Senator BUMPERS. Thank you. Mr. Yeager. STATEMENT OF BROOKS B. YEAGER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY Mr. YEAGER. It is a pleasure to come before you on behalf of the National Audubon Society to strongly support the California Desert Protection Act, S. 11. I will try not to repeat what other witnesses have said today. We believe that the bill is a well-crafted and carefully balanced effort to do two things: one is to preserve a level of access that is appropriate for the California Desert in maintaining a sustainable level of public access to the desert, but the second is to protect what is really the integrity of the desert itself in the midst of what has been correctly described as an overwhelming and growing pressure of $15 million people to its west and various kinds of uses. It may not come as a surprise to the Committee that the Bureau of Land Management, which is an organization which is dedicated to the multiple use philosophy of public use management, has been unable to achieve a compromise that satisfactorily attains both of those goals. The Audubon Society participated, as did the Sierra Club and other conservation groups, in the beginning of the evolution of the California Desert plan. In fact, our California office prepared extensive comments at several points during the evolution of the plan, pointing consistently toward the need for significant expansions of the areas of critical environmental concern and of more careful attention to protecting the wildlife values that we believe are the central value of the California Desert. It may also not be a surprise to know that we did not believewe do not believe that the California Desert plan in its final form and in its implementation by the Bureau of Land Management has successfully done that. What we are confronted by is a problem that is not an easy one. It is not just a matter of protecting desert vistas or even of protecting park value lands, it is a matter of protecting the integrity of the desert itself, of the biotic diversity that defines the desert, of a system in which species such as the Desert Tortoise are not just isolated residual species but are indicators of the health of the biological system of the desert itself. It is a desert that is so unique that at Kew Botanical Gardens in London, I am told-I have never visited Kew Botanical Gardens, although I have visited the California Desert-one of the three leading world botanical research gardens has an entire exhibit, an entire division devoted especially to the botany of the Mojave Desert. This is not just a national treasure, it is an international treasure. It is the kind that sometimes takes very difficult choices to protect. Mr. Scott has defined in many ways the ways in which care has been taken in S. 11 to leave access open for use of the desert, but I would like to talk a little bit about why it is necessary to make some decisions about access and why it is necessary to close off some areas. It is clear that, as you look at the history of the desert plan and at the same time, we have been told by the BLM people who were here that we are close to the end of a ten-year process in which BLM is acting in a responsible way under its rights to achieve conservation in the desert-and I should say that the California Office of the Audubon Society has historically enjoyed a very close working relationship with the Bureau of Land Management, including in areas of the desert-but I think that looking at the fact that the key desert species are in dire trouble, and at the accumulated scientific evidence of the damage to the desert that is caused by offroad vehicle use, I think we have to conclude that there is a sense of urgency, that the biological system which is really what makes the desert something that people like to travel to, that people want to explore at their will, has to be protected, and in some cases that may mean restricting motorized access to those areas. I would like to note in that regard, I will not go over all the material about the Desert Tortoise, except to say that it is indicative of the health of the overall desert because it is what is called "density dependent population.' That is, tortoises do not do very well if they cannot find each other in terms of reproduction, and since they do not travel very fast, it is important that the basic level of population in a general area be high enough so that they can find each other. That is something that is hurt by a number of factors, but not least among them is motorized use of the desert, and I would note that in the Fish & Wildlife Service's emergency declaration with regard to the tortoise, they spend quite a long time on vehicle use, and they say among other things, vehicle free play in tortoise habitat results in cumulative adverse impact to the habitat. Concentrated vehicle play areas may eliminate all but the most hardy shrubs. Competitive off-highway vehicle racing events adversely impact the habitat. Camping at race start and finish areas receive intensive vehicle use and become devoid of vegetation. That tortoises are eliminated from these areas is entirely due to loss of food, cover and burrow sites. Affected areas become enlarged with continued use. The major point is, we are confronted with two sets of facts. We know the population of Desert Tortoises is in a cataclysmic decline, that their decline is serious enough to be treated as an emergency by the Fish & Wildlife Service. The Bureau of Land Management, which has done some of the best research on the Desert Tortoise of any of the agencies is in full knowledge of this, and yet they are still considering proposals for off-road vehicle races, two of them that would go right through critical Desert Tortoise habitat, both the Barstow to Vegas Race and the so-called-and this has a funny name, I am trying to recall it-the Dual Sport Poker Ride, which would traverse immediately through Desert Tortoise habitat. I do not think we can sit here and blame the Bureau of Land Management for holding to its traditional multiple-use philosophy, but in some cases the reasonable response to that may be to remove large areas to a more protective designation and to a more protective management. I would also like to note that having done that, which we believe Congress should do, that will not necessarily solve the entire problem, and that it will be necessary to provide funds for habitat management and for more intensive efforts to protect the integrity of the desert, and we hope that the Congress will, after enacting S. 11, look carefully at its implementation in that regard. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Yeager follows:] BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, HONORABLE DALE BUMPERS, CHAIRMAN OCTOBER 2, 1989 100% Recycled Paper Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National The National Audubon Society is one of America's oldest and largest The National Audubon Society strongly supports the California Desert We have participated at various levels in the historic effort to protect the California Desert and its wildlife balance. During the evolution of the original California Desert Plan, we prepared extensive comments that argued for improvements in the wildlife management programs envisaged in the plan, and significant expansions of the areas identified as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). More recently, Mr. Robert Barnes, of the Tulare County Audubon Society, testified in favor of Senator Cranston's S.7 in July of 1987. Mr. Barnes focussed his testimony on the wildlife values of the Kern River watershed, and the need to preserve the desert's extraordinary reservoir |