of the way to actively manage public
lands for many years.
For instance, we know that their ultimate agenda is an
elaborate plan to set aside a minimum of 50 percent of the land
in the United States in wilderness or highly restricted
designations for the protections of biodiversity. This plan is
called the Wildlands Project, and is well documented on the
internet.
There you will find such strategies as closing major
highways, including the Blue Ridge Parkway; removing major
dams; and creating a reasonable economic system based on
organic farming. You will also find the names of environmental
organizations, including the Southern Environmental Law Center
and Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, developing and
supporting the Wildlands Project.
It is interesting to discover that their activities are
financed predominantly through large grants from foundations,
not grass-roots activism and membership contributions.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that wilderness is a legitimate
and worthy use of public lands. However, perpetuity is a long
time, and thoughtful consideration and open public debate prior
to Congressional action are essential, just as the Code of
Federal Regulations requires that the Jefferson National Forest
Plan revision provides.
It will be a travesty to approve the Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act of 2007, designed by environmentalists with a hidden
agenda, and without the careful scrutiny Congress has demanded
on public land activities across the country.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henson follows:]
Statement of Steve Henson, Executive Director, Southern Appalachian
Multiple-Use Council, on H.R. 1011, Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of
2007
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for inviting me to this hearing on H.R. 1011.
I am here today representing my organization, the Southern
Appalachian Multiple-Use Council. We were established in 1975 by a
group of businessmen who thought the multiple-use concept of land
management for our national forests was a pretty good way to approach
landscape stewardship. Our mission is to promote the balanced
protection of forestland values (water, fish & wildlife, timber,
recreation and wilderness) across our region.
With membership in several Appalachian states, including Virginia,
we regularly participate in forest planning throughout the region on
seven national forests. We have supported many activities initiated by
Congress, administrations, and the U.S. Forest Service. We have also
opposed plans that we felt weren't consistent with long-standing
directives by Congress or showed bad judgment regarding natural
resource management. H.R. 1011 is one of these proposed actions we
adamantly oppose for it does not follow the directives of Congress and,
in our view, is bad judgment for managing large areas of public lands.
The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 came as quite a shock to
us publics who monitor federal land issues in the region. It virtually
tosses out 8 years of contentious debate on the revision of the
Jefferson National Forest plan approved by the U.S. Forest Service in
2004.
During the Jefferson NF debate wilderness potential, according to
the planning process and the Wilderness Act of 1964, was highly
scrutinized by teams of stakeholders. The result was 25,243 acres of
suitable national forest land designated as ``Wilderness Study Areas.''
This designation means that the Forest Service has studied the areas
and recommends them for wilderness through the legislative process.
We disagreed with the Forest Service about the plan's
recommendations regarding ``Wilderness Study Areas'' for a number of
reasons. We felt that some areas were completely surrounded by private
lands, some contained important infrastructure (roads and power lines)
and private inholdings. These designations would also eliminate many
recreation activities long-established in the areas, and restrict
needed active management for wildlife, including threatened and
endangered species. It was our view that these lands should have been
removed from wilderness consideration because they didn't meet the
basic criteria for wilderness designation as defined by Congress.
After reading the bill we were astounded to find that not only had
recommended wilderness areas been expanded, but also a new wilderness
study area had been created; and, the bill included a new category of
highly restricted ``National Scenic Areas.'' The total acres involved
amounted to over 54,000 acres, all of which could be characterized as
``wilderness'' or defacto wilderness. These additions contain many of
the same elements that should, under Congress's direction for
wilderness and special areas designation, disqualify them from
consideration and remain in active management status.
Obviously, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 is an attempt
to circumvent the long-standing process of public input and evaluation,
established by Congress, for the permanent dedication of public lands
to the most restrictive of federal designations.
Just how restrictive?
Congressionally designated wilderness areas allow motorized
vehicles and equipment by the administrative agency only under
catastrophic conditions. The only wildlife management technique allowed
is prescribed burning, and to our knowledge there has never been a
prescribed burn in any wilderness area in the region. Any preventive
measures for catastrophic forest health issues, such as fire, insect
and disease can be employed only after many hoops and approval at the
highest levels of the federal bureaucracy.
In the specific case of H.R. 1011, 19,241 acres of the proposed
additional wilderness or defacto wilderness are already designated in
the Jefferson Forest Plan as Backcountry. Backcountry provides a near-
wilderness-like experience for man and beast. The difference is that it
allows for routine management for forest health and fire control. In
Montgomery County some of these acres back up to an extensive housing
development--only a step away from wilderness wildfire. Backcountry
protects the land. Wilderness limits the human endeavor.
What isn't surprising about H.R. 1011 are the environmental groups
that worked with Congressional offices to draft the bill and promote it
in the region. The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and their
offspring Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition (SAFC), have lobbied
long and hard for permanent land ``protections'' across the region. We
know a lot about them because we have had to fight them every step of
the way to actively manage public lands for many years.
For instance, we know that their ultimate agenda is an elaborate
plan to set aside a minimum of 50% of the land in the United States in
wilderness or highly restricted designations for the protection of
``biodiversity.'' The plan is called The Wildlands Project and is well
documented on the Internet.
An excellent web site describing the Project's plan for this region
is www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org. There you will find such
strategies as closing major highways (including the Blue Ridge
Parkway), removing major dams, and creating a regional economic system
based on organic farming. You will also find the names of environmental
organizations, including SELC and SAFC, developing and supporting The
Wildlands Project. It is interesting to discover that their activities
are financed predominately through large grants from foundations, not
grass roots activism and membership contributions.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that wilderness is a legitimate and worthy
use of public lands. However, perpetuity is a long time and thoughtful
consideration and open public debate prior to Congressional action are
essential--just as the Code of Federal Regulations requires and the
Jefferson National Forest plan revision provides. It would be a
travesty to approve the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 designed
by environmentalists with a hidden agenda, and without the careful
scrutiny Congress has demanded on public land activities across the
country.
Thanks again for the subcommittee's time and consideration.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. And I thank all the panelists
for your testimony.
Let me begin my opportunity for questions with the
supervisor. Mr. Supervisor, the Forest Service has told us that
they do not support the wilderness designation for Brush
Mountain and the Brush Mountain East based on fire concerns.
How do you view these concerns, as an elected official and
representative in the area?
