September 19, 2000, Tuesday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 3760 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE AGRICULTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE: DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, NUTRITION AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY WILDLIFE DESIGNATION

TESTIMONY-BY: DAVID W. CARR JR. , ATTORNEY

AFFILIATION: SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

BODY: September 19, 2000 TESTIMONY OF DAVID W. CARR, JR. SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES H.R. 4646 - VIRGINIA WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Carr. I am an attorney from the Charlottesville, Virginia office of the Southern Environmental Law Center, a non-profit environmental advocacy group that works to protect the environment and public health in a six-state region that includes the Southern Appalachian national forests. We appreciate this opportunity to present oral and written testimony in support of the Virginia Wilderness Act of 2000 to designate and Three Ridges as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Background The Wilderness Act of 1964 launched a bold initiative to protect and preserve the remaining wild and relatively undisturbed places in our country. Specifically, the Act seeks to assure that increasing population "accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization" does not overrun all places and comers of our landscape. But finding, and protecting, areas that are "untrammeled by man" has become a challenge, particularly in the East where public lands are more scarce and land development is booming. More than half of existing congressionally-designated wilderness is found in Alaska and more than one-third is in the western-most states. Less than 5% of all existing wilderness acreage occurs in the East -- and almost half of that is either in the Everglades or the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota. As a result, the increasing populations of the Southeast and mid-Atlantic regions are sorely deprived of backcountry areas. Quite simply, our region has more people, more development pressure, and more recreation demand, but far less wilderness to go around than any other part of the country. In the first ten years following passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, only four of 95 new wilderness area were designated in the East. The bill before you today is the first wilderness bill in Virginia since 1988. On average, about 18% of national forest acreage is designated wilderness, whereas only 3% of the George Washington National Forest here in Virginia is protected as wilderness. Yet, the George Washington is the closest national forest to Richmond, Washington, D. C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia. Thus, the demand for backcountry recreation on this forest is high and will continue to increase. (A Forest Service report projects that by 2005 backcountry recreation demand in this region will increase 150% from 1990 levels. "Assessing Economic Tradeoffs in Forest Management," USDA Forest Service, August 1997.) In short, Virginia needs more protected wilderness to accommodate current and future backcountry recreation use. The Priest and Three Ridges We in Virginia are very fortunate to have two excellent national forest candidates for wilderness designation in Nelson County just south of the Wintergreen resort, less than an hour from both Charlottesville and Lynchburg. The Priest and Three Ridges are prominent features of the Blue Ridge landscape in western Nelson County. The runs through these two areas and the runs along the western boundary of the Three Ridges area. Together, the areas include approximately I 1,000 acres (see the attached pictures, map, and detailed descriptions of The Priest and Three Ridges). The U.S. Forest Service recommended these two areas for wilderness study in the 1993 revision of the management plan for the George Washington National Forest. Since that time, the areas have been managed as if they were already federally- designated wilderness. The areas are too rugged and inaccessible for timber production. No logging activity has occurred in these two areas over the past twenty years. Over 500 citizens signed a petition presented to Congressman Goode supporting the wilderness designations. Many of those supporters are from Nelson County. In addition, a wide array of conservation groups from central Virginia and around the state support the wilderness designations, including the Appalachian Trail Conference, Trout Unlimited, Virginia Wilderness Committee, The Nature Conservancy (Virginia Chapter), Wintergreen Nature Foundation, Rockbridge Area Conservation Council, Montebello Clean Mountain Coalition, Sierra Club (Virginia Chapter), The Wilderness Society, Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, and the Virginia Native Plant Society. On June 13, 2000, Congressman Virgil Goode introduced H.R. 4646 to designate The Priest and Three Ridges as wilderness. On July 13, Senators Warner and Robb introduced S. 2865 for the same purpose. (See sample press clip, attached.) Designating these two areas as protected wilderness will provide substantial economic benefits to Nelson County and its growing tourism industry. These areas provide the scenic backdrop for much of the county. They are also the source of clean water for citizens and a thriving trout fishery. A healthy population of black bear and numerous other wildlife species reside in these mountain forests. Passage of the bill is critical for providing long