SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
43–700 CC
1997
HEARING ON H.R. 1567, THE EASTERN WILDERNESS ACT
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–35
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
DAN SMITH AND TOD HULL, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hearing held Tuesday, June 17, 1997
Statements of witnesses:
Jarvis, Destry T., Assistant Director for External Affairs, National Park Service
Prepared statement of
Kirby, Peter C., Southeast Regional Director, The Wilderness Society
Prepared statement of
McDougle, Janice, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Text of H.R. 1567
The Atlanta Journal, October 2, 1994, ''Saving forests in the meantime''
H.R. 1567, THE EASTERN WILDERNESS ACT
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Radanovich, questions of the panel?
Thank you. You are welcome to join us on the dais if you are so inclined.
Our next panel will be Destry T. Jarvis, Assistant Director of External Affairs, National Park Service; Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Peter C. Kirby, Southeast Regional Director of The Wilderness Society.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We appreciate the three of you being with us today. And I guess, can everyone hold your testimony within 5 minutes?
Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate that. You know the rules, same as a traffic light.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kirby, we appreciate you taking the time and effort to be with us. That is kind of you to do that. We will start with you, sir, if you are ready.
STATEMENT OF PETER C. KIRBY, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. KIRBY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I commend you, first of all, for letting citizen witnesses go first before Federal agencies. That——
Mr. HANSEN. I want them to listen to what you have to say.
Mr. KIRBY. That is a pleasant change.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Peter Kirby, the Southeast field representative for The Wilderness Society based in Atlanta. Founded near the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 1935, The Wilderness Society has long worked to safeguard scarce opportunities for wilderness in the populous eastern United States.
The Wilderness Society also maintains a Boston office where we focus on the conservation of the wildlands of the Northern Forest. The regional director in the Northeast is Bob Perschel, who is also here in the room today.
Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out earlier, only a tiny fraction of all designated wilderness is located in the East. Of the 104 million acres of the National Wilderness Preservation System, less than 5 percent lies east of the Mississippi River. As you also pointed out, given that the population of the East is over four times higher than the West, this works out to over 80 percent of the population sharing less than 5 percent of the wilderness. This makes the eastern wilderness experience limited and crowded, as you said a moment ago. Also, as you mentioned earlier, there are ecosystems in the eastern forests that are found nowhere else, and you counseled that they should be preserved.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my region only 1 percent of the famed Southern Appalachian mountain region is preserved as designated wilderness. Popular Southern Appalachian wildernesses in each of the region States are already heavily used, and increased population and interest in the outdoors will mean even more visitor pressure. This is also true in the Northeast, Midwest and Central Atlantic States. Hence we do need more eastern wilderness for all of these reasons: recreation, ecology, watershed protection.
For these reasons, The Wilderness Society supports section 4 of H.R. 1567 for a fresh study of eligible Federal lands in the East. There would be a number of benefits from this section. First, it would clarify the national park and refuge units established after 1964 be reviewed for wilderness. It also would help clarify that wilderness tracts as small as 500 acres are to be reviewed, and confirms that areas disturbed by human activity can qualify as wilderness through a natural reclamation. And finally it contains improved guidance that eligible areas should be managed to sustain their wilderness character while under review and after recommendation pending congressional action.
H.R. 1567 also calls for the Federal Government to inventory and study State-owned lands that are eligible for wilderness under the expanded definition. A number of States already have national—wilderness preservation programs quite similar to Federal criteria. According to the work Wilderness Management by Hendee, Stankey and Lucas, a total of nine States, including seven in the East, have wilderness systems comparable to the Federal one. New York, for example, has established almost 1.2 million acres within its Adirondack and Catskill preserves. Minnesota has over 100,000 acres of State wilderness.
According to Wilderness Management, the last survey of State-level activity in wilderness preservation was conducted in 1983. Mr. Chairman, we urge the committee to commission an updated survey undertaken jointly by Federal and State agencies. With input from the States, the study could also suggest an appropriate role. The most effective Federal role may be to offer planning assistance through these 2 agencies at Interior and USDA toward the goal of enabling all the States ultimately to have a system of wilderness preservation for State-owned lands comparable to the Federal one. We counsel that approach rather than the direct review of State lands by the Federal Government that is contained in this legislation.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, with regard to private lands in the East, H.R. 1567 provides for the Secretary of Interior or Agriculture to directly inventory and study for wilderness private lands in the East.
The Wilderness Society supports the goal of permanent protection through public acquisition for networks of wildernesses across the varied landscapes of the East. Given the limited amount of existing public land in the East, that will require over time that key tracts of private land be identified and conserved as wilderness through public acquisition. To make the country's actions toward this worthwhile goal as effective as possible, The Wilderness Society urges you and the other cosponsors to consider an approach that sets out more guidance on the priorities for land conservation, that fully engages the States and local governments in the identification and study of these private lands, and that recognizes a variety of conservation tools to accomplish these goals.