Mr. Muffo. Well, I don't quite understand it, frankly.
Safety obviously is a primary concern for us, and fire safety
is one of those concerns.
As you mentioned earlier, the neighborhood association in
the area that borders that area actually supports this bill.
There is a road on the top of the mountain--and by the way, I
think it is helpful for people to understand there is a very,
very steep mountain, and that is what we are talking about. The
back side of the mountain.
It is the front side of the mountain that is developed. So
this fire, in order to actually, the fire to reach it, it would
have to go up the mountain, over and down the mountain to reach
the developed part. And there is a fire road that goes right on
top of the mountain.
So I am not really sure exactly how the fire is supposed to
reach these people. But that being said, and by the way, I have
lived there 22 years; I have never seen a fire up there. And I
go there, I see the mountain every day. I am not sure, our
gentleman down here, I am not sure how often he views the
mountain, but I see it every day.
Also, if it is a wilderness area, there is no reason why
fire can't be suppressed up there. That road, by the way, would
not be in the wilderness area, and there would be no--the fact
that it is a wilderness area I understand doesn't mean that
fires can't be fought there.
And so I just don't understand how it would affect it
negatively in any way.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask you a couple more questions, Mr.
Supervisor.
Mr. Muffo. OK.
Mr. Grijalva. You heard from your fellow panelist, Mr.
Henson, that the charge that the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act
of 2007, the legislation we are talking about, circumvents the
process of public input.
Are there designations in H.R. 1011 consistent with the
public process that you had in your area, that just, in
general, the public process community being involved? One of
the issues being raised today is that we circumvented that
process.
Mr. Muffo. We have public input. We had open meetings. By
law, we have to advertise our meetings. This issue was on our
agenda. We had public input at our meetings, and the public
that came to our meetings was supportive of this issue.
And by the way, when I go to the grocery store, I have to
face these people. And I am not some faceless bureaucrat. So I
have to live with these people. So I am not sure who--maybe the
Forest Service has a different way of communicating with these
folks I don't have, but the seven people on our board have to
face the people who live there.
So anyway, that is all I can say. We have to deal with
these people on a regular basis, and they are telling us they
want it.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me follow up, Mr. Supervisor. Last
question, and then I will turn to some of the other witnesses.
And having served in the wonderful capacity as a county
supervisor myself for 13 years, your going to the grocery store
analogy is absolutely true. Sometimes you dreaded going for
that piece of grocery.
Mr. Muffo. Exactly.
Mr. Grijalva. And sometimes you really enjoyed it. Beyond
Montgomery County, can you list the other counties in Virginia
that passed resolutions in support of this additional, that
were not included in that Jefferson Forest plan?
Mr. Muffo. I think some of the other folks here are more
knowledgeable about that than I. I know Craig is a border
county that did, and Smith and Bland.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Mr. Davenport, let me ask you some
questions. You were dying to give an answer, so I might as well
ask you.
Mr. Davenport. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. The Forest Service again raised some concerns
about the maintenance of the trail in the proposed Raccoon
Branch Wilderness Area. Did Mount Rogers Outfitters submit an
agreement for voluntary services with the Forest Service to
perform those maintenance activities that they were concerned
about?
Mr. Davenport. We have, Mr. Chairman. We were approached.
And by the way, we do trail maintenance on a regular basis for
other trails. And this one we added, and we have signed the
agreement to maintain one of the trails in the Raccoon Branch
area.
Now, there are other maintenance agreements that the Emery
and Henry Outing Club has signed, and the Horseback Riders
Association have signed, to maintain the horse trails that the
Forest Service was concerned about. The Mount Rogers
Appalachian Trail Club has endorsed the bill; they would be the
maintainers of a major segment of the Appalachian Trail in the
area.
Mr. Grijalva. And, Mr. Davenport, quickly--I am going past
my time. But the gentleman on the panel, Mr. Henson, also made
the charge that in the past, public lands rob rural
communities.
In your testimony you spoke of the dependency on the
National Forests and natural resources for the economy of the
community. Could you just add a little more to that part of the
testimony?
Mr. Davenport. There is, in our community, just outside of
town, one light industrial organization, a factory. There is a
general-purpose grocery store. Actually, that grocery store
only came to town recently, largely the result of the economic
revitalization in the town.
The rest of the businesses, all of the businesses in the
town depend upon tourism. For our business, 95 percent of our
customers or clients come from outside the area. Places like
Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Florida; those are some of the major
areas that they are coming from. So these are people bringing
in what I call new money to the area, and it is what drives our
business and what drives our town.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Henson, you
expressed some concerns with the forest planning
recommendations for wilderness study areas. Do you have other
specifics that you could highlight that would be examples of
some of the problems if this was the designation?
Mr. Henson. Well, I know the Department mentioned several
problems that they had with some of the areas, as far as them
meeting the criteria.
In our assessment, for instance, the Stone Mountain area is
completely surrounded by private lands. There is two roads,
trails, running through it that are multiple-use trails and
roads that would have to be closed down or changed
dramatically.
Also, the Mountain Lake additions, that includes a large,
private inholding in that area. There is also a need in that
area for prescribed fire on a regular basis just to maintain an
ecosystem there. I think it is the Table Mountain Pine
ecosystem that they want to try to continue there.
In the Shawvers Run additions, there is a need in there to
do thinning treatments having to do with Indiana Bat. I think
there is an Indiana Bat area there that they have recognized to
not be a very good area for helping out the endangered Indiana
Bat. And in order to do that, they need to do management
prescriptions, such as thinning, in those areas, just for
example.
Mr. Bishop. And from what I am taking, is what you are
saying is there is a great many of these areas that the Forest
Service land can be managed to protect the integrity of the
forest itself. But as a wilderness designation, all those
protections, all those abilities to manage would be gone, one
of which obviously is, we have talked about already, is fire
suppression. And in a wilderness area, the Forest Service
cannot reduce the fuel loads, nor can they maintain any kind of
machinery for any kind of fire bricks whatsoever.
All of these, I think what you are saying is, then, would
threaten the actual integrity of the forest if it was changed
in its designation.
Mr. Henson. In our view, that is correct. We have a very
well-developed science as having to do with natural resource
management, and you know, we know that we can improve a lot of
those resources out there. You know, we can manage for the
wildlife, we can manage for endangered and threatened species.