term protection for these assets that make Nelson County a special place to visit and live. As wilderness, these areas will also help accommodate growing recreation demand in Virginia and the surrounding region. They will remain open to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and other traditional recreation uses, thus providing quality opportunities for anglers, hunters, and hikers. Their protection will also ensure that future generations will enjoy the same benefits currently enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Motorized Vehicle and Equipment Use by Local Fire and Rescue Units The last section of H.R. 4646, Subsection I (b), seeks to provide blanket authority to local fire and rescue personnel to use motorized equipment and vehicles in the proposed wilderness areas. While we wholeheartedly support both the active role of local fire and rescue personnel in national forests and wilderness areas, and their use of motorized equipment and vehicles whenever necessary, we believe this paragraph of the bill is unnecessary. For the following reasons, we urge the Committee to remove this provision from the bill. Fortunately, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and its regulations provide for the use of motorized equipment and vehicles by local and state officers in the event of fire and emergency upon approval by the federal land manager, the U.S. Forest Service. The current cooperative arrangements between local and state fire and rescue personnel and the U.S. Forest Service for addressing fire and rescue issues in the national forests in Virginia are working well and there is no need to change those arrangements through this legislation. Subsection I (b) of H.R. 4646 is unnecessary because existing law, regulations, and policy already provide for the use of motorized equipment or vehicles in the event of fire or emergency in wilderness areas. Section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 provides that "such measures can be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable." Section 4(c) of the Act further provides that motorized equipment and mechanical transport, while prohibited for general purposes, can be used in the event of emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area. In addition, House Report 95-540 (p. 6) on the Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978 (PL 95-237, 1978) provides that in the event of fire, insects, or disease "anything necessary for the protection of public health or safety is clearly permissible" (emphasis added). The relevant provision further states: Fires, Insects and Disease. -- Section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act permits any measures necessary to control fire, insect outbreaks, and disease in wilderness areas. This includes the use of mechanized equipment, the building of fire roads, fire towers, fire breaks or fire pre-suppression facilities where necessary and other techniques for fire control. These provisions of the Wilderness Act are implemented through Forest Service regulations that provide for the agency to grant approval to state or local fire and rescue personnel for the use of motorized equipment or vehicles. Forest Service Manual, Section 2326.04(c). Forest Supervisors approve the use of motorized equipment or vehicles in the event of emergencies involving fire suppression, health and safety, law enforcement, removal of deceased persons, and aircraft accident investigation. The U.S. Forest Service routinely grants approval for the use of motorized equipment or vehicles in wilderness or wilderness study areas in response to requests by state or local personnel. Training and coordination among local, state, and Forest Service fire and rescue personnel have established clear lines for local officials to make requests and gain approval for the use of motorized equipment or vehicles. Approval can be granted by the Forest Service in well under an hour. See May 8, 2000 letter from Forest Supervisor William Damon to The Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr., attached. In a recent case involving The Priest Wilderness Study Area, which is already managed pursuant to wilderness guidelines, local fire and rescue personnel received approval to use motorized vehicles on a rescue mission within five minutes of the request. See the attached summary of "Search for Distressed Hiker" by Lieutenant Kim T. Cash, Montebello Fire and Rescue. On November 30, 1999, 1 attended a meeting with local fire officials from Nelson County, a representative of the Virginia Department of Forestry, and a representative of the U.S. Forest Service. These officials were in agreement that the current system was working well and that approval for the use of motorized vehicles or equipment has been and can continue to be granted in a timely manner by the U.S. Forest Service. Fire Chief Stanley Cash of the Montebello Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad, located near both The Priest and Three Ridges areas, has stated in his written testimony for this hearing that the extra language in the bill is unnecessary for fire and rescue operations in the area. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has taken the position that additional legislative language addressing the use of motorized equipment or vehicles is unnecessary. William Damon, Forest Supervisor of the George Washington National Forest, stated in his May 8, 2000 letter to Congressman Goode: Because of the existing protocols and avenues as well as the established successful history in working with local Volunteer Fire Departments and VDOF, we would not recommend specific legislative language addressing the role of volunteer fire departments that may be engaged in fire suppression activities using mechanized equipment in these designated wilderness study areas. We don't see a need for additional legislative language addressing this issue. However, we are committed to maintaining a strong working relationship with local Volunteer Fire Departments and VDOF to ensure that protection of life, adjacent private property and our natural resources remain the top priority. Fortunately, the Forest Service, local firefighters, and the Virginia Department of Forestry have a strong history of working together on fire suppression. They have documented their excellent working relationship in a "Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement" covering firefighting on national forests and private lands in Nelson County and other counties where national forest land is located. This agreement provides that local firefighters can initiate fire suppression on Forest Service land since they may often be the closest available responders. The Five-Year Operation Plan, a Supplement to the 1998 Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement, page 2, provides as follows: It is recognized that the Virginia Department of Forestry has suppression authority of wildfires on state and private lands within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including national forest system lands. It is also recognized that local fire departments have authority to respond to fire and other emergency incidents. As such each may initiate initial attack with the Forest Service under Unified Incident Command. The closest available resources will initiate suppression on any wildfire on reciprocally protected land regardless of land ownership. A description of reciprocal areas are included on the portion of this agreement found in Appendix A. Appendix A provides that all lands west of U.S. 29 in Nelson County, including USFS lands, are reciprocal protection areas. The Operation Plan also provides for an air tanker from the nearby Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport (Weyers Cave) and the use of helicopter dispatch. 1998 Operation Plan at page 5.Air tankers and helicopters can, of course, be used in wilderness areas for fire suppression. Finally, while Forest Service regulations provide for the use of bulldozers in firefighting efforts in wilderness areas, it is very unlikely that this would be necessary in The Priest and Three Ridges areas. As Forest Supervisor Bill Damon stated in his letter, "these recommended wilderness areas have steep and rugged terrain, most of which would be unsuited for dozer work. Consequently, we would anticipate few requests and in fact have never had such a request." May 8, 2000 letter to Congressman Goode'. In conclusion, we urge the Committee to remove the unnecessary fire language in H.R. 4646 to make the bill consistent with existing agency guidelines, provisions in the Wilderness Act of 1964, and S. 2865. We urge the Committee to support the bill as changed and move it to the floor of the House for final passage as soon as possible. September 19, 2000, Tuesday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 2107 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE AGRICULTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE: DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, NUTRITION AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY VIRGINIA WILDLIFE DESIGNATION

TESTIMONY-BY: EDWARD E. CLARK, JR. , PRESIDENT

AFFILIATION: WILDLIFE CENTER OF VA.

BODY: September 19, 2000 WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF EDWARD E. CLARK, JR. WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES H.R. 4646 - VIRGINIA WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Edward E. Clark, Jr. I am the President of the Wildlife Center of Virginia, located in Waynesboro, Virginia, in the heart of the Shenandoah Valley. The Wildlife Center is one of the world's leading teaching hospitals for wildlife medicine and is a leading environmental organization in the Mid- Atlantic region. People around the world know our work through our weekly television series, Wildlife Emergency that airs on the Animal Planet network. I am here today to support H.R. 4646, the Virginia Wilderness Act of 2000. As you know, this legislation would designate two areas of the Washington-Jefferson National Forest as wilderness areas. I must tell you that there is a great feeling of deja vu associated with my appearance this morning. It was more than twenty years ago that I first sat at a witness table and addressed a congressional sub-committee. The topic at that time was wilderness. In fact, it was the effort to identify roadless area candidates for the Wilderness Preservation System during the late 70's that led me to my life's work in conservation. I can think of few things more worthy of my energy and attention than the protection of the natural heritage of this magnificent country, including both our wild creatures and our wild places. H.R. 4646 takes another important step toward the creation of a truly natural legacy that this generation will leave behind for the future. Our nation's capital is full of the monuments to our heroes and leaders. The city itself is the embodiment of our institutions of democratic government. However, it serves us well to remember that it was not the works of man that first drew our forefathers to these shores. Nor was it grand buildings and wide avenues upon which this nation was