Specifically, we urge the subcommittee to examine a prototype that has been developed after years of study and extensive public involvement, namely H.R. 971, the Northern Forest Stewardship Act. A centerpiece of this bill and its Senate counterpart is its section 6 on land conservation. This contains a number of useful features that can be incorporated in a general bill about conservation of wilderness in the East. Most notably it authorizes a public planning process, with technical and financial assistance from Federal agencies for requesting States in order to identify and set priorities for the acquisition of exceptional and important lands. We urge the committee to consider these features from H.R. 971 in drafting a revised section for review and protection of private lands in the East.
Thank you again for your personal interest in the need for more wilderness in the East. And we support, as I said, the fresh review of Federal lands in the East and urge revisions to the sections on State and private lands.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your well-thought-out testimony.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The statement of Mr. Kirby may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Janice McDougle, we will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF JANICE McDOUGLE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture concerning H.R. 1567, a bill to provide for the study and designation of additional wilderness areas in the eastern United States.
The Department of Agriculture does not support enactment of H.R. 1567.
The Forest Service is extremely proud of its role in the outstanding success story the national eastern forests represent. Much of the land currently being considered for potential wilderness designation was once nothing but cutover forestland and worn-out farmland covered with brush and stumps. The lands nobody wanted have now become the lands everybody wants.
The Forest Service manages 50 national forests and approximately 25 million acres of National Forest System lands east of the 100th meridian. When compared to the western national forests, most eastern forests are small, and ownership patterns are fragmented.
The Forest Service manages 119 wilderness areas totaling nearly 2 million acres east of the 100th meridian as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Most units tend to be quite small. Only 37 areas are larger than 10,000 acres. Although geographically small, these areas loom large in their wilderness significance and due to their proximity to population centers of the East.
The Department's primary objection to H.R. 1567 is that existing authorities and processes adequately address this issue as far as the National Forest System lands are concerned. The review and recommendation of areas for wilderness designation is already provided for when land and resource management plans are prepared.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The direction to study all private lands east of the 100th meridian for possible wilderness characteristics is unprecedented and of such enormous scope that it would seriously hamper the ability of the Agency to manage lands currently under its jurisdiction.
Most fundamentally private lands are not subject to designation as wilderness. We deem it highly improbable that private landowners will allow the inspection of their property for wilderness characteristics.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of my statement. We will submit the full text to the committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. McDougle may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Jarvis.
STATEMENT OF DESTRY T. JARVIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here today.
Before I refer to my formal statement, I wanted to comment that I very much support your sentiments expressed as you began your opening statement about the need for opportunity for experiencing wilderness in the East. As a young Boy Scout in the 1960's, my first 20-mile hike was in what is now the James River Face Wilderness on the George Washington National Forest. As an adult scout master of my son's scout troop, our boys have enjoyed the wilderness of Shenandoah National Park here within several hours' drive of Washington many times, and I truly believe that that opportunity must be available, and, I would suggest, is available. And the process by which additional wilderness in the East can be made available by acts of Congress is also available.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am happy to express the views of the Department of Interior on H.R. 1567. The Department of the Interior opposes this legislation. It essentially sets up a redundant wilderness study and review process for lands in the East.
In the normal course of park system and refuge system planning, all areas under our respective jurisdictions have already been studied and are reviewed during the normal course of management planning for the management of these areas.
The provision in H.R. 1567 that would suggest study of areas smaller than 500 acres, I believe, is also redundant. The provision of the 1964 Wilderness Act that refers to acreage says that one of the criteria for such an area is that it has to be at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make it practicable—to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.
As you will see by reviewing the acts of previous Congresses to designate wilderness in the East, there are existing wilderness areas in the East as small as 1 acre. The first statutory wilderness area in the National Wildlife Refuge System enacted in Congress in 1968 is an eastern wilderness area in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. In fact, if you look over the list of wilderness areas in the East administered by all of the Federal land agencies, you will find there are 2 in Alabama, 12 in Arkansas, 17 in Florida, 14 in Georgia, 8 in Illinois, 2 in Kentucky, 3 in Louisiana, 1 in Massachusetts, 4 in Maine, 14 in Michigan, 3 in Minnesota, 8 in Missouri, 3 in Mississippi, 12 in North Carolina, 4 in New Hampshire, 2 in New Jersey, 1 in New York, 1 in Ohio, 2 in Pennsylvania, 7 in South Carolina, 11 in Tennessee, 16 in Virginia, 6 in Vermont, 7 in Wisconsin, and 5 in West Virginia.
