Virginia Ridge Valley Act of 2007

Floor Speech

VIRGINIA RIDGE AND VALLEY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - October 23, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment which represents an agreement just referenced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Boucher, and myself regarding some of the concerns with regard to H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. And I'd like to thank Congressman Boucher and congratulate him for his hard work on this legislation over a number of years, and thank him for working with me to address some of these important issues.

H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, creates over 40,000 acres of wilderness, wilderness study, and potential wilderness and over 11,000 acres of national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest in southwest Virginia.

Mr. Boucher and I share the Jefferson National Forest between our districts. Although this bill affects only national forest land within Mr. Boucher's district, any change in how the forest is managed will impact my district.

My amendment addresses three areas. First, it modifies the boundary of the Brush Mountain East Wilderness Area, removing 26 acres containing a power line which is not consistent with wilderness qualities.

Second, the amendment changes the boundaries of the Seng Mountain National Scenic Area, removing 1,263 acres from the area to allow continued use of the Barton Gap Motorized Trail and to allow for wildlife habitat management.

Finally, the amendment changes the trail language for the Raccoon Branch Area, allowing the Forest Service more flexibility when building the trail.

While I'm pleased to offer this amendment, it does not resolve all the concerns I have with the bill. The fact still remains that this bill ignores the recommendations of the professional land managers working in the Jefferson National Forest by designating 15,000 additional wilderness acres not recommended in the forest plan.

When the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1011 earlier this month, several witnesses highlighted serious concerns with these additional wilderness areas. These experts noted forest health and wildfire risks, increased recreation conflicts, lack of suitability as wilderness and wildlife management needs.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why Congress mandated that each national forest create a forest plan. Forest plans help the land management agencies find a balance among all the conflicting interests in national forests and factor in the latest science and cite specific qualities unique to each forest. Professional land managers then use this information to chart a path for managing each forest for the coming years.

The Jefferson Forest Plan, finalized in 2004, was developed over a 12-year period and involved countless scientists, land managers, interest groups and interested citizens. Throughout the process, the Forest Service held over 100 technical meetings and received over 15,000 public comments.

This local approach is what Congress intended when it established the national forests. Instead of resisting this localized process, H.R. 1011 tells the professional land managers and the public participants that the forest plan is not important. It says that no matter how much discussion and compromise goes on at the local level, or how good the science is, Congress knows best how to manage the national forest.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the best way to manage the Nation's public forests. And that's why I have worked with my colleague, Mr. Boucher, to try to rectify these concerns. Until this bill is more reflective of the local perspectives and expert opinions in the forest plan, I will continue to have concerns with H.R. 1011.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, however, because I do think that the gentleman has been very forthcoming in working with us and hearing our concerns. And I hope that that will continue as this process moves forward, and I would hope that the chairman of the Resources Committee would work with us as well to continue to address concerns that we have as the bill moves through the other body.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work on this legislation, for his willingness to work with me in addressing these concerns. I wish more had been addressed, but I thank him for where he has come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source