But in order to do those things, you have to have access,
and you have to be able to do those things and not have those
high restrictions that you get with designated wilderness. And
in this case, highly restricted national scenic areas.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Muffo, since this proposed boundary is
abutting certain private subdivisions in the Blacksburg area,
would you be in favor or willing to change those designations
of those areas that abut it for the public safety factor that
would be involved?
Mr. Muffo. Actually, it is my understanding that it doesn't
actually abut; that there is an area that is actually
maintained that is for service area, that it doesn't actually
abut. Is that correct? Yes, that is my understanding.
That there actually is a maintained area, and that the--
again, it goes up the mountain. There is a road, there is a
maintained area, and then there is the developed area.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Once you get wilderness, there won't be, so
that is nice.
How many men actually serve on the Board of Supervisors?
Mr. Muffo. There are five men and two women.
Mr. Bishop. OK, I used men generically. So it is a board of
seven.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. OK. What was the vote in support of this
recommendation?
Mr. Muffo. The original vote was four to three. And there
has been a change of two members since then.
Mr. Bishop. And the Forest Service still took your
recommendation, and did not recommend it as part of their
analysis, is that right?
Mr. Muffo. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Is there any private property in this
proposed expansion area?
Mr. Muffo. No.
Mr. Bishop. Community, civic property?
Mr. Muffo. No.
Mr. Bishop. So everything is Forest Service land?
Mr. Muffo. I believe that is correct, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Davenport, what percent of your business
deals with mountain biking?
Mr. Davenport. We have no mountain bike business.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Then you will be OK with this, because
mountain bikes can't go to a wilderness area.
Mr. Davenport. We have worked, Mr. Bishop, we have worked
with mountain bikers on these proposals. And we have changed
some of our desires to have wilderness and other areas to
accommodate mountain bikers.
Mr. Bishop. Well, that is nice, but you still can't have
mountain biking in a wilderness area.
And I guess the last concern, Mr. Muffo--Mr. Davenport, the
mic is by you if you want to do it anyway--if all this is
Forest Service land anyway and you have access to it, how are
you actually going to increase the access for a citizen by
changing it to a designation of wilderness? Will more people be
able to get on the land and enjoy this experience if it is
wilderness, as opposed to Forest Service?
Mr. Muffo. We think we can attract more people.
Mr. Bishop. Will more people be able to get on the land if
it is wilderness, as opposed to Forest Service?
Mr. Muffo. I don't think there will be any fewer. We think
we can attract more people because it will be, it will be
identified as wilderness.
Mr. Bishop. There is a part of me, Mr. Chairman--I am
sorry, I am over here, and I will be done right now. That is
OK.
There is a part of me that would like all of you to have as
much wilderness as you want to. I would like everyone in the
East to have the same wonderful experience with wilderness
designation that those of us in the West have, even though, Mr.
Gray, not all horses are welcomed in wilderness areas. It
depends on the area at the time.
But at the same time, if the idea is simply to allow people
to enjoy it, you are getting the same kind of enjoyment, the
same kind of factor with the Forest Service as you would with
wilderness. If indeed it is simply a marketing idea, you could
probably get more creative marketing people within your county.
I appreciate you being here. I appreciate what you are
doing here. I appreciate you presenting some issues as to the
legal definition of wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness Act that
have some restrictions that we should look at. I appreciate
your emphasis and interest in this particular bill. I
appreciate you taking the time to come all the way up here and
testifying in front of us. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And let me thank the
panel for your thoughtful testimony. And as I said earlier,
your entire testimony will be made part of the record.
And let me call the next panel up.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Welcome. Thank you very much. And let me
begin with Mr. Dobbins.
STATEMENT OF BILL DOBBINS, CEO AND MANAGER, DOUGLAS COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, EAST WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON
Mr. Dobbins. Thank you. I have been coveting this water all
day.
Mr. Grijalva. Enjoy.
Mr. Dobbins. Well, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on H.R. 523 today.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Dobbins. I am the General
Manager of Douglas County PUD. My bosses are three elected
commissioners who make their decisions in weekly open public
meetings.
This bill is important to us because of our desire to
manage and protect Wells Project lands consistently. We own and
operate the Wells Hydroelectric Project on the Columbia River
in the center of Washington State.
Wells has the best juvenile fish passage on the Columbia.
Operation of Wells is subject to an aquatic habitat
conservation plan with a no-net impact standard. It was
developed according to the Endangered Species Act.
Power from Wells flows to six utilities and the Colville
Confederated Tribes.
The Wells Reservoir has 93 miles of shoreline. Douglas PUD
owns 89 of those 93 miles in fee title. The Douglas PUD land
use policy has these goals: Sustain the existing natural
ecosystem, develop recreation facilities that will not
interfere with the natural ecosystem, protect historic,
cultural and archaeological sites, and allow public access. No
substantive issues about how this land will be managed have
been raised.
Since the original license was issued in 1962, except for
the BLM land, Douglas maintained fee title ownership of a
buffer around the reservoir. Encroachments began to appear on
district land in the early nineties, as civilization expanded.
Inspections of shorelands were increased at that time to
bi-weekly, and a resurvey of the project boundary was begun, so
that we could prevent further encroachment. As a result of the
resurvey, Douglas has purchased additional land where erosion
has occurred or where original survey errors were discovered.
Since it owns the vast majority of the shorelands, Douglas
desires to manage and protect all of the lands consistently.
This is the reason we began working with BLM in 1998 to acquire
BLM parcels scattered around the reservoir.
Most of the tracts are partially underwater, and include
very steep hillsides. One triangular piece is completely
underwater. Several have no road access. It took from 1998 to
2005 to complete a land exchange for two of the originally
identified parcels. At this rate it would take an unreasonable
amount of time and Agency staff effort to complete the transfer
for the remaining 11 parcels. BLM recommended Congressional
authorization as a more reasonable approach.
Douglas PUD will pay fair market value, plus BLM's
transaction costs. The land will remain in government
ownership, and will be open to the public for its enjoyment.
The BLM raised a concern about bald eagle habitat on one of
the tracts. To comply with ESA, Douglas is required to protect
eagle habitat on land it owns, just as it has on two adjacent
parcels, one since 1964 and the other since 1991.
