Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
March 2, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1334 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF ROBERT W. DUNCAN WILDLIFE DIVISION DIRECTOR
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT - USDA
FOREST SERVICE'S PROPOSED REGULATIONS GOVERNING NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING
BODY:
Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
U.S. Forest Service Proposed Rule to Guide Land and Resource Management Planning
for the National Forest System. I am Bob Duncan, Director of the Wildlife
Division for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. On February
3, 2000, state wildlife agencies submitted through the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies detailed comments on the proposed rule. The
International has clone an excellent job commenting on the proposed rule on
behalf of the member states. It is my purpose this afternoon to provide a state
wildlife agency perspective on the proposed rule.
The states of the
southeastern U.S. have a long history of cooperation with the Forest Service,
and in Virginia, our cooperative program has been in effect for more than sixty
years. Virginia and the other southeastern states have made significant
investments in these programs over the past 75 years, enhancing the value of
National Forests. Due to size, location and past habitat management, national
forests are critical public hunting lands in Virginia and other southern states.
In Virginia, there are nearly 300,000 licensed hunters, of which, 35% hunt on
national forests, either exclusively (13%) or in addition to hunting on private
lands (22%). Access to public hunting lands is critically important to the
people of Virginia, with 41% of Virginia hunters rating access to public hunting
lands fair (25%) or poor (16%). Twenty-three percent indicate that access to
public hunting lands has deteriorated during the past two years. Regarding
private lands, the access situation is worse with 66% of Virginia hunters rating
access fair (31%) or poor (35%). Fifty-three percent indicate that this loss of
hunting access on private lands is accelerating and this will result in a higher
demand for public hunting land.
Based on extensive surveys of
stakeholders, we have determined that keeping public lands accessible for
wildlife-related recreation is critical to meeting the future needs and desires
of Virginians, especially for older and disabled citizens. A recent survey
indicated that 34% of Virginia hunters want our Department to improve access to
public hunting areas.
Our agency has had a formal Cooperative Wildlife
Management program with George Washington/Jefferson National Forest and the West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources since 1938. This program is an
outstanding example of effective state and federal cooperation to manage public
lands for wildlife resources. Our early efforts to increase wildlife populations
involved restocking extirpated wildlife and direct habitat improvements. More
recently, we focused our efforts on production of wildlife habitat through
timber management. Appropriate timber harvests produce a variety and abundance
of habitats for wildlife more economically than is obtainable through other
direct habitat improvements.
An equitable distribution and diversity of
habitats on national forests is an important consideration for Virginians.
Eighty-six per cent of surveyed Virginia hunters indicated that they derive the
highest satisfaction from squirrel hunting (a mature forest species) while 53%
expressed the highest dissatisfaction with pursuit of ruffed grouse (an early
successional habitat species). These results imply that Virginia hunters are
dissatisfied with the amount of young forest stands on National Forest lands.
Unfortunately, implementation of the National Forest Management Act has
resulted in a reduction of habitat diversity in our Southern Appalachian
forests. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests have consistently
failed to meet their modest timber harvest targets defined in their existing
land management plans. Given the current condition of timber stands on these
forests, habitat diversity will continue to decline unless timber harvests
occur.
There are several trends related to forest planning that have
resulted in reduced active forest management on Southern Appalachian National
Forests. Among these are organized efforts to drastically reduce timber harvests
on national forests. Forest planners have limited timber sales in an effort to
compromise, resulting in a reduction in habitat diversity.
While forest
plans do designate limited areas suitable for timber harvest, administrative
appeals and legal challenges often based on biodiversity concerns prevent the
Forest Service from selling timber. We support the management of our national
forests to conserve biodiversity and have done so for decades. However, we do
not support any change in the existing biodiversity standards for National
Forest management.
Another concern is the public participation process
in forest planning. The Forest Service tends to gather public opinion using a
public meeting model that permits undue influence by special interests. We are
concerned that preservation-oriented organizations with the time and means to
attend all Forest Plan meetings dominate the public input process. We would
favor any effort on the part of the Forest Service to adopt a public input model
that more fully addresses the values of all forest users.
Another
disturbing trend is the increase in allocation of National Forest to
"roadless" areas. Much of the Southern Appalachian National
Forests are served by a road system that facilitates public access and
administrative needs. Our concern is that the planning process may designate too
many roadless areas, eliminating access for wildlife habitat
management. Elimination of access will adversely impact populations of wildlife
that depend on early successional forests.
In Virginia, 58,200 acres of
the Jefferson National forest are now designated wilderness or wilderness study
area. However other areas like the Appalachian Trail corridor, old growth
stands, and backcountry recreation areas function as de facto wilderness. Under
the proposed plan, the Forest Service would reduce the suitable timber base on
the 720,000-acre Jefferson National Forest from 339,600 acres to 216,850 acres.
This reduction in manageable habitat is a direct threat to our ability to manage
wildlife on Virginia's National Forests.
State agency biologists have
for years routinely provided input into the development of forest plans. Our
desire is that the management alternatives selected for each forest will allow
active fish and wildlife management programs and adequate access for hunters,
anglers, birdwatchers, hikers, campers and other outdoor recreationists. We
recognize the need for recreation that is dependent on the attributes of wild
places. We encourage forest plans that will provide a balance of habitat types,
along with a variety of recreational experiences.
The U.S. Forest
Service can manage Southern Appalachian national forests most effectively
through the sale of timber products in a way that conserves and enhances all
resources. Forest management practices that benefit wildlife, both game and
nongame species, must not be prohibited over large portions of our national
forests. We seek a comprehensive approach to active wildlife management on the
Southern Appalachian national forests.
We are concerned that the
proposed rule jeopardizes the ability of state wildlife agencies to conduct
wildlife management activities on the national forests. The role and
jurisdiction of state wildlife agencies in these matters has been clearly
addressed in a number of federal statutes. In light of these concerns and the
many others articulated by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, in comments to the Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck, on February 3,
2000, we respectfully recommend that the proposed rule be withdrawn. A new draft
rule should have a firm grounding in the appropriate statutes and more fully
embrace the interests of all citizens.
Thank you for the opportunity to
share our concerns.
END
LOAD-DATE:
March 8, 2000 
