[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF H.R. 1011, THE VIRGINIA RIDGE AND VALLEY ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-28
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
www.agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-051 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Dakota STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JIM COSTA, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana Louisiana
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas JOHN R. ``Randy'' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
JOHN BARROW, Georgia KEVIN McCARTHY, California
NICK LAMPSON, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, opening statement.......................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement.......................... 27
Witnesses
Holtrop, Mr. Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.............. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Howe, Mr. Paul, Executive Vice President, Virginia Forestry
Association, Richmond, Virginia, opening statement............. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Bruton, Mr. C. Dowd, Senior Regional Wildlife Biologist, National
Wild Turkey Federation, Traphill, North Carolina............... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Muffo, Mr. John A., Virginia Board of Supervisors, Montgomery
County, Virginia, Blacksburg, Virginia......................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Davenport, Mr. Tom R., Business Manager, Mt. Rogers Outfitters,
Damascus, Virginia............................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Submitted Material
Pelton, Dr. Michael R., Professor Emeritus, Wildlife Science,
Middlebrook, Virginia.......................................... 28
West, Dr. David A., Blacksburg, Virginia......................... 30
HEARING TO REVIEW H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Collin C.
Peterson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Peterson, Holden,
Etheridge, Cuellar, Salazar, Pomeroy, Davis, Goodlatte,
Conaway, Smith, and Walberg.
Staff present: Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Tony Jackson, John
Riley, Sharon Rusnak, Lisa Shelton, Kristin Sosanie, Brent
Blevins, Alise Kowalski, Kevin Kramp, Rita Neznek, and Jamie
Weyer.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
The Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being
here today. We are here to take a look at the Virginia Ridge
and Valley Act, which has been introduced by Congressman
Boucher of Virginia. My good friend and colleague, Bob
Goodlatte, brought this bill to my attention and requested the
committee hold a hearing on this issue. These gentlemen
represent two beautiful districts in rural Virginia with
significant forest areas, and they are strong advocates for
these important natural resources. They have been working
together to address some concerns raised about this bill, and I
understand they have some common ground. However, some issues
remain unresolved.
So this hearing today will allow us to consider all sides
of the situation. Mr. Goodlatte has raised some valid concerns
in my opinion about certain parts of the Jefferson National
Forest that would be designated wilderness areas if this bill
is passed. The designation of wilderness areas can limit forest
flexibility and in my part of the country there is still
controversy about land that was designated as wilderness many,
many years ago. H.R. 1011 calls for wilderness areas well
beyond the forest plan, and it is important that we consider
the specific needs of the land affected by the bill.
I appreciate Ranking Member Goodlatte and Congressman
Boucher for their work on this issue. I look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses joining us here today. And with
that, I would recognize my good friend and ranking member, Mr.
Goodlatte, from Virginia.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much
appreciate your holding this hearing on the Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act, H.R. 1011. I want to welcome all the witnesses that
we have before us several of which are from my home State of
Virginia. I also want to commend Congressman Boucher for his
hard work on this legislation. We have had discussions on this
legislation for some period of time, and I am certainly
supportive of many of the objectives of the legislation, but I
do have some concerns that I want to put on the record here in
my remarks, and also hear from witnesses who are here, I think,
representing both sides of the issue.
H.R. 1011 proposes to create 38,898 acres of wilderness,
3,575 acres of wilderness study areas and potential wilderness
areas, and 11,583 acres of National Scenic Areas in the
Jefferson National Forest in southwest Virginia. While all the
land included in this proposal is in my colleague, Congressman
Boucher's district we share the Jefferson National Forest with
about 108,000 acres of the 723,000 acre forest in my district.
With over 1.2 million acres of publicly owned forest in my
district the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests
are important economic drivers. They serve as a fiber source
for forest products industry and offer recreation opportunities
to millions of people each year.
They are also an important wildlife habitat and serve
several other important needs for the communities around them
and for the people of our country. For 12 years the Forest
Service worked to develop a new forest management plan for the
Jefferson National Forest in a combined effort with four other
National Forests. They held over 100 technical meetings,
received over 3,000 written comments on draft plans, and then
another 12,000 when the final plan was rolled out. The Forest
Service eventually accepted the proposal developed by a
collaborative group of citizens and interest groups as the 15-
year plan for the Jefferson National Forest.
This plan included a recommendation to designate an
additional 25,200 acres of wilderness on top of the 57,000
existing wilderness areas. Unfortunately, the bill before us
today goes way beyond the recommendations that came out of the
forest planning process proposing 13,600 more wilderness acres
than what was recommended in the forest plan and another 14,000
acres of other set asides that were not included in the forest
plan. It is disappointing that we are spending federal
resources to develop locally driven collaborative plans for
National Forests and Congress then proceeds to ignore these
recommendations.
In addition to the process concerns, our witnesses will
talk about several problems with proposed areas in the bill. My
colleague, Mr. Boucher, has attempted to address some of these
problems, but I do not believe all are fully resolved. We have
a forest health crisis in our nation's public forests. So far
this year's fire season is the fourth worse fire season on
record, and we haven't seen the end of it yet. Additionally,
insects and diseases like the gypsy moth which has invested
over 73,000 acres of Virginia's forests this year are a serious
threat. Congress needs to provide more tools to professional
resource managers in the Forest Service to mitigate these
problems.
Instead, the wilderness designation in H.R. 1011 take tools
away from the Forest Service. For example, the Brush Mountain
and Brush Mountain East proposed areas, some 8,500 acres, need
prescribed fire treatments to restore and maintain a unique
forest ecosystem, Table Mountain Pine. Table Mountain Pine is
home to the state's rare Northern Pine Snake and several rare
moths. If these areas are set aside for wilderness it is
unlikely the Forest Service will be able to effectively manage
the forest and will have to rely on the chance that fires will
come through the area every 3 to 9 years as the trees require.
Recreation conflicts are also a problematic consequence of
the proposed bill. Since several areas would be closed to
motorized recreation and mountain biking the bill attempts to
resolve of these conflicts by mandating another trail for
mountain biking. However, this creates several safety,
maintenance, and environmental problems. As we lock up more
land to certain recreation users, we force other users to
concentrate their activities in smaller areas. A recent survey
of visitors to the George Washington and Jefferson National
Forest found that only 2 percent of visitors visited wilderness
areas when they came to the forest. This bill would shrink the
amount of land that is available for a majority of forest
visitors.