We consider action by the U.S. Congress to be an open
process. This is the second hearing on this bill. Also, for the
transfer of the two parcels I just mentioned that was completed
in 2005, there were no comments received through the NEPA
process.
The BLM has been involved in a Wells relicensing process
that is currently underway for two and a half years, starting
August 2005; most recently, on Tuesday of this week. I
understand this is different than the BLM representative stated
earlier.
The BLM has not raised any issues in the public relicensing
process. Deadlines have passed. We certainly would not expect
it, but if BLM recommended mandatory conditions on the license
without first raising the issues in the public process, the
result would not be open and transparent. The public has no
opportunity to comment on mandatory conditions.
Now, a FERC license is not a static document. It is
adaptive. The current Wells license has been amended several
times over its 45-year life, for land, fish, and operational
reasons. The Douglas PUD will protect these lands, pursuant to
the Wells Project FERC license, the Federal Power Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Wells Project Habitat Conservation
Plan, the Land Use Policy, and all other applicable laws.
We believe this transaction is in the best interests of the
public, and urge your support of H.R. 523. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dobbins follows:]
Statement of William C. Dobbins, General Manager,
Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington
Introduction:
Douglas County PUD appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
on H.R. 523. My name is Bill Dobbins. I have worked for Douglas County
PUD since 1987 and have served as General Manager since 1996. In my
time at Douglas County PUD I have been involved in numerous resource
activities including development of the Wells Project Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) and the Colville Tribes Land Settlement.
Douglas County PUD is a small electric utility serving
approximately 17,500 electric customers in rural Douglas County located
near the center of Washington State. Douglas County PUD is governed by
a three-member board of locally elected Commissioners who serve in
their non-partisan positions for six-year terms.
The Wells Hydroelectric Project is owned and operated by Douglas
County PUD. The Wells Project has an installed nameplate capacity of
774.3 megawatts with a maximum generating capability of 840 megawatts.
This hydroelectric generating project on the Columbia River is a
hydrocombine structure that lends itself to the most efficient juvenile
fish passage on the mainstem Columbia River. The Wells Project license
expires in 2012. Douglas County PUD formally began the relicensing
process under the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) by filing its
Preliminary Application Document (PAD) with the FERC on December 1,
2006. Prior to filing the PAD, Douglas County PUD engaged in a rigorous
two-year outreach process with the local towns and counties, the state
and federal resource agencies and the local Indian tribes.
H.R. 523 will authorize the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
sell, at fair market value plus transaction costs, specified lands
associated with the Wells Hydroelectric Project and amounting to an
approximate total of 622 acres, consisting of 10 small tracts that
should be part of the Wells Project and one larger adjacent parcel that
was added by the BLM (Exhibit 1, BLM map). Most of the property is
partially under water and includes extremely steep hillside (Exhibit 2,
Typical Tract). One parcel is completely submerged (Exhibit 3,
Submerged Tract). This sale will result in nearly all of the shore
lands associated with the Wells Hydroelectric Project being owned and
protected by Douglas County PUD with the proceeds from the sale being
used by the BLM to directly meet its goals related to consolidation of
its holdings. We thank the committee for its support of this bill last
year and urge your support of H.R. 523.
This testimony has three purposes:
1. To describe Douglas County PUD's intentions with regard to
management of these lands and to tell you why it is in the public
interest.
2. To address concerns.
3. To urge your support for H.R. 523.
Reservoir Land Management:
From the beginning of the Wells Project in the early 1960's,
Douglas County PUD made the decision to own as much of the land
surrounding the Wells Reservoir as was needed to provide a buffer
between the reservoir and other landowners. This decision was made
because it was the best way for Douglas County PUD to protect against
erosion onto private lands, to allow public access to the reservoir
shore lands and to protect wildlife habitat on those lands. Many
In the early 1990's encroachments on Douglas County PUD land were
discovered. This discovery initiated an involved process of resurveying
the entire Wells Project reservoir. The goal of the resurvey project
was to correct any property ownership discrepancies, purchase
additional property in areas where erosion had occurred, eliminate any
encroachments and prevent future encroachments. Douglas County PUD also
began bi-weekly patrols of the reservoir to detect any sign of
encroachment or habitat degradation.
In 1993, Douglas County PUD adopted a Land Use Policy for all
Douglas County PUD owned lands and land rights. This policy provides
guidance for land use management decisions, with the following goals:
sustaining the existing natural ecosystems,
developing only those recreation facilities that will not
interfere with the preservation of natural ecosystems,
protecting historic, cultural and archeologically
significant sites, and
allowing public access, where practicable, to waters and
lands of the Wells Project.
The Wells Project FERC license allows Douglas County PUD to issue
permits for use of project land consistent with the Federal Power Act
and the Douglas County PUD's Land Use Policy. Permits are only
considered after the applicant has received approval for all other
required permits (e.g. Hydraulic Permit, Shoreline Development Permit,
Corps of Engineers 404 Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, Section
10, etc).
The Wells Project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), approved by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission June 21, 2004, requires that when
making land use or related permit decisions on Douglas County PUD owned
lands that affect reservoir habitat, Douglas County PUD shall consider
the cumulative impact effects in order to meet the conservation
objectives of the HCP, the requirements of the FERC license and other
applicable laws and regulations. Douglas County PUD is required to
notify and consider comments from the signatories to the HCP regarding
any land use permit application. The signatories include the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation and the Yakama Indian Nation.
In the course of the resurvey project, Douglas County PUD
discovered some parcels of land, including the BLM land, which it
needed to purchase to restore the appropriate buffer between the
reservoir and private property. In the case of the privately held
parcels, Douglas County PUD purchased only enough land to re-establish
the buffer. Larger parcels were divided to accomplish this purpose,
that is, to acquire the strip of land along the reservoir that, from an
engineering standpoint, was needed as a buffer. The BLM indicated no
willingness to divide the parcels that it owned. The BLM indicated that
the only way it could transfer the land was if Douglas PUD would get
involved in a three-way land exchange. One such land exchange was
completed. It was difficult and time consuming. Douglas County PUD
started working with BLM on this issue in 1998 and acquired two parcels
through this exchange in 2005. It became apparent that it would take
many years to accomplish the goal of managing all of the land around
the reservoir in a consistent fashion. BLM staff suggested that the
most efficient way to transfer the land was if the Congress directly
authorized BLM to sell it to Douglas County PUD. This was the reason
that our Congressman, Doc Hastings, introduced H.R. 4789, which was
passed by the House of Representatives last year. Time ran out for the
bill to be considered by the Senate. H.R. 523 is the same as the bill
approved last year.
