[Senate Report 111-156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 306
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-156
======================================================================
UPPER ELK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC STUDY ACT
_______
March 2, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3113]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the Act (H.R. 3113) to amend the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Elk River in the State
of West Virginia for study for potential addition to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the Act do pass.
Purpose
The purpose of H.R. 3113 is to amend the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Elk River in the State
of West Virginia for study for potential addition of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Background and Need
The five-mile section of the Upper Elk River in West
Virginia designated for study by H.R. 3113 flows through a
small canyon alongside a non-operational railroad. The river
corridor includes hardwood forests and large boulders with
occasional views of the railroad tracks. The stream is popular
with anglers and supports populations of wild brown, rainbow,
and native brook trout.
This section of the river runs from the confluence of the
Old Field Fork and the Big Spring Fork in Pocahontas County,
West Virginia, to the Randolph County line. In February 2009,
the Pocahontas County Commissioners requested that a wild and
scenic river study be conducted on this portion of the river,
which is known as the ``Slaty'' segment of the Elk River.
Legislative History
H.R. 3113, introduced by Representative Rahall, passed the
House of Representatives by voice vote on September 22, 2009.
The Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on the
bill on November 4, 2009. At its business meeting on December
16, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered
H.R. 3113 favorably reported without amendment.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on December 16, 2009, by a voice vote of a
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 3113.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 contains the short title, the ``Upper Elk River
Wild and Scenic Study Act''.
Section 2 amends Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) to designate a 5-mile segment of the
Elk River in West Virginia, from the confluence of the Old
Field Fork and the Big Spring Fork in Pocahontas County, to the
Pocahontas and Randolph County, to be studied as a potential
addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Section 3 amends section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture
to complete the study and submit to Congress a report
containing the study's results within three years after funds
are made available.
Section 4 reaffirms Section 13 of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1284) to provide that the designation of
the river segment in section 2 shall not be construed to affect
access for recreational activities, including hunting, fishing,
or trapping, otherwise allowed by law.
Subsection (b) clarifies, consistent with section 13 of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the designation of the river
segment in section 2 shall not be construed to affect the
authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the relevant
States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident
wildlife under State law or regulations.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 3113--Upper Elk River Wild and Scenic Study Act
H.R. 3113 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to
study a 5-mile segment of the Elk River for potential addition
to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The segment lies within
the Monongahela National Forest in Virginia. Assuming the
availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that
preparing the study required by H.R. 3113 would cost about
$300,000 over the next three years. Enacting the legislation
would not affect revenues or direct spending.
The act contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On September 11, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 3113 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural
Resources on September 9, 2009. The estimated costs of the two
versions of the legislation are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out H.R. 3113.
The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of
imposing Government-established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of H.R. 3113, as ordered reported.
Congressionally Directed Spending
H.R. 3113, as reported, does not contain any
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate.
Executive Communications
The testimony provided by the National Park Service at the
November 4, 2009, Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 3113 follows:
Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide the Administration's views on H.R.
3113.
This bill amends section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, Public Law 90-542 (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) to designate a
segment of Elk River in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, for
study as a potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. The segment that would be authorized for study
lies entirely within the Monongahela National Forest, and is an
approximate five-mile segment of the Elk River from the
confluence of the Old Field Fork and the Big Spring Fork in
Pocahontas County to the Pocahontas and Randolph County line.
The bill provides that the study determine if the river is
qualified for designation and, if so determined, evaluate the
potential benefits and consequences of its designation,
including an assessment of whether its addition to the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System is the best method to protect
river values.
This section of the Elk River flows through a small canyon
with a parallel, non-operational railroad the only sign of
human activity. The overall appearance of the river corridor
from the stream is one of hardwood forests and large boulders
with occasional views of the railroad. The river is dominated
by many pools, separated by stretches of riffles. The stream is
popular with anglers and supports populations of wild brown and
rainbow trout; populations of native brook trout occur in the
tributaries within one-quarter mile of the main channel. Karst
limestone outcrops along the river bed create the conditions
that cause the river to ``sink'', or go underground, during low
flows.
Of the land contained within a quarter mile of each side of
the river segment, two-thirds is in federal ownership all under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the
Department of Agriculture, with the remaining acreage in
private ownership for a total of approximately 1,500 acres. The
bill provides that the study address both Federal and non-
Federal lands.
The Administration supports this legislation as it provides
an opportunity to work with interested parties including state
and local governments and landowners to identify river values
and thoughtfully evaluate whether and, if desirable, how these
values should be protected.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
H.R. 1593 as ordered reported, are shown as follows (existing
law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
(Public Law 90-542; Approved October 2, 1968)
[16 U.S.C. 1276 et seq.]
AN ACT To provide a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a)
this Act be cited as the ``Wild and Scenic Rivers Act''.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5(a). The following rivers are hereby designated for
potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers
system:
* * * * * * *
( ) Elk River, West Virginia.--The approximate 5-mile
segment of the Elk River from the confluence of the Old Field
Fork and the Big Spring Fork in Pocahontas County to the
Pocahontas and Randolph County line.
(b) Studies and Reports.--
* * * * * * *
( ) Elk River, West Virginia.--Not later than 3 years
after funds are made available to carry out this paragraph, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall complete the study of the 5-mile
segment of the Elk River, West Virginia, designated for study
in subsection (a), and shall submit to Congress a report
containing the results of the study. The report shall include
an analysis of the potential impact of the designation on
private lands within the 5-mile segment of the Elk River, West
Virginia, or abutting that area.
* * * * * * *