Additionally, there are private in-holdings and utility
corridors, and many of the areas will be difficult to manage as
wilderness due to their size and proximity to roads, private
lands, and communities. The National Forests are already
protected as National Forests set aside to provide the public
with a number of products and services. Permanently locking up
large areas and taking a hands off approach is not always the
answer. So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses
and continue to work with my colleagues to find a balanced
approach to what is proposed in H.R. 1011.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman, and the other members of
the committee that have statements, they will be made part of
the record. We will now proceed to hear from our first witness,
the Deputy Chief, Mr. Holtrop, of the National Forest System,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Welcome to the committee, and
your full testimony will be made part of the record, and we
appreciate you limiting your remarks to 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views
on the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. We commend the sponsors
and the Committee for its collaborate approach in how they have
worked with us in the local communities. The Department
supports several of the designations included in the bill but
we object to other designations 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. During the revision of the Jefferson
National Forest Land Management Plan the Forest evaluated
potential wilderness or wilderness study areas that satisfied
the definition of wilderness found in the Wilderness Act of
1964.
The Plan, signed in January of 2004, was developed over an
11-year period with extensive public involvement. The
Department supports the bill provisions that would designate
new wilderness areas and the designation of many of the
additions to existing wilderness areas that are consistent with
the Land Management Plan recommendations. The Department does
not oppose the designation of several other additions though we
have concerns about their suitability as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System. The Department does
not support the designation as potential wilderness for the
349-acre portion of the Kimberling Creek area.
The subsequent designation of wilderness following a fixed
time period and associated compulsory changes and conditions
limit our discretion in the allocation of scarce resources. The
Department does not support wilderness designation for the
Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East areas. These areas
contain fire dependent forest habitat and are largely
surrounded by private lands. Wildland urban interface exists on
north and south boundaries. The Department could support the
designation of the Raccoon Branch area as wilderness if
agreements are reached that resolve trail maintenance issues,
and if the requirement for a sustainable trail is amended to
provide more flexibility for alternative trail locations.
Many trails in this area are used by both equestrian and
mountain bikers. Currently, 4 of the 6 miles of the Virginia
Highlands horse trail in the Raccoon Branch area are open to
mountain bike use. Wilderness designation would eliminate
mountain bike use and raise concerns about trail maintenance.
We would like to work with the Committee to adjust the boundary
as now proposed in the bill. The adjustment could alleviate
much of the concern with maintaining the trail for equestrian
use. The bill would establish Seng Mountain and Bear Creek
National Scenic Areas. The Department appreciates the action by
the Natural Resources Committee to amend the bill to allow for
seasonal motorized use during beer and deer hunting season.
Last month the President signed Executive Order #13443,
Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.
This Executive Order requires Federal land management agencies
to manage wildlife and wildlife habitats of public lands in a
manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities.
We would like to work with the Committee on language that
would allow a low level of habitat management for black bear
that would be consistent with the Executive Order and
compatible with the purposes for which the National Scenic
Areas are being established. The proposed Seng Mountain
National Scenic Area is within the Mount Rogers National
Recreation Area. The Department recommends that the overlapping
designation be clarified and continued motorized use on the
Barton Gap Trail be 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 Forest Service already addresses trail management and
planning standards within the planning process. We consider the
requirement to develop additional trail plans to be
unnecessary. This bill would also require the Secretary to
provide a continuous connection for non-motorized travel
between State Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018. The
bill language specifies the terminus of the connector route and
limits our ability to locate and construct a trail that will
meet Forest Service standards for safety and in a manner that
is environmentally appropriate. We would like to work with the
Committee on language that would allow us to construct trail
facilities with adequate consideration for alternatives,
priorities, and costs. This concludes my statement, and I will
be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you for that testimony. I am going to
yield my time to Mr. Goodlatte at this point.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Holtrop,
welcome, and thank you for your testimony. It is frustrating to
me and many of my constituents when we spend federal resources
and engage citizens in a forest planning process only to have
the forest plan ignored as H.R. 1011 does. What was the total
cost for developing the Jefferson forest plan, do you know?
Mr. Holtrop. We don't track costs so that we are not able
to give you an explicit answer to that although we do have some
estimates that the average cost of forest plan revisions across
the country is about $5 million.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. And many, many people both in the
agency and outside the agency are involved in this process?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct. I think in your opening
statement you correctly identified that there were dozens of
public meetings. We had over 500 people attend those public
meetings. We had thousands of comments. We had 3,000 people on
our mailing list as this plan was being developed.
Mr. Goodlatte. I wonder if you might elaborate on the
potential wildfire threats if the Brush Mountain and Brush
Mountain East areas are designated as wilderness. What risk
would this pose to area communities like Blacksburg, and why is
prescribed fire so important?
Mr. Holtrop. I would like to--first of all, I would like to
express my appreciation to you and others on the Committee for
recognizing the value of our forest planning process and the
value of the public input that we receive in that. Brush
Mountain and Brush Mountain East is one of those areas in which
through the planning process we identified that a high need in
that area is prescribed fire mostly for the purposes of
maintaining a rare Table Mountain Pine ecosystem type, and
there are large Table Mountain Pine that currently exist in the
Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East areas but there are not
established young Table Mountain Pine in that area, and in
order to establish the young pine, fire needs to occur because
it is a tree species that requires fire to open up the cone and
to open up the seed bed on the forest floor for it to occur.
So the main concern that we have for fire in the Brush
Mountain and Brush Mountain East is to provide the opportunity
for prescribed fire for that rare ecosystem type. A benefit
that would come from that would be it would reduce fuel build-
up over time as well so that if a fire were to occur in that
area we would have a better chance of protecting very closely
aligned communities in residential areas on both sides of this
long, narrow wilderness designation.
Mr. Goodlatte. Am I correct that these two areas, Brush
Mountain and Brush Mountain East, are two separate wilderness
areas because that is a power line that runs right through the
middle of this area?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct.
Mr. Goodlatte. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the
problems that come with the prescription and limitations on
being able to use prescribed fire in a wilderness area? What
limitations do you face there as opposed to a different type of
management designation?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, first of all, we take wilderness
designation seriously. It is a high standard, and so our
responsibility is to manage it to retain its wilderness
character. There are some limited circumstances in which the
determination is made that prescribed fire is the best way for
us to maintain its wilderness character, a management decision
could be made to ignite a prescribed fire. We could also allow
for a naturally occurring fire to burn in the area. But without
some treatment that had occurred in advance and without being
able of course to control the naturally occurring fire, a
lightning strike, for instance, the likelihood of it occurring
at a time where we felt safe in terms of being able to protect
the communities that would be at risk if such a wildfire
occurred would be limited.