There are, Mr. Chairman, areas that have been studied by both the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the East that have not as yet been acted on one way or the other by the Congress. If this committee is interested in pursuing the designation of additional wilderness in the East, I would suggest that that is the place to focus the committee's attention.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Forty-three of the 50 states in the United States have statutory wilderness areas, and we believe that the opportunity to designate additional areas in the East or the West is available to this committee and to the Congress under existing provisions of law. And in the case of the National Park System, there are 43 million acres in the National Park System that are designated wilderness, well more than half of the National Park System, 1.4 million acres of which are in units of the National Park System in the East.
In the case of the National Wildlife Refuge System, there are nearly 21 million acres of statutory wilderness, 38 areas of which are east of the 100th meridian.
I believe that will suffice for my testimony today, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.
[The statement of Ms. McDougle may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Of all four of our witnesses that we have there, I think it is very interesting that both the Park Service and the Forest Service have talked about the redundancy of the act. I think if you will go back and read the 1964 Wilderness Act, it calls for a reinventory every 10 years. So you do have the right to do that under the statute.
I also think it is interesting, when we talk about the areas already studied, as you know, if I may be parochial and talk about my own State of Utah, under BLM we spent 15 years and $10 million studying the BLM wilderness. That is a lot of money and a lot of time. Yet, Secretary Babbitt, your boss, Mr. Jarvis, came in last year and said it wasn't done right, and he was supposed to do it all over again.
Mr. JARVIS. Well, in the course of doing general management plans for units of the National Park System, which we, by policy, although not always timely in terms of adequacy of funding, do review areas every 10 years. Sometimes it slips to every 15 or 20 years in the course of doing management plans, and in each case a wilderness review is undertaken. Now, in some areas, obviously small historic sites and such would not have any acreage that qualifies. Other areas are reviewed, and periodically our recommendations change. As new areas are added, developments occur and render a site unqualified, or facilities are removed and render a site available for study.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. I am just pointing out the inconsistency, no disrespect to anybody, but of your argument and with what your boss is doing. He comes into our area and says it is going to be reinventoried. The State of Utah sued Mr. Babbitt, and they won in district court when Judge Benson said he couldn't do that. So basically we go back to the bill.
You also mentioned all of those areas you have, I am sure you have seen that, showing what you all had. Those that you mentioned are minuscule; in fact, east of the 100th meridian, 4,463,077 acres. West it is 98,348,245.
Now, as a past scout master I am sure you can take some kids into some very nice areas. The people in the West have the opportunity of going to the most gorgeous areas in the world within minutes, relatively speaking. In the High Uintas, the biggest piece of wilderness in the lower 48 prior to the California Desert Protection Act, where they can go up to Kings Peak, they have got a huge area, 500,000 acres, that they can go in. Where do you find anything like that west of the Mississippi—east of the Mississippi? I mean, you have got little teeny pockets of it.
You also talked about the idea, both you and Janice McDougle, about the size of 5,000 acres. I don't know how you can say that because half of those—more than half of those you are looking at in the East are under that size restriction, just little teeny pockets of it. That is why we think this bill is important, because it reduces that from 5,000 acres to 500.
Then let's get real around here and also talk about what about the bills that are being proposed? If I again may use the State of Utah or California or Idaho or Montana or Wyoming or Colorado, all of the bills proposed, there are pieces, dozens of pieces, less than 5,000 acres. In fact, in H.R. 1500, which we are having a hearing on on June 24th, there is a piece as small as 47 acres. So maybe we can say these things, but let's be honest about it. That really doesn't occur. Actually, whatever Member of Congress wants to put one in, if he wants to put in a square block, and he can get it through both houses and the President signs it, that becomes a wilderness area. If you can throw a baseball across it, it becomes a wilderness area, so I——
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. HANSEN. Surely.
Mr. JARVIS. The provision of the Wilderness Act of 1964 that I quoted, I intended to imply we do, in fact, intend to study, and Congress has, in fact, designated areas much smaller than 5,000 acres, but the criteria is that they be of sufficient size to make its preservation as wilderness and its use in providing wilderness experience possible. In Fire Island National Seashore, there are about 1500 acres of wilderness in the so-called 8-mile natural zone, which I have hiked. And in view of the Manhattan skyline, one can, in fact, have a wilderness experience. In that hike I pulled more than 100 ticks off me after that hike. And I can say that even with the Manhattan skyline in view down behind the Holly Forest, behind the dunes and so forth, you can have an experience of solitude that close to millions of people.
I would not suggest by any means that these areas of small size should not be studied, and often are studied, found qualified, recommended and designated by Congress as a——
Mr. HANSEN. I am glad to see you come to our way of thinking, Mr. Jarvis. I appreciate it, and I agree with that. Excuse me. Go ahead.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Mr. Hansen, we also have criteria for areas smaller than 5,000 acres.