After Douglas County PUD purchases this land from the BLM, two
segments that are currently state highway will be divided out and
dedicated to the State of Washington for that purpose. The balance will
be managed in conformance with Douglas County PUD's Land Use Policy and
the Wells Project FERC license, which will result in that land being
maintained in its natural state and monitored on a regular basis. The
land will be open to the public.
This is a simple transfer of public land from one government agency
to another. The resource goals of the two agencies are uniquely
similar. The new owner, Douglas County PUD, simply has a more focused
interest in these lands that are scattered and small in terms of the
BLM's holdings. They would be contiguous with the other Wells Project
lands and would be more actively managed as a result.
Eagle Habitat and Public Access Concern:
In its testimony given on March 9, 2006 before the House Resources
Committee on H.R. 4789, the BLM provided the following statement:
We encourage the sponsor and the Committee to provide
safeguards to protect the known resource values on these lands,
which include Bald Eagle roosts and approximately two miles of
Columbia River shoreline currently open to the public.
This language implies that there are known Bald Eagle roosts
located on all of the parcels to be conveyed under the bill. In fact,
only one of the parcels identified on the BLM exhibit map may have a
potential for an Eagle roost (Exhibit 4). It should be noted that if
Bald Eagle roosts were discovered or established on any lands purchased
by Douglas County PUD under H.R. 523, they would also be managed for
the sole purpose of protecting and securing any such roosts. Douglas
County PUD policies, the Federal Power Act and the Endangered Species
Act require that Eagle roosts be protected. As shown on Exhibit 4,
Douglas County PUD owns a parcel of land (acquired in 1964) immediately
adjacent to the property to be acquired from BLM and another slightly
upstream. The upstream Douglas County PUD parcel is the site of a Bald
Eagle roosting area, which is already protected by Douglas County PUD.
That parcel was part of a larger parcel acquired in 1991 primarily for
development of an electric substation site. The area utilized by eagles
was subdivided from the substation property for the sole purpose of
protecting and securing the roost, and is successfully managed for that
purpose. This is representative of Douglas County PUD's typical
approach to wildlife resource issues.
The BLM testimony language set forth above mentions the need to
maintain public access to two miles of Columbia River shoreline.
Nothing in the legislation would change or alter Douglas County PUD's
public access policies, areas or opportunities. As a public agency and
as a FERC license requirement, Douglas County PUD makes every effort to
maximize public access to the Wells Project shoreline and reservoir,
particularly for water-related recreation activities.
Recently Discovered Concerns:
Only last week, in preparing for this hearing, Douglas County PUD
became aware of concerns that had been raised regarding H.R. 523. While
it was difficult to discover the source of the concerns since
correspondence was not copied to Douglas County PUD, we believe it is
appropriate to respond to a letter dated March 16, 2007 and sent to the
Committee by Ms. Kate Miller of Trout Unlimited. We appreciate that Ms.
Miller was willing to provide a copy of her letter to us on May 4,
2007.
The letter states that the bill ``appears to be a highly
transparent effort to sell off BLM land to avoid use of the agency's
authority to require environmental protections for these lands.''
Douglas County PUD is not pursuing this land acquisition to avoid
the authority of the BLM to impose conditions on the new Wells Project
license under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. As stated in the
Wells Project PAD filed on December 1, 2006, ``The shoreline of the
Wells Reservoir is approximately 93 miles long. Douglas County PUD owns
approximately 89 miles of shoreline in fee title''. In addition to the
Wells Reservoir, Douglas County PUD owns over 2,140 acres of land
within the Wells Project Boundary. Lands within the Wells Project
Boundary include shrub steppe, irrigated agriculture, wildlife habitat,
such as the Wells Wildlife Area (WWA) and recreation lands, including
parks in Pateros, Brewster and Bridgeport.'' The BLM parcels account
for approximately 3.5 miles of shoreline, or about 3.7 percent of the
total Wells Project shoreline.
If the BLM had significant concerns about the impact of the Wells
project on the subject parcels or other lands in the vicinity of the
Wells Project, the proper place to raise those concerns would be in the
current process for relicensing the Project. In August 2005, Douglas
County PUD initiated a series of activities and public meetings in
preparation for the relicensing of the Wells Hydroelectric Project.
Douglas County PUD identified the BLM as a key stakeholder in the
relicensing process and has encouraged BLM's participation in the
relicensing process from the outset. The BLM received the Information
Request Letter sent on August 8, 2005. The BLM was present at Douglas
County PUD's Integrated Licensing Process Workshop on October 18, 2005
and volunteered to participate in the Cultural, Terrestrial and
Recreation resource work groups. The Consultation Record indicates that
the BLM's Rich Bailey, Jim Fisher and Sally Sovey have been on the
resource work group distribution lists.
The resource work group process included 34 separate meetings over
the course of two years to address Cultural, Terrestrial, Recreation
and Aquatic issues associated with the Wells Project. Over 150 issues
or concerns were addressed throughout the course of these meetings. The
BLM received meeting announcements, agendas, meeting notes and work
group documents by email. The BLM's Rich Bailey and Ann Boyd
participated by phone in one of the resource work group meetings. The
resource work groups mutually developed 12 agreed upon study plans,
which were included in Douglas County PUD's PAD.
In addition to the resource work group meetings, Douglas County PUD
conducted 31 separate voluntary stakeholder outreach meetings,
including meetings with the BLM on September 29, 2005, October 25, 2006
and November 29, 2006. Also included in the FERC relicensing process is
the opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments on the Pre-
Application Document and FERC's Scoping Document and for stakeholders
to submit additional study requests. The first comment period has
concluded, and BLM has not requested any additional studies or
modifications to the agreed upon study plans or raised any issues
related to the PAD or FERC's Scoping Document. Based upon this process,
Douglas County PUD believes that it has a positive working relationship
with the BLM and that its concerns are being adequately addressed.