The ability for us to have prescribed fire in wilderness is
there but it is limited again to make sure that we are
maintaining wilderness character and there would be further
limitations of course on the use of mechanized equipment while
carrying out those activities which further restrict the
ability for us to carry out extensive burns or the period of
time we would be able to carry out the burns in order to
continue to do it in a safe manner or to get something under
control if it got out of control, so that is correct.
Mr. Goodlatte. Are there plans to develop or intensively
manage any of the areas that would be designated as wilderness
under H.R. 1011 but weren't recommended for wilderness in the
forest plan?
Mr. Holtrop. There are no plans to intensively manage any
of those areas. We would, for instance, in Brush Mountain and
Brush Mountain East continue with our plans to manage through
prescribed fire and some vegetation treatment the Table
Mountain Pine type and to reduce hazardous fuel build up. The
Kimberling Creek potential wilderness area would be managed for
restoration activities to allow it to restore to a more natural
state. There would be some of those types of activities, but
there is nothing that I would characterize as intensive
management. Basically our Forest Plan direction for those areas
is also pretty limited management activities largely to enhance
ecosystems and enhance visitor use.
Mr. Goodlattee. So if they were not included as a
wilderness area in this legislation they would still be
protected from any kind of extensive development, extensive
construction of roads, large clear cuts, that sort of thing?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct, they would.
Mr. Goodlatte. I mean this is right next to the town of
Blacksburg, and I can understand why the community wants to see
the area protected. I think the question is what is the best
way to protect it.
Mr. Holtrop. I agree with you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the
gentleman from Colorado for a couple questions.
Mr. Salazar. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, let me just for the record say that I do not oppose
wilderness areas but I want to thank Chairman Peterson and Mr.
Goodlatte for holding this important hearing today. I represent
the Third Congressional District of Colorado, and it is
approximately 74 percent federal land, and I understand that we
have to protect our federal lands, but there are currently over
30 wilderness designations right in my district, and I think
before we move forward with any designation, I think it is
important for all of us that the entire congressional
delegation be behind it, that local elected officials, local
citizens, government agencies, and most importantly farmers and
ranchers, I believe, must participate in every step of the
process.
Many times federal land and federal grazing rights are
overlooked, and many times permitees are kicked off the land.
There is currently blanket environmental push in Colorado to
designate I think some 58 pieces of wilderness in our
community. And I believe that this is the wrong way to go about
it. It is important for all of us to go to the communities and
to make sure it is going to be acceptable to the communities. I
am actually eager to hear some of the testimony today, but I
have to run off to another meeting, and I just would ask that
we put forth an effort for more cooperation between the
delegations and the entire state delegations. This is not an
issue that is going to affect me directly, but I understand Mr.
Goodlatte's feelings, and I share some of his concerns as well.
So once again I want to thank the Chairman and Mr. Goodlatte
for having this important hearing.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize
the ranking member for 5 minutes on his own time.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have
been very generous with the time, and let me ask you, Mr.
Holtrop, several of the witnesses today will talk about the
recreation value of wilderness designations, and can you tell
me what percentage of National Forest visitors use wilderness?
Mr. Holtrop. Across the system we have our national visitor
use monitoring system which indicates that around 4 percent,
4.2 percent of all National Forest System visitors are to
wilderness.
Mr. Goodlatte. So when you are talking about the
recreational values and when you are talking about the economic
values to a community drawing people into an area, is it fair
to say that an area that has greater access to it is likely to
draw more visitation rather than less?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I think that is probably going to be
site specific in many cases. I would say the vast--the majority
of our recreation users if you are just going to be monitoring
use, the majority of them will probably be in more developed
areas and more developed sites. I think to totally understand
the relationship between the recreational opportunities that
are presented in wilderness you also have to understand the
percentage of the area that is currently designated wilderness.
As Mr. Salazar was talking about as compared to what are some
of the other opportunities that exist as well. There have been
some studies, of course, that have indicated that the
designation of wilderness becomes an attraction to some
visitors but of course eliminate other people who have other
recreational opportunities.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, that is undoubtedly so but hikers, for
example, can enjoy those wilderness areas. They can also enjoy
the other aspects of the forest that are not wilderness, and
sometimes depending upon the access they can get a greater
opportunity to enjoy hiking, and then other recreational
opportunities are much more severely limited in the wilderness
area. In several of the other wilderness bills exemptions have
been made for certain activities such as mountain biking or
wildlife management. There are also other options in addition
to wilderness for setting aside land in National Forests. What
other options would the Forest Service recommend for areas such
as Lynn Camp Creek, Mountain Lake B, and the Shawvers Run
areas, do you have those accessible to you?
Mr. Holtrop. I think I can answer at least in some fashion
that question. As we have already discussed, we have a Forest
Plan that was 11 years in the making, and that Forest Plan
provided prescriptions, management direction for those very
areas that you just asked about. The Shawvers Run, for example,
those areas were identified in the Forest Plan because there
are Indiana Bat caves in those areas. They were identified for
protection of Indiana Bats, those caves, and some limited
habitat improvement work in case at some point in time there
was a need to do some work to insure that the habitat still
stayed productive for Indiana Bats. My sense is if the thing we
should do if we are not to designate an area like that under
this piece of legislation we should allow the Forest Plan
direction to continue to apply, which was again thought through
by land management professionals through the public process.
Mr. Goodlatte. And what about Lynn Camp Creek?
Mr. Holtrop. Lynn Camp Creek had similar protective
prescription in the Forest Plan. I can't remember exactly what
that prescription was at this time. The way we used the Forest
Plan when looking at the proposals in this piece of legislation
was of course if the legislation was consistent with our Forest
Plan direction we were supportive. If it was different than our
Forest Plan direction but we could see that we could meet our
commitment to our public and meet our commitment to the types
of activities we wanted to carry out on the land we did not
oppose. In this case we did not oppose. Our concern with Lynn
Camp Creek and Shawvers Run largely had to do with the
configuration and the size of those as to whether they were
suitable components of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. And, finally, let me ask you what
changes you would recommend for the National Scenic Area
language in the bill to enable compliance with the recently
signed Executive Order on hunting and wildlife conservation.