Mr. HANSEN. Dozens of them, I may point out.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. And all through the West.
Mr. Kirby, a comment?
Mr. KIRBY. Can I followup, Mr. Chairman, on your observation about the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Surely.
Mr. KIRBY. Because there is a feature of that bill which would be very helpful to add to the legislation affecting the national forests. There is no protection for areas on national forestland in the East even after they have been identified as roadless and are being studied for wilderness.
In the BLM Organic Act, there is such interim protection for areas while they are being studied for wilderness. This is necessary in order to give some integrity for the study process, not only for the public that is participating, but also for Congress while you are looking at these recommendations for or against.
So that is one feature of the law dealing with national forests that would be very worthwhile, to have some interim protection required by legislation for areas while they are being studied for wilderness until Congress has had a chance to review them.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. It is a good observation.
I normally don't come on first, but I have another meeting, so that is why I am going first. I hope I have your permission, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Let me just add one other thing. Two of you have talked about the idea of State and private land. Let me remind you and refresh you that, Mr. Jarvis, your organization that you worked for, I have spent 17 years trying to get inholdings out of areas where parks have been put that have got private land, where right over the top of private ground we now have a national park. So that is kind of a two-way street here.
Let me also point out that State land—take, for example, your President—our President, excuse me, who stood safely in Arizona last September 18th, never having been on the ground before, and put 1.17 million acres in a national monument, which, in the opinion of me and most Members of this committee, took away most of the protection it had; 200,000 acres of that, State ground, plus hundreds of acres of private ground.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So to say that, oh, gee, this is private and public ground, we can't do anything with it, you do it all the time. It is done constantly.
Furthermore, I may point out, he waived NEPA, FLPMA and the Wilderness Act and gave—took away all the protection that was there before for a monument, which did have three beautiful pieces of WSAs in it, that should be preserved, should be put in wilderness, which will probably now have four-wheelers booming all over it, and it will be a tragedy, and there will probably be airports and hotels and all of those things, because of the misunderstanding of this administration of the laws of the land.
With that said, I will turn to my good friend Mr. Faleomavaega, who whispered to me that maybe all of the Federal lands should be turned to the States. Interesting idea you have come up with.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, though, what I was suggesting, because of the fact that so many of the western States and the Federal lands are—a great percentage of the State is owned by the Federal Government, basically, in my reference to the public lands, like the States of Utah, Nevada, Colorado, why don't we condemn the State owned lands on the eastern border and make them Federal lands and see how the eastern States feel about it?
Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. It is all right with me. If you introduce your bill, it will probably have some great administration in it.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yeah, right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Kirby, is it your feeling that, despite the fact that there is current law in the statutes to provide studies for wilderness and all of that in the eastern States, that the Federal Government is not doing enough; is that basically your position?
Mr. KIRBY. My position is that there are some useful clarifications that could and should be made with regard to the Federal studies. As I mentioned a moment ago with regard to national forests, there is an urgent need to have some interim protection for the areas while they are being studied. In my region of the Southern Appalachians, 1 percent of the region is designated wilderness, and yet the Forest Service is doing timber sales and building roads into the few scarce areas that are being studied for additions to that as we speak.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, there is no clear requirement that national parks and refuges added after 1964 should be reviewed for wilderness, so that would be a useful requirement. So those are two examples, sir.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to ask our two agency friends from the USDA as well as the Department of Interior and Park Service, have your agencies literally studied the suitability of designating Federal lands as wilderness in the eastern United States since the enactment of legislation in 1964? Have there been studies made, in fact?
Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I intended to convey to the committee that the Park Service, I believe, and the Fish and Wildlife Service routinely study areas for potential designation as wilderness in the course of management planning for parks and refuges.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many of those studies?
Mr. JARVIS. In the case of national parks, Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter had formerly recommended wilderness designation in units of the park system in 17 areas over the years that have not been acted on one way or the other by the Congress.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ms. McDougle.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. With the Forest Service what we have done, and this is rather timely, most of our forest plans in the East are either scheduled or in some stage of revision. An inventory of roadless areas was already done, has already been done, for the Southern—under the Southern Appalachian assessment. No recommendations were made. The information was provided. And as these forest plans are being revised, land suitable for wilderness will be crafted as part of that document.
So I guess what I am saying is because so many of the plans are now under revision, this is our opportunity to take a look at that and at the local level and at the forest level and decide what should come forward.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am a little confused here. Maybe you could clarify it. As we passed an Eastern Wilderness Act since 1975, this is 22 years now, would you say that these studies that were made—as authorized by law in 1975 have been comprehensive enough to satisfy my good friend from Utah and good Members of this committee, or do you think—I guess the impression—the reason for the proposal of the 1567 is that the agencies responsible for this just have not been doing their job.
