planning process for California's public lands. After numerous public meetings and literally tens of thousands of individual comments, a plan was produced at a cost of nearly 8 million dollars to American citizens. The final result was a compromise plan which focused on all facets of desert use, and seemed to be acceptable to all parties concerned. I am not sure the principles of the desert plan deserve to be ignored and discarded. I will be very interested to know why the land uses designated by S. 11 are superior to those outlined in the Desert plan. Mr. Chairman, I will have a number of questions to submit to various witnesses today regarding my concerns and I would hope both the questions and answers will be reflected in the record. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today and to working with Senator Cranston and you, Mr. Chairman, on this legislation. STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Concerning S. 11, "The California Desert Protection Act of 1989" October 2, 1989 MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Thank you for the opportunity for the Department of Agriculture to provide a statement regarding S. 11, a bill "To provide for the protection of the public lands in the California desert." The Department of Agriculture recommends that S. 11 not be enacted. We defer to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense regarding the portions of the bill affecting those Departments. Only Title I of S. 11 would affect this Department. Title I would designate 78 areas as new components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Seventy-five of these areas would be administered solely by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and three would be administered by both the BLM and the Forest Service. Also, Title I would designate three areas administered by the BLM as additions to existing National Forest System wilderness areas. These additions will continue to be administered by BLM. 2 California has tremendous ecological diversity. Much of this diversity is represented on public lands, including over 20 million acres of National Forest System lands. Public lands, whether local, State, or Federal, are frequently the subject of debate about how they can best be managed and used. Such is the case with the Federal lands in the southern California desert region. The desert is a unique resource. Numerous species of plants and animals inhabit the desert. It has an undetermined value in minerals, gas, and oil. It provides a diversity of recreation opportunities for millions of people each year, including those seeking solitude and those who recreate with motorcycles and four-wheel-drive vehicles. As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service has examined a wide range of land use alternatives for the National Forest System lands S. 11 would designate. Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) for the three National Forests that would be affected by S. 11--the Inyo, San Bernardino, and Sequoia--are now complete. The planning process involved inventorying and analyzing the resources as well as listening to and analyzing the views of the public. Our recommendations regarding S. 11 are based on the Forest Plans, and we believe they reflect a reasonable and workable balance of uses. The following recommendations apply only to National Forest System lands. The 205,060-acre Inyo Mountain Wilderness would include 67,500 acres administered by the Inyo National Forest. The forest planning process involved a citizen "wilderness work group," with members reflecting various viewpoints, 3 to develop a "citizen's consensus" regarding wilderness. The citizen's consensus was incorporated into the Forest Plan, which recommends that 47,534 acres be designated as wilderness. Excluded from the recommended wilderness are areas with roads and mining claims, and a proposed Research Natural Area, all of which would be included in the wilderness S. 11 would designate. We do not support wilderness designations that are inconsistent with the recommendations contained in the Forest Plan. The 33,800-acre Bighorn Mountain Wilderness would include 11,000 acres administered by the San Bernardino National Forest. The Forest and the California Department of Fish and Game have a formal agreement to install manmade water developments for wildlife. These facilities would not be compatible with wilderness designation. The area has moderate potential for development of minerals such as limestone, gold, tungsten, zinc and lead. Over 70 claims have been filed, and some mining has taken place. Because of these factors, the Forest Plan management prescription for this area is "Custodial," which provides for only limited motorized vehicle access while allowing the water developments for wildlife. We do not support wilderness designation for the Bighorn Mountain area. The 88,280-acre Kiavah Wilderness would include 48,000 acres administered by the Sequoia National Forest. Recreation use of the area is very low, due to its aridity. An existing Forest Service road, suitable only for four-wheel drive vehicles, provides access. About 90 percent of all use in the area originates from this road. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail bisects the area. The Forest Plan allocates the area to wildlife and dispersed recreation, with an emphasis on wildlife habitat improvement to increase the quality of 4 recreational experiences. We do not support wilderness designation as it would necessitate closing the road from which nearly all the traditional recreation use originates. The three BLM areas that would be added to existing Forest Service wilderness areas --Dome Land, San Gorgonio, and Santa Rosa--would not significantly affect management of the existing wilderness. This is not to say that these areas should be designated--we defer to the Department of the Interior on the merits of designation. In summary, we believe that Congress should strongly consider the recommendations documented in the Forest Plans. These plans are the result of several years of analysis and public consultation about how to best manage these lands. We also recommend that Congress not act on the wilderness additions proposed in S. 11 until it receives the Secretary of the Interior's final recommendations for wilderness designations within the California Desert Conservation Area. We would be happy to provide any additional information you may desire. |