Mr. Holtrop. Well, as my testimony states, we would like to
work with the committee on that language. The type of language
that we are thinking of currently the bill allows vegetation
treatment in the National Scenic Areas solely for the purpose
of retaining openings, wildlife openings or viewing openings.
We would suggest that there might be some limited additional
vegetation treatment for the purposes of enhancing wildlife
habitat that is also consistent with the National Scenic Area
designation.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. We are going to have
votes here in a little bit. I think what we will do--thank you
very much for your testimony and being with us today. I think
we will call the next panel. Did any of the other members have
questions? I am sorry. I guess not, so thank you very much. We
will call the next panel. And we will get as far as we can here
before--we have with us some folks from the area and others,
Mr. Paul Howe, Executive Vice President of the Virginia
Forestry Association; Mr. C. Dowd Bruton, Senior Regional
Wildlife Biologist for the National Wild Turkey Federation; the
Honorable John Muffo, Virginia Board of Supervisors, Montgomery
County, Virginia; and Mr. Tom Davenport, Business Manager for
Mt. Rogers Outfitters, Damascus, Virginia. Welcome to the
committee. Your full statements will be made part of the
record, and we would encourage you to summarize your testimony,
and we will recognize each of you for 5 minutes. So, Mr. Howe,
if you would provide.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOWE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA
FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, RICHMAN, VIRGINIA
Mr. Howe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Goodlatte,
and committee members, to speak about the Virginia Ride and
Valley Act. My name is Paul Howe. I am the Executive Vice
President of the Virginia Forestry Association. We are a not-
for-profit organization. We have about 500 members scattered
around the State of Virginia. Our membership is very diverse,
and it includes private forest land owners, pulp and paper
companies, saw mills, loggers, foresters in both the public and
private sector, as well as individuals who are just interested
in trees and our forests. These are the folks that own and
manage the working forest in Virginia.
The association's mission is to promote stewardship and
wise use of sustainable forest resources for the environmental
and economic benefit. That is a short and simple mission
statement but a lot of thought went into it, stewardship,
stability, economic, and environmental importance and benefits.
Congressman Goodlatte covered some of the numbers as did Mr.
Holtrop in his comments. I am not going to belabor any of the
points in terms of numbers. Numbers are numbers. But I do want
to make two primary points and they have to do with policy.
First of all, the Virginia Forestry Association and many
other groups and individual citizens provided public input and
participated in the development of the current Jefferson
National Forest plan, a plan that went over for 10 or 12 years.
The plan development process for each National Forest is long,
obviously, tedious and very thorough, and includes careful
attention to the need for and designation of wilderness areas.
The current Jefferson Forest plan recommends a little over
25,000 acres of wilderness, a recommendation that VFA has found
acceptable. However, to the extent that H.R. 1011 circumvents
and diverts from a plan based on broad public input and
introduces concepts not in the Wilderness Act or used currently
such as potential wilderness, we would not support additional
wilderness area proposals or the additional National Scenic
Area proposals.
I guess we look at the whole planning process as an
activity done in good faith, and even though some of my members
are not typically in favor of wilderness areas, we don't think
after the planning process is the time to come in and try to
ask Congress to make changes to something. Our point is we have
a plan. Let us implement it. Our second concern is one based on
the practical need for active force management that can best
maintain the long-term health of the Jefferson National Forest.
Our National Forests are already suffering from the lack of on
the ground management. The hard working and dedicated Forest
Service manager, and I worked with a lot of them in different
states over the years, are very capable of caring for our
National Forest lands in a manner that addresses the
congressional mandate for multiple use, but restrictions on
their day-to-day authority are creating forests that are
susceptible to poor health, to insect and disease attacks, to
fire threats, loss of certain wildlife habitat, and public
access.
wilderness areas can make good science-based management
very difficult. Without prescriptive silvicultural techniques,
the forests in wilderness areas may deteriorate, resulting in
fire, insect, and disease problems which can spread, and I
would like to highlight this, spread to adjoining private
lands. Recreational opportunities can be limited in wilderness
areas. Also, non-management does not allow for the nurturing of
a diversity of habitats, and can actually be negative impacts
on some wildlife populations, including both game and non-game
species.
The process of managing and in come cases harvesting forest
to meet overall National Forest goals and specific forest
plans, such as the current Jefferson plan, can provide timber
and fiber supporting local businesses that provide goods made
from wood that are in demand by the American public. The
current timber harvest on the Jefferson and its sister National
Forest, the George Washington in Virginia, are miniscule. Out
of 1.8 million acres of land, I guess 1.6 or so is actually
forested. There is only about 2,000 acres that are actually
harvested annually. These forests cover a big part of Western
Virginia.
So I will conclude by saying that on behalf of VFA and the
forestry community in Virginia, we appreciate your attention to
our opinions regarding H.R. 1011 and to the natural resource
management of our National Forests. I would be happy to answer
to any questions at the appropriate time or if I can't answer
them now, I can always say--if I can't answer the question, I
have a member somewhere that can, and we can get information to
you. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Howe. I am going to
recognize Mr. Bruton for 5 minutes, and then we will have to
take a short break to go vote and come back. So Mr. Bruton.
STATEMENT OF C. DOWD BRUTON, SENIOR REGIONAL WILDLIFE
BIOLOGIST, NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION, TRAPHILL, NORTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Bruton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name
is Dowd Bruton. I am a Senior Regional Wildlife Biologist with
the National Wild Turkey Federation, an organization dedicated
to the conservation of the wild turkey and the preservation of
our hunting tradition. Growth and progress define the NWTF as
it has expanded from 300 members in 1973 to more than 585,000
members today. Together the NWTF's conservation partners and
grass roots members have raised and spent more than $258
million on conservation projects on more than 13.1 million
acres of habitat. Because of our efforts and partnerships with
state and federal wildlife organizations the re-establishment
of the wild turkey has become one of the most exciting wildlife
success stories of the 20th Century with turkey populations
exceeding 7 million nationwide.
With wild turkey populations firmly established the NWTF
has shifted its focus to science-based active land management
to provide habitat for turkeys and the thousands of wildlife
species that exist in our forests across this great nation.
Consider wise forest management to be a giant puzzle. Each
piece has its proper place but without each individual piece
the puzzle could never be completed. Wilderness is in fact one
of those pieces to the puzzle. With any puzzle too many pieces
that are exactly alike create problems in the final product.
Our concern with H.R. 1011 is that it is overly aggressive in
terms of adding additional wilderness in the Jefferson National
Forest.
