U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–051 PDF 2008

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 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘Randy’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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 

3

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 ManageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\41051.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
4

ment 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. 

5

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 

6

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. 

7

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 

8

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 treatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\41051.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
9

ment 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 exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\41051.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
10

tent 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. 

11

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 

12

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 

13

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 

14

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 

15

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 desVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\41051.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
16

ignation 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 

17

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. 

18

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 

19

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. 

20

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 

21

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 ServVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\41051.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
22

ice, 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.]

23


41051.001
24


41051.002
25


41051.003
26


41051.004
27


41051.005
28


41051.006
29


41051.007
30


41051.008
31


41051.009
32


41051.010
33


41051.011
34


41051.012
35


41051.013
36


41051.014
37


41051.015
38


41051.016
39


41051.017
40


41051.018
41


41051.019
42


41051.020
43


41051.021
44


41051.022
45


41051.023
46


41051.024
47


41051.025
48


41051.026
49


41051.027
50

Æ


41051.028