One of the primary arguments of those objecting to the proposed Whistling Ridge Energy Project near Underwood revolves around impacts to the Columbia River National Scenic Area (NSA). However, those particular arguments should not be given much credence, because the language in the NSA legislation very specifically spells out that there are no buffer zones.
One of the United States Senators who worked to establish the National Scenic Area back in the 1980s, former Sen. Daniel Evans, recently weighed in on the controversy about the proposed wind energy project in a recent letter of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). EFSEC is currently debating whether to approve the placement of wind turbines on land just outside the NSA boundaries.
Evans served in the U.S. Senate from 1983-1989 and was a co-sponsor of the original legislation that established the NSA, so he certainly has immense credibility on this issue. Evans pointed out that the National Scenic Area Act was crafted to balance efforts to protect scenic and natural resources of the Gorge while "maintaining the historic economies of the area."
Evans, who also served as Washington's governor (1965-1977), reminded EFSEC that a key feature of the NSA legislation was language about buffer zones. Evans explained that the final language of the National Scenic Area Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on Nov. 17, 1986 -- nearly 25 years ago -- included the following provision:
"Nothing in this Act shall ... establish protective perimeters or buffer zones around the Scenic Area or each Special Management Area. The fact that activities or uses inconsistent with the management directions for the Scenic Area or Special Management Areas can be seen or heard from these areas shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundaries of the Scenic Area or Special Management Areas."
That sounds crystal clear to us. As others have testified on this issue, "the boundaries are the boundaries."
Don't get us wrong. We strongly support the National Scenic Area Act. We believe it has provided tremendous benefits in protecting the wonderful Columbia River Gorge area, and the original legislation that created the NSA has worked very well to balance preservation with economic development in a positive and successful manner -- that's why so many people want to live here and/or visit here.
However, activities beyond the NSA boundaries were clearly not intended to be regulated by the National Scenic Area Act, and we believe the presence of the Scenic Area should not be employed -- barring an extreme situation -- as a reason to halt projects outside those boundaries.
As former Sen. Evans wisely put it in his letter to EFSEC: "The Scenic Area is an outstanding contribution to the legacy we are leaving to future generations. But it has boundaries, which represent limits to the area we sought to protect," Evans wrote. "The EFSEC should respect those boundaries and should not attempt to apply the Scenic Area's proscriptions indirectly through the application of Scenic Area visual management criteria to projects outside the Scenic Area. The EFSEC's responsibility under the State Environmental Policy Act is to consider the environmental impacts of a project. In my view, this responsibility means no more, or less, because of the existence of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area."
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.