Mr. JARVIS. Well, I—sir, I would certainly disagree with that. I think we have done our job. I think we have studied these areas. It is a routine core of management planning. We have made—we have recommended those areas found to be qualified for wilderness, and while there are a few recently designated units of the National Park System that have not to date had wilderness studies, they will have in the course of their management planning, and, if found to be qualified, so recommended.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Go ahead. I am sorry, Ms. McDougle.
Mr. JARVIS. That is all. I was just going to say it then becomes a subject of the possibility of action by the Congress as to whether to designate wilderness or not. In the case of, I believe, all of our agencies, once an area has been recommended, it is managed as if it were wilderness until such time as Congress acts, so that once studied and recommended, the management practices of any of our agencies would not compromise its potential for designation as wilderness by a later Congress.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Jarvis, can you submit for the record exactly the number of studies that your Department or Agency have taken since the enactment of this law in 1975?
Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And then where are we exactly by way of status of each of those studies?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JARVIS. Indeed.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Could you please provide it, if that is all right with the Chairman?
Mr. JARVIS. Sure.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Or do we already have that by record?
Mr. KIRBY. Could I recommend an addition to that question, which is to ask the National Park Service what units have not been studied in the East for wilderness?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, sure.
Mr. KIRBY. Because I believe there are some units where we think there are eligible lands that have not been studied, like the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, to name two in my region.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Jarvis, can you help us with that?
Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. I'll be happy to provide that information.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ms. McDougle.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. The only thing I was going to say was that I think instead of viewing us as not having done our jobs, I think what we have done is institutionalized the need to do that in existing processes.
Our forest plans are revived every 10 to 15 years, and as I mentioned earlier, most of the national forests in the East are either scheduled for revision in the next year or two or already under revision. And in completing that process, this is 1 piece of the information that is—that is crafted as part of a forest plan, but we can provide you what actions we have taken as well as a schedule of those forest plans and where they are in revision and what areas are being looked at that have been inventoried in the Southern assessment.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ms. McDougle, let me—I am trying to get the gist of your statement, Ms. McDougle. You say that usually it will take about 10 to 15 years for a policy change——
Ms. MCDOUGLE. No, no, no.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing] or to do a study.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. We are required to revise our forest plans no later than 10 to 15 years.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But it takes 10 to 15 years to do the change?
Ms. MCDOUGLE. No, it takes—it takes usually 3 to 5 because of all the process and the public input that we have to follow.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You mentioned something about 119 wilderness areas east of the——
Ms. MCDOUGLE. East of the meridian, 100th meridian, yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what does that mean? You—these are 19 wilderness areas that have been declared by USDA in the eastern United States.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. No, they have been declared by Congress.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You are just doing the studies for them.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. No, they are designated wilderness areas declared by Congress.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Kirby.
Mr. KIRBY. Let me add a point on this, on this very issue. We applaud the efforts of the Forest Service to recommend these areas for wilderness, and we have supported congressional efforts to designate them. As you just noted, there are a number of areas in the East. They tend to be very small. The national forest wilderness in the Southern region, for example, average less than 10,000 acres as opposed to the national average for wilderness, Mr. Hansen, of about 40,000 acres. So there is not only the need for more wilderness areas in the East and Southeast, for example, but also larger areas for reasons of recreation, like to have extended backpacks like you mentioned, but also for reasons of ecology to accommodate the needs of wildlife that have large ranging habitats, like black bear.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me also say that we do have to disagree with Ms. McDougle about the adequacy of the inventory of roadless areas in the Southern region. The Forest Service has left out many deserving areas for reasons that we think are invalid and reasons that, in fact, have been corrected by Congress. Areas are being left out in the Southern Appalachians, for example, because they are close to cities and towns.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think this is exactly the gist of what the gentleman from Utah in his proposed bill is trying to do. Where exactly are we falling into the cracks here, Ms. McDougle?
Mr. KIRBY. For the committee's benefit, sir, could I followup with a list of examples of these?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.
Mr. KIRBY. Because the Forest Service is actually acting in clear contravention of past congressional guidance not to qualify areas because of sites and sounds. For example, Mr. Hansen, the Lone Peak area wilderness right outside Salt Lake City would not have been designated if the Forest Service had used these criteria, but Congress stepped in and designated it as, you know, in the American Endangered Wilderness Act of 1978. So we would like to submit some examples for the record of this.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Could you please, Mr. Kirby, because I noticed here of the acres of wilderness by States, that New York has only 1,363 acres; Indiana, 12,953 acres; Utah 801,150 acres. Some of these populous States, Ohio has only 77 acres.