The Trout Unlimited letter also states that this legislation will
create a loss of ``public resource without public input.'' In fact,
there will be no loss of public resource; rather, there should be a
resulting increase. The parcels in question would only change to
another public holder, the Douglas County PUD, and the funds received
by the BLM can be put to use to expand its holdings in areas that would
be consistent with its long-term goals. Regarding public input, the
Douglas County PUD Commission meets locally in open session every
Monday, the FERC relicensing process offers substantial and open public
input opportunities, and, during the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process conducted during the initial BLM/PUD land exchange in
2005, there were no comments submitted.
Finally, the Trout Unlimited letter states that the change in
ownership threatens to impact listed salmonids present in the project
area and raises concerns under NEPA and compliance with the ESA. This
concern is not valid. This land constitutes less than four percent of
the reservoir shoreline. The best way to benefit the fisheries resource
is to include the BLM property with the balance of the shoreline that
is already owned and managed to meet project objectives by Douglas
County PUD. The fisheries resources in the Wells Project area enjoy the
``no-net-impact'' standard incorporated in the Wells Project HCP. The
HCP has been made a part of the Wells License. The Wells HCP sets the
standard for protection of the salmon and steelhead passing the Wells
Project.
The relicensing process for the Project is rigorous and includes
NEPA compliance. Trout Unlimited and the Hydro Reform Coalition did
receive a copy of the Wells Project PAD and are aware of the timelines
associated with the FERC Integrated Licensing Process. Trout Unlimited
and the Hydro Reform Coalition did not file any comments on the Wells
Project PAD or the FERC scoping document on the Wells PAD in the
allotted time. Likewise, these two entities did not file any study
requests in the prescribed time.
Summary:
Douglas County PUD desires to own and uniformly manage the lands
surrounding the Wells Project Reservoir. The BLM is willing to sell the
necessary lands to complete Douglas County PUD ownership. Douglas
County PUD is willing to pay fair market value plus transaction costs
to acquire the lands. The BLM can use the proceeds of the sale to
expand its holdings or otherwise pursue its land management goals. The
lands will be adequately protected by Douglas County PUD pursuant to
the Wells Project FERC license and associated licensing process, the
Federal Power Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Wells Project HCP
and the Douglas County PUD Land Use Policy and all other applicable
laws. We believe this transaction is in the best interests of the
public and urge your support of H.R. 523.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5305.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5305.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5305.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5305.004
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Seebach.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SEEBACH, HYDROPOWER REFORM COALITION NATIONAL
COORDINATOR, AMERICAN RIVERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Seebach. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify at
this hearing today.
My name is John Seebach, and I am the National Coordinator
of the Hydropower Reform Coalition, which is a group of more
than 140 conservation and recreation organizations that are
dedicated to protecting and restoring rivers impacted by
hydropower dams.
I am speaking today on behalf of American Rivers, which is
the coalition's chair. American Rivers' hydropower staff has
spent countless hours over the past 30 years collaborating with
utilities, Federal and state agencies, American-Indian tribes,
and many others to advocate for the protection of rivers,
public trust resources, and the public's right to participate
in decisions on how these resources will be managed.
American Rivers opposes H.R. 523. By directing Interior to
sell more than 600 acres of public land, this bill would
circumvent three bedrock laws that are in place to protect the
public trust: the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the
Federal Power Act, and, indirectly by extension, the National
Environmental Policy Act.
It would also affect the ongoing relicensing of the Wells
Hydroelectric Project by removing existing Federal authorities
that are intended to protect public lands on which the project
is located.
There are two important principles at stake here. First, we
believe that Federal land transfers should be conducted through
an open public process. The decision to sell this land is a
serious one. The district does not have the same conservation
mandate as the BLM, and this bill would do nothing to ensure
that the land will remain in public hands or be managed for
conservation in the future.
None of the land covered by this bill has been identified
as suitable for disposal in the Spokane Resource Management
Plan. In other words, without this bill, the BLM would need to
amend the Resource Management Plan in order to sell this land,
a procedure that would necessitate public notice and comment,
and would likely trigger full NEPA review, as well.
To our knowledge, there has been no such review, and this
bill would deny the public an opportunity to participate in
that decision.
Laws like the Federal Land Policy Management Act and NEPA
bring careful analysis, and an open, deliberative process, to
important decisions like these, so that we can know that we are
making the right decisions. We should give those processes a
chance to work, not bypass them.
Second, we feel that Congress should avoid legislating the
outcome of individual hydropower licensing proceedings. This
bill would effectively preempt the BLM's authority to protect
public lands affected by the Wells Hydropower Project by giving
those lands to the operator--excuse me, by selling those lands
to the operator of the project.
The 50-year license for the Wells Project, which was issued
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is set to expire
in 2012. And the District has begun the process of seeking a
new license.
A hydropower relicensing almost always results in public
benefits that go beyond power production, like protected fish
and wildlife habitat, improved water quality, and enhanced
opportunities for public recreation. This is especially true
for projects like this one, which were originally licensed
before Congress passed our modern environmental laws. Although
I certainly don't mean to discount their stewardship of the
land.
The Federal Power Act gives Interior the ability to place
conditions on hydropower licenses that it deems necessary to
protect its Federal reservations, and the public's use of those
reservations, from any adverse impacts caused by a
hydroelectric project, so long as the reservation falls within
the project boundary. These conditions typically protect things
like water quality, recreation and public access, fire
prevention, vegetation, and wildlife. This bill would remove
these protections by directing Interior to give up its
authority over those lands.
All of the lands referred to in this bill are affected by
the project. One tract was inundated by the reservoir, one
tract has transmission lines running through it, and the
remaining tracts are on the banks or near the banks of the
river and the reservoir.
It is still too early in the relicensing process to know if
the BLM would find it necessary to require such conditions. The
study phase of the relicensing has barely begun, and that is
the point. It would be much better if the issue of how this
land is managed, and by whom, was addressed by stakeholders
during the hydropower relicensing, which is a very open public
process.
Making this decision before the process has gotten started
would, in our view, be premature, and could prejudice the
outcome.
Finally, directing the BLM to sell public lands during an
ongoing hydropower licensing would set a dangerous precedent
that sends a clear message to other hydropower operators. If
you want to avoid the cost of license requirements designed to
protect the environment from your project, then you need only
go to Congress and ask you to tell the Agency to sell you the
land.