Jefferson National Forest total acreage is 723,300 acres.
Over 88 percent of the land is in wilderness. Additional
wilderness study areas and National Scenic Areas represent
another 7 percent. If the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007
is enacted the wilderness along with existing acreage would
total approximately 19 percent of the total forest area. I
would just like to list a few reasons why the NWTF believes too
much wilderness as prescribed in H.R. 1011 is a problem. First
of all, any type of active forest management is restricted on
wilderness areas. Additionally, wilderness is created by an act
of Congress and cannot be changed without federal legislation.
There can be no timber harvest, even thinning, which is a great
tool for creating early successional habitat that many species
require for foraging, breeding, nesting, and survival.
Combating non-native evasive forest insect and disease
problems will be difficult to implement under the wilderness
designation. A few striking examples are the beech bark scale
disease and the hemlock wooly adelgid, which are killing nearly
all of the American beech and eastern hemlock trees that they
infect. Wilderness standards dictate that wildfires be
suppressed and that prescribed fire can occur only with an
approved burn plan. Perversely though, prescribed fire is
actually not a realistic management option because there can be
no use of equipment to create fire lines and no mechanical
options for fire control, only the use of hand tools are
allowed for control.
Many people believe that wilderness protects the forest and
its wildlife species from man. Science simply does not
corroborate that belief. Active forest management, including
prescribed fire, reduces the build up of fuel levels within the
forest, protects against catastrophic wildfires and protects
biodiversity. It is scientifically documented that there is an
oak decline occurring in the eastern Oak Forest. There are many
suspected reasons for this decline. Old growth forests,
wilderness, are at the highest risk. Active management, using a
variety of techniques, including prescribed fire and forest
thinning, are the only wide-scale solutions to allow sunlight
to reach the forest floor and promote the oak seedlings from
acorns.
Wildlife has been managed by God and man since creation.
Lightning strikes, wildfire, and wind storms have existed for
all time. They create openings in the forest for wildlife. In
the days before European settlers came to America, native
Americans cleared land using fire for their livestock and crops
to support their families. When the settlers arrived, many
accounts from those settlers indicate the overwhelming species
diversity and actual numbers of species. Those early settlers
simply expanded what Native Americans had been doing for
thousands of years. As a result, they fed their families and
understood the value of forest management and biodiversity.
Only recently have certain factions begun to think that no
management is best. I urge you to consider what is proven to
happen when a forest becomes wilderness. The forest matures
into an old growth forest. The trees are tall and the canopy of
the forest closes in. This in turn restricts the sunlight that
reaches the forest floor. Many of the grasses, forbs, and
shrubs that are dependent on that sunlight can no longer exist.
Plant species diversity and wildlife species that depend on
these plants suffer. The NWTF believes that wilderness
certainly has its place in the forest plan and in forest
management.
We cannot support, however, the overreach of H.R. 1011 and
would urge a more limited approach that does not imperil
biodiversity and forest health. We urge the committee to
propose some adjustments to H.R. 1011 that move the wilderness
designation closed to being consistent with those in the forest
plan. Please know that NWTF stands ready to work with you to
craft these adjustments, and to continue to invest our funding
and sweat equity into National Forest conservation efforts. Mr.
Chairman, thanks for allowing me to share my comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and as a turkey hunter I
want to thank the NWTF for all they do. You guys do a great
job. We are going to take a break, go vote, and as soon as
these votes are over we will be back and continue with the last
two members of the panel. We appreciate your patience putting
up with us.
[Recess]
The Chairman. I apologize. I didn't realize it was going to
take that long, but that is the way things go around here. We
left off with Mr. Muffo, so we will recognize you next for 5
minutes. We appreciate you being with the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MUFFO, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA
Mr. Muffo. Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Goodlatte and
members of the committee, 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. And with the sense of time and the fact that I had to
listen to a lot of presentations the way you do, and I have to
face the voters and I am probably the only speaker that has to
face the voters in November, I would like to abbreviate my
comments a little bit, if you don't mind.
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 view sheds 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 Montgomery 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 the
county and has the potential to grow. It is a key element of
the county's economic development plan for the county, and this
Brush Mountain wilderness area along with other activities,
outdoor activities, would certainly enhance the 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 reasonable stewardship of
these lands. And we do appreciate, by the way, the stewardship
of the forestry people, and we like to work in cooperation with
those folks. Certainly timber harvesting is an integral part of
the forest plan, and so too should be other activities and
considerations such as recreation and view shed 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. 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 the
committee to pass the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. I also
have a statement from a constituent, Dr. David West, who is a
biologist, that I would like to include in the record. Thank
you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will include that
statement in the record. Thank you for summarizing that. Mr.
Davenport.
STATEMENT OF TOM R. DAVENPORT, BUSINESS MANAGER, MT. ROGERS
OUTFITTERS, DAMASCUS, VIRGINIA
Mr. Davenport. Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Goodlatte,
thank you for the opportunity to be here to present my views on
H.R. 1011. My name is Tom Davenport. I am the business manager
for Mt. Rogers Outfitters, an outdoor retail establishment in
Damascus, Virginia. I am a resident of Damascus, and have been
a resident there in the 9th district for the past 16 years.
Many people talk about the value of wilderness, and some
emphasize the esthetics, some emphasize ecosystem management.
Today I would like to address my support for H.R. 1011 to
largely a pragmatic reason, and a reason that is rooted deeply
in my economic self interest.
Our customers are people who come to us to have a
wilderness experience. The vast majority of our customers are
not local. Rather, they come from places like Ohio, from
Michigan, from Indiana, from North Carolina, Florida,
Mississippi, and they come to experience wilderness. The better
the wilderness experience, the more customers we have because
what happens is, and we see it time and time again, they go
back, they tell about their experience, they tell about the
Lewis Fork Wilderness Area, and their friends come back.
Without these customers, I think it is fair to say Mt. Rogers
Outfitters would not be in business. Mt. Rogers Outfitters was
the first tourism-based business to open in our small town.
That was in 1991. And our opening was in direct response to the
congressional designation of the Lewis Fork and the Little
Wilson Creek wilderness areas.
We were the first business within a 50-mile radius of those
wilderness areas to begin a client base, to build a client base
around those two resources. Our business plan and our marketing
campaign focused on those two wilderness areas. That campaign
reached a milestone this past year, and we are kind of proud of
that. The Backpacker magazine, which is the premier national
journal of publication on backpacking in the backpacking and
hiking industry, did an article on the best of the best places
for enjoying outdoor recreation. They listed the Lewis Fork
Wilderness Area and the Little Wilson Creek Wilderness Area as
the best weekend hike in the Appalachian region. By the way,
they also recognized our store as the top hiking store on the
Appalachian Trail.