There is a disparity, no doubt, in the record here, and I just want to note that for the record, and I thank the Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. And I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you mentioned, I am from California where 50 percent of the State is owned by the Federal Government, and I do—I am hearing some numbers, and I hope somebody can clarify it for me. I guess in the original wilderness legislation, 5,000 acres or more was the—was the mark where—through the Chairman's bill proposing to bring it down to 500. Yet I am hearing there is a wilderness area somewhere in the East that was included the size of 1 acre. Mr. Jarvis, can you clarify what gave you the authority to do the 1 acre? And does that recommend that, perhaps, we should lower the 500 minimum down to perhaps 1 acre, if that is what you are doing already?
Mr. JARVIS. Well, the provision of the 1964 Wilderness Act that I quoted earlier provides the authority to study the Federal lands of any size essentially for possible designation by Congress as wilderness. It says an area that has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size as to make it—as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.
So in the case of these smaller areas, they tend to be islands so that, surrounded by water, the water not being designated by wilderness nevertheless buffers the land and creates the opportunity for a wilderness experience and for it to be managed as wilderness. There are many areas in the East smaller than 5,000 acres that have been designated as wilderness by Congress and we would routinely study in the course of management planning and parks and refuges, areas of any size, to see if they are qualified. Oftentimes, even in Shenandoah National Park, which has 79,000 of its 193,000 acres would——
Mr. RADANOVICH. But that would include private land as well?
Mr. JARVIS. No, no. The Wilderness Act specifically precludes the designation of private land or any non-Federal land as wilderness, and we don't study those lands. Now, often the Federal land, as the Chairman pointed out, is checker-boarded or mixed ownerships of Federal, State, or private land. When we do a wilderness study, we are not studying the State land or the private land, and we are not recommending that it be designated as wilderness.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, excuse me.
Mr. JARVIS. When wilderness is designated, though——
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.
Mr. JARVIS. [continuing] it sometimes affects the private or State lands in terms of access, although access to those lands is guaranteed.
Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Mr. Jarvis, thanks. OK. Thanks. Thanks.
Since the Wilderness Act was enacted, 98 million acres have been brought into its designations west of the meridian, 4 million acres east of the meridian. Is that because of the disproportionate share of Federal land ownership between those two regions in the first place? And if so—I would appreciate an answer to that one.
Mr. JARVIS. Yes. I believe the answer is yes.
Mr. RADANOVICH. And also can you honestly tell me there is only 4 million acres of wilderness that would qualify—Mr. Jarvis I asked the first question. Mr. Kirby, I will have a question for you next. Is that the reason why? Is it mainly because of the disproportionate share of ownership, Federal hand ownership, between the East and the West?
Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. And that is true for the Forest Service as well.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Then can you give me a number that would say that all of the Federal lands east of the Mississippi were brought into wilderness—what would that—how would that number, the 4 million acres, 4.4 it looks like currently in wilderness, how would that number—what would it go up by? What would the total acreage——
Ms. MCDOUGLE. I can't answer that question. I am not sure I understand it.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, because it concerns me that, when we are out to protect the resources of this country and also to provide for human population the ability to enjoy wilderness, I would think that it should be the mission of the Forest Service and National Park Service to designate absolutely just as much land is available for a wilderness designation and certainly closer to the populations that can enjoy it. And that is why I—a real concern of the administration's objection to this bill to also study private and other lands as well.
But here is the bottom line. You were tasked in 1975 with designating wilderness across the United States. So far you have been able to designate 98 million acres in the West and only 4 million in the East. Mr. Kirby, my question is if we could study Federal and private land, State land, east of the 100th meridian for wilderness, how many acres do you think we can come up with?
Mr. KIRBY. Well, maybe we can take those in order if you would like. First of all, we would be happy to venture a guess about the additional Federal lands that could be added as wilderness——
Mr. RADANOVICH. Please.
Mr. KIRBY.—let's say in the next 5 years for this committee.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Please.
Mr. KIRBY. Would you like us to submit a list and some rough guess of what those might be?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Please. Yes, and some acreages as well. Sure.
Mr. KIRBY. Sure.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KIRBY. For example, there are substantial national forest lands that could contribute to this. There are some additional national park units that could be designated, for example. So that total would go up.
And then with regard to State lands, and also in response to your question, sir, there are some State wilderness systems that have substantial areas. Like in New York, which you referred to earlier, there is a State wilderness system that contains about 1.2 million acres in the Catskills and Adirondack reserves. Those are virtually comparable to Federal lands.
Mr. RADANOVICH. And they are not in wilderness already?
Mr. KIRBY. They are in State wilderness, sir.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Oh.
Mr. KIRBY. And what I am suggesting in my testimony is this committee set up some sort of a survey to see what sort of State wildernesses there are, because a number of the eastern States have these wilderness systems. Actually, the closest designated wilderness to where we are sitting right now is a State wilderness area in Maryland. It is even closer than Shenandoah National Park, which is the closest Federal area.