Now, even if that is not the intention here--and I believe
Mr. Dobbins when he tells me that it is not; we have spoken
about this, and had a good conversation--the result would still
be the same, which is a loss of Federal authority to protect
public values during the first opportunity in 50 years that it
has had to exercise that authority.
In conclusion, American Rivers opposes H.R. 523 in its
current form. It would result in a net loss of public land, in
a net loss of Federal authority to protect public values at an
existing hydropower project. It would set a damaging precedent
that could undermine future hydropower licensing proceedings.
Decisions about the sale of public lands should be made
through the open, deliberative, and public processes already
provided by the Federal Land Policy Management Act. We
recognize that dealing with complex administrative proceedings
can be frustrating; but it is also important to remember that
these processes have been put in place to protect the public.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seebach follows:]
Statement of John C. Seebach, National Coordinator,
Hydropower Reform Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:
My name is John Seebach, and I am the national coordinator of the
Hydropower Reform Coalition, a consortium of more than 140 conservation
and recreation organizations dedicated to protecting and restoring
rivers impacted by hydropower dams. I am appearing today on behalf of
American Rivers, which is the Coalition's chair. The views presented in
this testimony are those of American Rivers, and not necessarily those
of the entire Coalition. I would like to thank the Committee for
holding this hearing, and for extending me this opportunity to testify
on H.R. 523, the Douglas County, Washington, PUD Conveyance Act.
American Rivers is the national organization that stands up for
healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. We believe rivers are
vital to our health, safety and quality of life. We pioneer and deliver
locally-oriented solutions to protect natural habitats and build
sustainable communities. We lead national campaigns to raise awareness
of river issues and mobilize an extensive network that includes more
than 65,000 members and activists to help safeguard our rivers for
today and tomorrow.
American Rivers opposes H.R. 523
H.R. 523 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell more than
600 acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
to the Douglas County Public Utility District (PUD), overriding three
laws that protect public land and the broader public interest,
including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Federal Power Act
(FPA). This bill would also affect the ongoing relicensing of the Wells
hydroelectric project by removing existing federal authorities that are
intended to protect these lands from the project's impacts. American
Rivers is opposed to this bill on two basic principles:
Federal land transfers should be conducted through an
open public process: This bill would result in a forced sale of public
land that bypasses the existing legal framework for a land transfer
process, thwarting public participation, environmental review, and
competitive bidding requirements. The procedures outlined in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act offer the appropriate forum for
disposing of federal land.
Congress should generally avoid legislating the outcome
of individual hydropower licensing proceedings: By removing the land in
question from federal ownership, the bill would materially affect
existing federal authorities--and potentially the outcome--of the
ongoing relicensing of the Wells hydroelectric project. Congress should
not preempt the BLM's authority to protect lands affected by a
hydropower project by forcing the sale of those lands to the operator
of that project.
Federal land transfers should be conducted through an open public
process
By circumventing the land transfer procedures outlined in FLPMA
and, by extension, environmental review under NEPA, H.R. 523 would
dispose of public land located on the shores of a stretch of the scenic
Columbia River without any meaningful review to determine if the
proposed land transfer would best serve the public interest.
It is extremely rare for the BLM to sell riverside land. Absent
this bill, the BLM would not be able to sell the land identified in
this bill, as none of the land has been identified as suitable for
disposal in the Spokane Resource Management Plan (RMP). Under existing
law, the BLM would need to amend its RMP in order to sell this land, a
procedure that would require, at the minimum, a public notice and
comment period. Any proposed sale of this land would likely trigger
NEPA review as well. H.R. 523 would effectively remove both of these
deliberative processes from the proposed land transfer. There would be
no opportunity for the public to participate in the decision, submit
comments, or ask questions about how the land is currently being
managed and how it might best be managed in the future.
Under the terms of H.R. 523, the land would simply be sold to the
PUD without any stipulations regarding its future management or
additional public discussion of the potential immediate or future
consequences of the sale. While the bill would transfer the land to
non-federal public ownership, the Douglas County PUD and the BLM have
very different missions. There are strict rules that govern how the BLM
should manage the public lands in its care. The PUD, on the other hand,
must balance land stewardship against the financial interests of its
own ratepayers. There would be nothing to prevent the land from being
sold to private interests after the transfer required in the bill is
complete.
American Rivers does not believe that this Committee has enough
information to determine if the actual land transfer being proposed in
this bill would result in a net benefit to the public. Instead, we
support an open, transparent, public review of the facts of this
particular case: precisely the sort of review that this bill would
preclude. Laws like NEPA and FLPMA ensure that decisions like these are
accompanied by careful analysis and an open, deliberative process.
These formal processes would give other members of the public--who may
be more familiar with the resource and have a direct interest in how it
is managed--an opportunity to be heard.
Congress should not legislate the outcome of an individual hydropower
licensing proceeding
While the terms by which H.R. 523 proposes to sell public lands--a
forced sale to a pre-ordained buyer without the public participation,
environmental review, or competitive bidding that would ordinarily be
required by law--are clearly not in the public interest, another aspect
of the bill is even more troubling. The lands in question are located
either within or adjacent to the project boundary of the Wells
hydroelectric project, which is operated by the PUD under the terms of
a Federal license (P-2149) that will expire in May of 2012. This bill
would effectively remove the Secretary of Interior's authority to place
conditions that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) deems necessary to
protect these BLM-managed public lands and the public's use of those
lands from the adverse impacts of the Wells hydroelectric project.
The Wells hydroelectric project currently operates under a 50-year
license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC;
previously the Federal Power Commission) in 1962. The PUD has already
begun the 5-year process of seeking a new license for the project,
filing a Pre-Application Document with FERC on December 1, 2006. FERC
has already initiated the NEPA scoping process for this relicensing.
The relicensing of a hydropower facility almost always results in
tangible benefits for non-power public values, such as protected fish
and wildlife habitat, improved water quality, and enhanced
opportunities for public recreation. These improvements can be
particularly significant at projects like the Wells project, which
received its original license in an era before the advent of modern
environmental laws.
Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act instructs FERC to give equal
consideration to environmental and recreational resources as well as
power resources when issuing a license for a hydroelectric facility.