Since our beginning, and actually just within the past few
years competition has been introduced. There is a second
backpacking store in our town and that is okay. There are other
uses, other competitive businesses, being developed in our
town. Our town today has 6 to 7 bicycle shops, has 12 to 15
B&Bs. New restaurants have opened. We have developed a pretty
respectable little tourism economy. Not all of it based on
wilderness, but the point I would like to make for you today to
consider is that for Damascus it all began with setting aside a
resource. It takes two components to create a tourism-based
economy. It takes a significant attraction and then it takes a
certain amount of entrepreneurial skills.
I think it was significant that in our case that wilderness
designations provided the impetus. Wilderness is what first
brought people into the community from places far and wide. It
was seeing those perspective customers that prompted other
entrepreneurs into action. We think it is in our economic
interest to secure the present and future integrities of these
outstanding resources. Indeed, we think it is in the economic
self interest of much of the rural portion of the 9th
Congressional District. We were pleased, therefore, to see the
Smith County and Bland County boards of supervisors endorse
permanent protection for these special areas. We ask you to
advance this legislation.
Gentlemen, the Jefferson National Forest is big enough for
this legislation, and for all the other uses and all the other
management activities that you have heard about today. I thank
you for your time, and I will be glad to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I am pleased to
recognize Mr. Goodlatte at this time.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
of the witnesses. They have helped us move forward in terms of
determining the areas of this legislation that have merit, and
those that do not. Let me just start, Mr. Davenport, I
certainly concur in your assessment that the type of business
that you have is enhanced by making sure that the wilderness
areas that are made available are the best quality. I know that
the ones that are recommended by the Forest Service that we
have no objection to do enhance the Lewis Fork Wilderness Area
and the Little Wilson Creek Wilderness Area. I would hope that
we could agree that there are different parts of the forest
that serve different purposes.
Mr. Davenport. Mr. Goodlatte, we can agree.
Mr. Goodlatte. Sure. And that is what I would like to focus
on. No question that there are different types of businesses
that are benefited by having National Forest land in their
districts, in their counties and their communities, and I have
long believed that that is an asset that we do not get enough
benefit from in Virginia. I have been down to Mt. Rogers and
hiked extensively through that area. Unfortunately, I didn't
use your business but maybe the next time I will. I have also
hiked in Montgomery County. I enjoy it very much. My concern is
making sure that we address a multitude of different concerns
and uses, and that each area we select are appropriate for that
purpose.
And I would say the same thing to you, Mr. Muffo. I very
much think that this area, Brush Mountain, should be protected
but my concern is that the use of wilderness designation for
that particular area as opposed to, for example, the Scenic
Areas that Mr. Boucher has used extensively, and I might add
that that came about from a discussion, in fact, several
discussions that we have had over the years that stemmed from
the creation in my district of the Mt. Pleasant National Scenic
Area when I was first elected. The Amherst County board of
supervisors asked us for a wilderness designation at Mt.
Pleasant in part to protect their watershed and they had other
concerns as well.
So I went and hiked that area again extensively and found a
number of reasons why wilderness would affect that area. There
was a bald on top of one of the mountains in the wilderness
area that was maintained using mechanical--and it is one of the
most spectacular areas on the entire Blue Ridge Mountain chain,
that the Appalachian Trail wanted to be able to use power tools
to maintain the trail as it runs through that areas, but what
really struck me the most was I ran into a father and son who
were out fishing, and I stopped our little group, and I went
over to ask the father of what he thought of converting that
area into a wilderness area. And he said, well, you know, it is
a beautiful area, and I think it should be protected, but I
sure hope you don't make it wilderness area.
And I said why is that, and he said, well, I am getting up
in years, and I am not going to be able to get in here to enjoy
this beautiful stream unless I can use these couple of existing
dirt roads to get in here. And then he pointed to his son, who
looked like he was about 30 years old, and he said he certainly
wouldn't be able to come up here. And I said, well--he looked
like a fine, strapping young man, and I said why is that, and
he said, well, he has an artificial leg. So, you know, from the
standpoint of access to our National Forests it is important to
make sure that we measure these things. I happen to believe
that you will get greater benefit from Brush Mountain if you
were to consider going the Scenic Area route as opposed to the
Wilderness Area because you can have the flexibility that
allows the Forest Service to protect and enhance the growth of
the Table Mountain Pine.
You deal with the issue of whether you should have a
Wilderness Area that is really created into two wilderness
areas because you bifurcated it with a power line. I don't know
whether there would be any way to take the area that has the
greater amount of Table Mountain Pine and make that one a
Scenic Area rather than a Wilderness Area. That is what I
concluded when I did the Mt. Pleasant National Scenic Area. We
did that in order to highlight it, have a very clear
designation for the tourism value, the eco-tourism that Mr.
Davenport mentioned, but it also allowed us to maintain the
existing roads and restrict and prohibit any new roads to
restrict use of forestry activities to allow for the clearing
of that bald and some of the other things. It was a very good
designation.
And it seems to me that with regard to Brush Mountain there
are some similarities there in terms of being as close to the
town of Blacksburg as it is, in terms of the need to be able to
use equipment for certain purposes to promote that species of
trees, to fight forest fires and other disease infestation,
which you can do in a wilderness area but you can do it more
effectively and more rapidly when you don't have those areas,
and if you can do that and prescribe things that are very
specifically spelled out in the language to protect it, it
would seem to me that there is some greater flexibility if you
allow that. And I just ask you with regard to Brush Mountain
where the board is in terms of that kind of flexibility that
could be given to highlight it and create the kind of
protection you want, which I certain concur with but also give
the Forest Service the kind of flexibility that would allow
them to manage the things that have caused them to express
concern and caused them to exclude it from the plan as a
Wilderness Area.
Mr. Muffo. Well, first of all, there is no loss of a road
in the Wilderness Area designation. There is only one road
there, and it is not affected by the Wilderness Area
designation.
Mr. Goodlatte. Sure, I understand that. I am talking about
other features that the----
Mr. Muffo. Well, I am not sure exactly what feature would
be lost. You can't cut it because it is too steep. The only
thing that we can figure out that would be lost is the Forest
Service would not be able to burn it. And, frankly, we are not
very enthusiastic about the Forest Service burning it to begin
with. And so it is not something that most of the citizens that
I have talked to are very enthusiastic about the Forest Service
doing to begin with. And that is about the only difference that
we can see.
