U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

43–700 CC WASHINGTON : 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

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

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

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-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

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

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-BARCELO ́ , 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
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held Tuesday, June 17, 1997 ................................................................... 1

Statements of witnesses:

Jarvis, Destry T., Assistant Director for External Affairs, National Park

Service ............................................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39

Kirby, Peter C., Southeast Regional Director, The Wilderness Society ....... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

McDougle, Janice, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.

Department of Agriculture ........................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

Additional material supplied:

Text of H.R. 1567 .............................................................................................. 18

The Atlanta Journal, October 2, 1994, ‘‘Saving forests in the meantime’’ .. 47
(1)

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.

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 shar-
2

ing 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.

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 Statelevel 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.

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
3

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 wellthought-out testimony.

[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 geographi-
4

cally 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.

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.

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.
5

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.

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
6

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.

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——

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
7

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.

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.

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.
8

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.

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.
9

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.

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?

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
10

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.

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.
11

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.

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
12

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.

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.

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
13

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.

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.

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
14

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.

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
15

hope that as you proceed with—with any decisions on specific areas

that—that you will work with the agencies on this.

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.

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.
16

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——

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.

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
17

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?

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.]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47