The same section of the Federal Power Act also requires FERC to ensure
that it does not issue licenses that interfere with the purposes of
federal reservations that overlap the boundaries of hydropower
projects, including Indian reservations, national forests, and other
federally reserved lands. The Federal Power Act accomplishes this goal
by requiring FERC to include in its licenses any conditions that the
responsible Secretaries deem necessary for the ``adequate protection
and utilization'' of these reservations.
The March 2, 2006 map prepared by the Douglas County PUD shows that
the Wells hydroelectric project overlaps two federal reservations: the
Colville Indian Reservation on the east, and several tracts of federal
land that is managed by the BLM. The proposed transfer includes all
BLM-managed land that overlaps the project boundary of the Wells
Hydroelectric project. The authority to condition hydropower licenses
under section 4(e) is limited to reservations that overlap the project
boundary. By requiring that all BLM-managed land overlapping the
project be sold to the PUD, H.R. 523 would remove the Secretary of the
Interior's authority to require license conditions that will protect
BLM-managed land from any adverse impacts caused by the operation of
this hydropower project. In so doing, the bill would materially affect
existing federal authorities during an ongoing federal licensing
proceeding.
All of the lands in question are clearly affected by the project:
one tract is inundated by the reservoir, one tract has transmission
lines running through it, and the remaining tracts are on the banks of
the river and reservoir. Section 4(e) conditions typically include
provisions designed to protect water quality, recreation and public
access, fire prevention, vegetation, and wildlife. It is still too
early in the relicensing process for the BLM to determine if section
4(e) conditions would be necessary to protect these reservations, but
information from the study phase of the relicensing or other relevant
public input could lead the Secretary to determine that such conditions
would be necessary. Congress should not preempt this authority by
forcing the BLM to sell the land during the pending relicensing
process.
Directing the BLM to sell public lands during an ongoing hydropower
would set a dangerous precedent. The message to hydropower operators
would be clear: if you wish to avoid license requirements designed to
protect the environment from your hydropower project--and the costs
associated with meeting these responsibilities--ask Congress to sell
you the land. Whether or not that is the intention behind this
particular bill, the result would be the same: a loss of federal
authority to protect public values during the first opportunity in
fifty years to exercise that authority.
In addition to our substantive concerns outlined above, we note
that there is no real urgency behind this proposal. We have not yet
been presented with any compelling reason why this land should be sold
while the Wells project relicensing proceeding is still pending. A FERC
hydropower licensing process involves NEPA review, and offers an
excellent opportunity for public participation and collaborative
discussions among all stakeholders. Licensing often results in broad
agreements about how project-related land should be managed. As it
earns its new FERC license, the PUD could win broad stakeholder
approval for some sort of land transfer. In the past American Rivers
has supported land exchange legislation, such as the Tapoco Project
Licensing Act of 2004, that resulted from comprehensive settlement
agreements. While we remain opposed to this bill, we note that this
hearing has already spurred some positive discussions with the Douglas
County Public Utility District (PUD), and we hope to continue these
discussions.
Conclusion
American Rivers strongly opposes H.R. 523 in its current form. It
would result in a net loss of public land and a net loss of federal
authority to protect public values at an existing hydropower project.
It would set a damaging precedent that could undermine future
hydropower licensing proceedings. Decisions about the sale of public
land should be made through the open, deliberative, and public
processes already provided by FLPMA and NEPA. We recognize that dealing
with complex administrative processes can be frustrating, but it is
also important to remember that these processes have been put in place
to protect the public.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and thank the panelists.
Let me turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, if he has
any comments. I know he has a pressing appointment. Any
comments or questions?
Mr. Bishop. No. I just thank both gentlemen for being here.
I appreciate your testimony. It will be included, and I thank
you for that.
I yield.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me, just some general
questions. Mr. Dobbins, can you identify the specific advantage
for the public utility district of owning these BLM parcels?
What would be the, what is the advantage of that?
Mr. Dobbins. The advantage is that when we are out in the
field, if we own all the lands around the reservoir, and we
notice things on those lands, we don't have to go back and
check are these ours or someone else's. We want to be able to
manage and protect all of those lands consistently around the
reservoir.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me just follow up. In the licensing
process, is there something specific that requires or mandates
that the district own all the land in the project boundary?
Mr. Dobbins. No. Ours is the most conservative approach
that you could take. We are trying to protect those lands and
ownership of them as the most conservative approach to that.
Mr. Grijalva. So there is no mandate to own.
Mr. Dobbins. No.
Mr. Grijalva. Is there any, in the current license, is
there any resource protection requirements in the current
license that you work with right now?
Mr. Dobbins. Oh, yes. It is substantial. We are allowed to
give permits for private use of the land to adjacent
landowners, but the hurdles are very steep as far as permitting
that. We have to go through all the state and Federal resource
agencies before we can even consider issuing a permit. And then
actually, the Habitat Conservation Plan steepened that terrain,
and caused us to have to do more review before we can actually
offer that.
But our leaning is toward protecting the wildlife habitat
naturally. Our own policies state that.
Mr. Grijalva. And those requirements are with the specific
license that you hold now.
Mr. Dobbins. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Let me just, one question before I turn
to Mr. Seebach.
If the legislation in H.R. 523 were enacted, could you
legally sell the parcels that you are acquiring to other
buyers? I realize that may not be the intent, to sell them, but
could you?
Mr. Dobbins. That depends on how FERC decided to use the,
you know, what restrictions FERC put on.
If they are included in the project boundary, then we have
to clear any sale through FERC.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. For the sake of clarification, have you,
in the current project boundary, have you sold, has any land
been sold?
Mr. Dobbins. Any--let us see. There have been small
adjustments for one reason or another, but they all have to go
through the FERC process. FERC goes through the public process
of notice and all that.
Mr. Grijalva. So you can, given whatever----
Mr. Dobbins. I think that we could, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Seebach, one question. Could you compare,
if it is possible, the BLM's resource management goals with the
resource management goals of the public utility district? Are
they the same?
And the other part of the question is the fact that the
utility district has rate payers. Does that impact resource
management plans?
Mr. Seebach. I think it could. I am not sure that I can
accurately assess that in this case. I know that I have spoken
with Mr. Dobbins, and I believe they take their commitment to
conservation seriously. But I don't feel like I could
adequately--I would have to get back to you on that one to
answer it correctly.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you very much, and thank you for
your patience. I appreciate your testimony. And this meeting is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]