Mr. Goodlatte. So you are not concerned about the Table
Mountain Pine issue then?
Mr. Muffo. I am not a forester, and the only thing I know
about Table Mountain Pine is in the letter from my biologist
constituent, and he said it is not--he said there was a whole
lot of Table Mountain Pine around. And I will give you this as
part of the record.
Mr. Goodlatte. I yield back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. So you don't want the Forest Service to burn
this so what if it catches on fire and the whole thing is going
to burn up, then what happens?
Mr. Muffo. Okay. Well, first of all, let me give you a
quick picture. There is a road on top of the mountain. The back
side, the side we are talking about, that faces--the west side
faces towards West Virginia. The east side is the part that
faces Blacksburg and there is a half mile buffer that the
Forest Service is still maintaining that is not affected by
this particular bill. So we have got a half mile buffer with
the residential areas that is unaffected. And there is a road
on top so it is basically the back side that we are asking to
be put in----
The Chairman. Well, this is not my district in Minnesota,
and I may be wrong about this but we have the BWCA wilderness,
and, you know, they have had a controversy about that. We had a
big blow down and a storm came through and blew down almost all
the trees, and they were again spurning the environmental
groups and so forth until that happened. There are things that
go on that I don't think any of us can foresee, and I agree
with Bob, I thing we get ourselves locked in on ideology and
nature may change things that people don't know about.
So all of a sudden we have people asking us to do things
that a few years ago they were against, you know, and I told
them I thought we should just leave it the way it was. That is
what they wanted, but they couldn't get in there. So anyway----
Mr. Muffo. It is also my understanding that under the
proper circumstances it can still be managed if it has to be.
If it is a clear danger the Forest Service can burn if it has
to.
The Chairman. Because you are making it a Wilderness Area.
Mr. Muffo. Even if it is a Wilderness Area they have the
ability to do it if they have to. It is just a much higher
standard.
Mr. Davenport. They fought a fire in St. Mary's wilderness.
The Chairman. They what?
Mr. Davenport. They fought a fire in the St. Mary's
wilderness. They used helicopters to go in. They used chainsaws
to cut trees so the Forest Service does have the ability to
fight fires in the wilderness.
The Chairman. I thought the whole purpose of the Wilderness
Area was to not do that so what are we doing here? I mean it is
like we are putting something off limits so a few elite people
can have whatever they want, and then when things don't go
their way then they want to do it different. It just seems kind
of----
Mr. Davenport. I am just relating the events that happened,
sir.
The Chairman. What is that?
Mr. Davenport. I am just relating the events as they
happened.
The Chairman. Go ahead, Bob.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I am very familiar with the St. Mary's
Wilderness Area. It is in my congressional district, and the
fact of the matter is there have been enormous problems with
dealing with a syndication of the river, and they can't bring
in the limestone. This was done by my predecessor, Jim Owen,
and when I was asked about the Mt. Pleasant area, I went to him
first and he said I would urge you to be cautious about
wilderness areas, and he cited the same areas and the problems
therein as a matter to be concerned about. However,
notwithstanding that the gentleman is correct. Mr. Davenport,
under correct circumstances the Forest Service can fight forest
fires in wilderness areas, and they should, but the problem is
they can't do the kind of things that are necessary ahead of
time to prevent those forest fires from being likely to occur
if they can't use all of the appropriate management tools.
And so what is going to happen is if you say it is a
Wilderness Area it is going to be treated by the Forest Service
like a Wilderness Area, and it is a lot less likely that they
will try to do the kind of things that are necessary to keep a
forest fire from getting out of control. And given that it is
close to residential and urban areas it is of concern to me,
and it is also a concern to them. It is not in my congressional
district so it is not the primary foundation for my thinking
that this should be altered. My primary thinking relates to the
testimony of the Forest Service that they could better manage
this area if they are given the flexibility to do that.
And, quite frankly, I think in terms of tourism values if
you designate an area as a Scenic Area it will do at least as
well. There are very few Scenic Areas in the country. There are
lots of wilderness areas. But the access to it, the ability of
people to utilize it effectively, I think has dramatically
changed, and I would hope that there would be more flexibility
on the part of the board of supervisors in being willing to
discuss this with the Forest Service, with this committee in
terms of what is the most appropriate way to find that kind of
protection. But having heard your testimony, I understand you
are not there.
Mr. Muffo. They haven't convinced any of us. I mean you
have heard that four different boards of supervisors have not
been convinced. Craig County has voted in favor of a
designation. Montgomery County and two other counties that were
mentioned, they have not convinced the people because it is the
people who told us at our public hearings what they wanted. I
have got to stand for election in November. My colleague who
represents the district that borders this has to stand for
election in November. We are both running unopposed. It is the
people who are telling us they want this as wilderness. I
wouldn't be in favor of it if they people weren't. And so they
haven't convinced the people. I don't care what the Forest
Service is telling you, they haven't convinced the people, and
that is why I am here.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me just say that I appreciate
that, and I think that is all well and good, but the fact of
the matter is that individual people are represented by members
of boards of supervisors who are charged with learning more
about a particular subject than the individuals that they
represent always necessarily know. So we are talking here about
two designations that have names attached to them, and those
names are of interest to people, but when you get to the
underlying issue of what is going to be the legacy of that and
the problems that may be incurred it is worth finding out. That
is certainly what I found out. The people of Amherst County and
their board of supervisors unanimously said that they wanted a
Wilderness Area. By the time we were done, I had testimony here
in the Congress with environmental groups and forestry groups
and the local government representative all testifying in favor
of the Scenic Area because after considering all of the
evidence carefully that is what they determined was the
appropriate alternative to take notwithstanding the fact that
there was a 5-0 vote by the board of supervisors initially
saying that they wanted wilderness, and it has been a great
success ever since, and we have not had problems with that
area.
We have had problems with the James River Face Wilderness
Area or the St. Mary's Wilderness Area, and we have not had
problems with other Wilderness Area designation in my
congressional district, and I am sure in Mr. Boucher's district
too. Every piece of land is different and is deserving of
different treatment, and that is why I think it is well worth
listening to what the National Forest representatives say when
they express those kind of concerns about it. But be that as it
may, let me ask Mr. Bruton about another issue, and that is
hunting and fishing contribute millions to Virginia's economy
and are integral to the culture and the way of life for many
Virginia natives. Are hunting opportunities in Virginia
increasing or decreasing?