built. It was the abundance of natural resources found on this once wild continent. Today, not much of that wildness is left, especially here in the East. The first Europeans got off the boat nearly 400 years ago. In the succeeding years we have chopped, plowed, dug, mined and paved our way across this great land. Little remains of what this place looked like four centuries ago. What does remain is every bit as precious and significant to who we are as a people, and what we are as a country, as the other important bits of our history contained in the Smithsonian Museums or glorified in the monuments found all over this city. The areas known as "The Priest" and "Three Ridges" are a part of our past that is far too valuable, not to be preserved for the future. As we set things aside today, for use and enjoyment in the future, we often fret over the unforeseen contingencies that might result if we commit to a long-term goal. This is true whether we invest our money in a long- term CD, or invest our public land in a long-term system of natural area protection like the Wilderness Preservation System. What if we need the money for sickness or emergency? What if we need the resources on the land? What if the laws change governing investment income? What if the protection of wilderness areas interferes with the management and protection of the adjoining land? While these fears and concerns may be real and heart-felt, they are not always well-founded in fact. H.R. 4646 contains one clause that grows out of such fears. It is the provision that deals with fire suppression. The sponsor of the bill, responding to the real fears of one of his constituents, inserted language authorizing local fire departments to attack wild fires on these protected public lands, essentially as they see fit. Unfortunately, while well-motivated and understandable, this clause actually takes us in the wrong direction and actually undermines the entire system by which we protect our most sacred wild lands. What's more, it is unnecessary. Fire suppression is thoroughly addressed in the system-wide regulations and policies that have protected wilderness areas since the act was passed in 1964. The Wilderness Preservation System works. I urge the committee to perfect this measure by amending H.R. 4646, deleting the unnecessary fire language, and bringing the legislation into conformity with the system-wide language used to designate and protect new wilderness areas. The whole point in the creation of The Wilderness Preservation System was to create just that, a system. Through this system, national interest lands are uniformly protected and managed. The system itself is carefully designed to respond to natural or man-made disasters. We have thirty-six years of experience that shows us that this system works. In Virginia, we have faced many threats to our wilderness areas since I have been involved and active in their protection. We have seen fire, flood, insect infestations, search and rescue missions, and even the impacts of acid rain on fragile streams and fish populations. All of these threats required human intervention, often on an emergency basis. In every case the system worked. An appropriate and measured response to each problem was implemented in timely manner, protecting the areas, the adjoining lands, and the integrity of the system. Since first becoming involved in wilderness designations in Virginia in the 1970's, I have heard just about every possible "what if' scenario posed as a reason why the Wilderness Preservation System won't work, as written, with a particular area. On numerous occasions, I have represented wilderness advocacy groups in negotiations with the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Park Service, and other forest user groups including hikers, bear hunters and ORV enthusiasts where contingency planning took place. In not a single case, was the Wilderness Act an obstacle to the protection or use of lands outside the wilderness boundaries, which is the fear behind this provision. In fact, the Act actually prohibits the creation of buffer area impacts. To begin second-guessing the system and start tinkering with time- proven language of the Wilderness Act, is to start pulling threads in the fabric of natural heritage we are trying to weave. The Act As it was written thirty-six years ago, and the Wilderness Preservation System, as it has successfully functioned to this day, were created out of collaboration and compromise. The success of the Act, and the overwhelming public support of wilderness designations, are evidence that we do not have a problem that needs the solution presented in H.R. 4646. I want to commend Congressman Goode for his introduction of H.R. 4646,1 and to thank him for his initiative on this measure. I also want to say that I respect his motivation for including the troublesome language in response to the concerns of a constituent. However, I also want to ask the sub-committee to bring the national perspective to this legislation and filter out the language that undermines the integrity of the entire system. It is unnecessary and, consequently, counterproductive. Once this language is removed, and H.R. 4646 is brought into harmony with its bi-partisan counterpart in the Senate, I hope the committee will move it to the floor will all possible speed. You will allow Virginia and the nation to mark the new millennium by adding two new jewels to the natural treasure chest we will present to the future. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to address the sub- committee in support of an amended H.R. 4646.