So that is a useful item of information for this committee to have, because those lands contribute to meeting the needs for wilderness that Mr. Hansen spoke about at the outset. And there could be a very valuable Federal law in assisting other States that might be interested in how they would set up State systems in States like Pennsylvania, for example, that have substantial State land; or New Jersey, for example, in the pine lands.
Mr. RADANOVICH. So——
Mr. KIRBY. We could come up with some kind of a rough total for how those lands might contribute to wilderness. We would urge, however, that they stay with the administration of the States.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. You mean State and Federal land, and not go to private; is that what you are saying?
Mr. KIRBY. In other words, State areas established by wilderness, let's say New York or Maryland, continue to be administered by the States. That is what we recommend. Given the fiscal constraints you all have, let's not have to spend money needlessly buying those under Federal——
Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, I think the objective of the act, though, is to provide wilderness designations for the enjoyment of people. And my concern is for children in New York City and all the children along the eastern seaboard who, you know, were poor and can't get to the West to enjoy all this land that has been put into wilderness designation. My concern is for those children. And I think if the Federal Government has a concern, it should be that as well.
And I think we ought to begin looking at some of those lands along there that are closer to urban populations, be it down to 1 acre, because it is closer, understanding that those lands in the East may never be at parity by acreage to those in the West, but the numbers should be just as disproportionate as the land is between the East and the West, therefore meaning that there should be thousands of wilderness areas in the East, be it 1 acre, 5 acres, 500 acres, I don't care, but that is where the population of the United States is more focused. And so therefore, in even small wildernesses, should be located closer to those population centers.
Mr. KIRBY. We fully agree. And what I am proposing is that a very cost-effective role for the government might be to work with the States to help them set up state wilderness perservation systems for lands that are already owned by States.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.
Mr. KIRBY. And as a first step toward that maybe the committee could just survey what is the existing status of State wilderness systems.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. Is the State wilderness land, is it, in your opinion, protected well? Do they do a good example or——
Mr. KIRBY. Well, in the work wilderness management, which I cited earlier, there was a survey done to see what State systems were essentially equivalent to Federal systems as they would be managed by these agencies here. And the book identified nine States, including seven in the East, that have programs comparable to the Federal one, such as Minnesota and New York.
Mr. RADANOVICH. So that, in your opinion, if the State set up a good wilderness protection program, then it may not—then they maybe should bail out of the wilderness program if there is one active in their State already, a Federal wilderness program——
Mr. KIRBY. What I am saying——
Mr. RADANOVICH. If that were to happen in the West, I guess that is my question.
Mr. KIRBY. No, what I am saying, sir, is that we should encourage other States to do likewise through technical and planning assistance. Many of them may wish to do so, but just have never focused on it. Some States in my region, like Alabama, are setting up State wilderness systems as we speak. There's legislation moving through their assembly to do so. I think that is all to the good.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, in my opinion, it is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And if New York is doing a good job managing wildernesses within their State system, then so should California be able to do the same.
Mr. KIRBY. And California does have a State wilderness system, as does Alaska, to mention two of the western States.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. I would like to make a statement. I would request and would hope that should you proceed in reviewing lists of additional proposed sites for wildernesses, that you work closely with the agencies especially, and I am thinking about the multiple use mandate and all of our publics that we serve, and so that I hope that as you proceed with—with any decisions on specific areas that—that you will work with the agencies on this.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Ms. McDougle, your own documents, Forest Service documents, acknowledge that most of the Forest Service lands were acquired from private ownership and that the lands east of the 100th meridian are quick to themselves from man's influence.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Uh-huh.
Mr. HANSEN. If this is the case, why does the Forest Service oppose looking at acquiring public lands to supplement our current wilderness areas in the East.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. I didn't say that the Forest Service was opposed to acquiring wilderness areas in the East. What I said was that we felt that the processes that we have are pretty rigorous, and that, as we look at other things, we do look at that. It is a bottom up process. But I never said I was opposed to acquiring wilderness areas in the East.
Mr. HANSEN. Not to get into a semantic game, ''acquiring,'' I would agree with your statement. How about studying the areas? If I read you right, you said you opposed studying those areas.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. I oppose any new, different studies. What I said was that what we do as part of our planning process, we take a look, we do inventory roadless areas, and we make some determinations as to the suitability of these roadless areas as potential recommendations for wilderness.
Mr. HANSEN. I understand——
Ms. MCDOUGLE. We have processes in place to do that.
Mr. HANSEN. I understand that the Forest Service is continually attempting to update its roadless area inventory; is that correct?
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes, we do it on a forest-by-forest basis.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. What is the status of those areas east of the 100th meridian?
Ms. MCDOUGLE. It varies by forest. Most of those forests are either scheduled or in the middle of plan revision, which includes a review of areas suitable for wilderness.