Mr. Bruton. I think I would have to say with urban sprawl
in eastern and northeastern Virginia certainly opportunities on
that end of the state are decreasing. Our National Forest,
Jefferson and George Washington, are some of the few
strongholds remaining for hunters and fishermen. Those lands
need to be protected, but they also need to be actively managed
for the sportsmen that use those areas. Sportsmen are attracted
to areas that have quality opportunities and obviously
wilderness would--this land would still be in public ownership
and available to hunters and fishermen and backpackers and
hikers, but hunters and fishermen like that quality experience,
and having more active management on those lands it provides
more opportunities for those hunters to enjoy their trips to
the field.
Mr. Goodlatte. When you have small wilderness areas, what
kind of impact does the surrounding areas have on the ability
to protect wildlife in those areas when you can't do some of
the things you could do if you had a different designation
regarding, for example, prescribed burns and other things that
would allow for habitat management that are more difficult to
do when you have the wilderness designation?
Mr. Bruton. I think small wilderness areas creates all kind
of problems. First of all, you have the potential of a lot of
illegal access and use from the private lands adjoining those
small areas. It also creates potential for conflicts between
hunters that access from the public access on lands and walking
in versus maybe a hunter accessing from the private lands on
the adjoining properties. Basically it not really an unfair
advantage but it is certainly an advantage that those private
landowners and people that access from the private property
have.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Mr. Howe, were you or your
members involved in the Jefferson Forest plan development?
Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. Of course it was a long process and we
at the association monitored it the whole way through, and as I
recall there were three main alternatives so we had spent many
days sifting through that material. More importantly, I guess
our members, we probably had 15 or 20 key forestry members that
had--a lot of people were interested but didn't necessarily
have the time but some folks took time out of their busy
schedules to go to public hearings and the meetings. I actually
went back through my file before I came up here, and one
interesting quote from a gentleman who happens to the president
of our association right now said you had to become a
professional meeting goer to get your points across. And my
point there would be folks taking a lot of time out of their
busy schedule in good faith to go and get their points across,
and then after the fact I think there is a plan that has been
developed and is going to be implemented, and we have to keep
coming back and revisit in this case additional wilderness
areas.
And there were others that were involved. I found at least
one local planning commission that spent a lot of time on it,
and they did come out in opposition to wilderness areas during
that time. They made a comment that they believed that timber
resources on federal lands within the Jefferson are not being
aggressively managed as they could be and should be,
particularly hardwood, and they do not support any measure that
would move the Clinch River district, which is one district
there in the Jefferson Forest, toward a wilderness designation
or any designation that would potentially place extreme
restrictions on the multiple use approach to forest management.
And that was a planning commission that represented Wise
County, Scott County, and Lee County, and the town of Norton.
So just not in the forestry community but some others in the
local planning community and local government.
Mr. Goodlatte. You mentioned fire and forest health
problems that may result from the wilderness designations in
the bill, and I wonder if you might elaborate on that. What is
the current fire risk in southwest Virginia where these areas
are located?
Mr. Howe. It is pretty bad this year with all the talk
about climate change. Whatever is causing it, we have had a dry
year, and the Department of Forestry sent out some notices
earlier in the year, sent out a map, and designated certain
areas that were really threatened by wildfire. In fact, I think
they are already well ahead of the--maybe even have double the
number of wildfires and the acreage impacted that they have in
a typical year. One of the areas, I am looking at the map, it
basically corresponds to Congressman Boucher's district that
has high incidents of threat, and I don't think that has
changed. I received another e-mail from the Department of
Forestry just earlier this month. Again it says we are easily
going to start pushing double what our normal average is. I
guess our concern is that this impacts National Forests but
these National Forests are inundated with private land holdings
and surrounded by private land holdings.
And whether we like it or not there are homes in many of
these areas, and the fire doesn't know where the boundary is
nor do insects, for that matter. When a fire starts, and if it
is not contained in a timely manner it is going to burn up some
private lands and perhaps private homes. The state forester
called me last week and then we talked again yesterday, and I
received a call also from my counterpart in Tennessee with the
Tennessee Forestry Association who had talked to the state
forester there, and they are so concerned they have asked us in
the private sector to help them with a public relations
campaign to try and get the word out about the current dangers
with fire. And our state forester said he is very concerned
about what they term the Wildlife Urban Interface and that the
restrictions--it is not just the restrictions during the fire.
I think, Congressman Goodlatte, you mentioned that. It is
managing in a way that would keep some of those fires from
starting or becoming true wildfires. So the state foresters in
the states and around the Jefferson National Forest are
concerned. I will give an example. I had an opportunity to go
out to a meeting in Tahoe this past year, and you will recall
they had a major wildfire in that area. And the National Forest
representative gave us a tour and pointed out that the public
in that area had originally not wanted any timber management
but had decided perhaps it was a good thing so that eventually
with some of the timber thinning and the active management they
were able to quell that fire from taking over and burning up
south like Tahoe. Different situations geographically but still
the dangers, similar dangers, are there in southwest Virginia.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Howe. Mr. Chairman, I think
that completes the questions that I had. I want to thank all
the witnesses again, and I would just say to our member of the
board of supervisors I hope we can continue to talk about these
even if we don't necessarily agree on the appropriateness. And
I think the objective here is to find the best way to protect
this land, not to not protect it. And wilderness areas have
their place but they also have their problems, and I just want
to make sure that everybody is aware of that, and I hope that
as we continue to discuss this with Congressman Boucher and
with others, I expect this legislation will move forward fairly
soon. What the Chairman has said is exactly right. Once this is
done, once it is put into wilderness, that is it. You are not
going to have any opportunity to allow for some greater
management and flexibility on the part of the Forest Service,
and I think that is the concern that they have expressed, and I
think it is a legitimate concern but I stand prepared, and I
know Mr. Boucher knows to continue to talk about ways to make
sure that the greatest amount of flexibility and the greatest
amount of protection are brought together in a way that would
serve the people of Montgomery County in this regard. So, in
any event, I thank all of you for your testimony. And, Mr.
Chairman, again I thank you very much for holding this hearing.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and I think the
gentleman has raised some valid concerns, and I too want to
thank the witnesses and thank you for your patience in putting
up with us being gone for a while. And with no further business
before the committee, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]