Mr. HANSEN. Could you tell this committee how many acres are pending for inclusion——
Ms. MCDOUGLE. I can.
Mr. HANSEN.—east of the 100th meridian? Would you mind getting us that information?
Ms. MCDOUGLE. I would be happy to.
Mr. HANSEN. What criteria are being used to conduct these reinventories in Forest Service land?
Ms. MCDOUGLE. We have considerable criteria, which I will be happy to provide to this committee.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, wouldn't it be a true statement to say that criteria spelled out in H.R. 1567, which reduces the acreage size to 500 acres and considers areas for natural reclamation, give the Agency more flexibility in these roadless inventories?
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes. We do consider smaller acreages, 5,000 acres and above—and below 5,000 acres. I don't think we are anymore specific than below 5,000 acres.
Mr. HANSEN. As Mr. Jarvis pointed out, which was correct, he said in the 1964 wilderness bill that acres are 5,000 acres, and then there is a caveat to that. They can be smaller——
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Right.
Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] predicated on different criteria.
Ms. MCDOUGLE. Right.
Mr. HANSEN. This is the one that is probably the most unfair interpretation, though, is that it is like beauty, the eye of the beholder. Anybody goes in, and it can be next to an oil well on one side and a uranium mine on the other, and somebody put it in. And a good example of that is in Millard County in Utah, where there are mines and all types of things.
We do not want to give the impression we are against wilderness, we just want to give the impression that it should be done correctly. There are a lot of small areas could come in that area, but I would hope that in fairness to this committee, that when you folks from the administration come up here, you can't come up here and argue strongly for the huge amounts in some of the western areas and overlook the idea that a lot of it is State, and a lot of it is private, and a lot of it has roads and then come in here and say, but we can't accept that criteria in the East. I mean, it has got to be kind of an equal deal, if I may say so.
I could take you back for year after year when the Park Service, the BLM, and the Forest Service has come up here and made big arguments for huge amounts, and especially Secretary Babbitt, who came before this committee and said, I will not even look at anything less than 5,000 acres of BLM in the State of Utah. And yet when we asked him where it was, he couldn't do it. And we asked him again where it was, and he couldn't do it. And a third time he came up, he couldn't do it again.
And so then, so he doesn't look foolish, he says, oh, well, we are reinventorying it. Well, come on. The first time around it is 5 million acres or nothing. But he didn't know where it was. But I think somebody had gotten to him and convinced him that way.
And so those things bother us just a little bit. If we are going to use the criteria for the West, that same criteria should be used for the East. If we are going to talk roads, and others, Mr. Hinchey, our good friend from New York, we put a piece of wilderness in called Sterling Forest last year, later became the law and a bill signed by the President. We put that in wilderness. We took it out again.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will till the day I die enjoy Mr. Hinchey's comments when he said, oh, this doesn't qualify as wilderness. Yet, his own bill qualified as wilderness with roads, with structures, with mines, with ditches, with cities, even cities in it. Even cities qualified as wilderness in a western State. So if we are going to play this criteria fair, let's go honest on both sides of it, if I may respectfully say so.
Mr. Kirby, I wanted to ask you and welcome any specific drafting changes that The Wilderness Society may be willing to provide on 1567. Please don't be hesitant. And I would give that same offer, if there is any interest, to the Park Service and the Forest Service who are with us, if they would like to perfect parts of it.
If they just have bound over and say no, regardless of what you put, it is no, no, no, hey, well, don't waste your time. But if you are willing to open your minds and say maybe there is something for this, then we would be more than happy to do it.
We don't make any claim of perfection. If anybody in Congress makes that claim, there is something wrong with them, because if we gave a gold metal to Queen Beatrice, somebody would argue about the language of how it was said. I mean, it doesn't happen that way.
Mr. Kirby, do you want to comment?
Mr. KIRBY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We just again want to reiterate the prototype that is available for this committee in H.R. 971, the Northern Forest Stewardship Act, to deal with this thorny question of private lands, because we do not support the review as it is currently provided for directly by the Federal Government of the private lands. We would like to engage the States and localities in the very careful way that is set out in that legislation, which, as you know, enjoys strong bipartisan support in the region.
Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate that. Keep us posted on whatever comments you may have.
Do either of my colleagues have further comments for this panel?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. Just one question.
Mr. HANSEN. Gentleman from California.
Mr. RADANOVICH. That would be that I be allowed to submit a couple questions for the record for the followup.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
The gentleman from—well, I want to thank the Park Service, Forest Service, Mr. Kirby for taking your time to be here. It is very kind of you. It has been very interesting. Too bad more Members of the committee weren't here. I am sure this would be a very lively discussion as we meet with you again. Thank you. We appreciate you all three being with us. This hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 13 AND 42 TO 58 HERE