CAUFORNIA DESERT LANDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS ~1) PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 518 

TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE CALIFORNIA DESERT AS WILDERNESS, TO ESTABLISH THE DEATH VALLEY AND JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARKS AND THE MOJAVE NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 880 

TO WITHDRAW CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

72-354 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

JUNE 15, 1993 

Serial No. 103-31 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041525-X 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Mauachusetta 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mezico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, 

American Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, C~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW lll, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaaka, 

Rtmleing Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, Ciillfornia 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkanaaa 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, &publican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chainna.n 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Mauachuaetta JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Rtmleing &publican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii , JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Rico KEN CALVERT, California 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona JAY DICKEY, Arkanaaa 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennaylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mezico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

CHARLES (STAN) SLOSS, Counsel 

ToNYA Mm::HEM, Staff Aesilttmt 

KURT ClilusTENSEN, :Republican Co118Ultallt on Public Lands 

<m 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: June 15, 1993 .................................................................................. . Text of the bills: 

1. H.R. 518 ....................................................................................................... . 2. H.R. 880 ....................................................................................................... . Member statements: 

Hon. Bruce Vento ............................................................................................ . Hon. George Miller ......................................................................................... .. Hon. James V. Hansen .................................................................................... . Hon. Larry LaRocco ......................................................................................... . Hon. Richard H. Lehman ................................................................................ . Hon. Alfred McCandless ................................................................................. . Hon. Jerry Lewis ............................................................................................. . Witness statements: 

Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of the Interior .... . 1. Prepared statement on H.R. 518 ........................................................ . 2. Prepared statement on H.R. 880 ........................................................ . Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), U.S. Department of Defense ................................... .. Panel consisting of: 

Debbie Sease, legislative director, Sierra Club, Washington, DC, on behalf of the California Desert Protection League ............................. . Gerald E. Hillier, California Desert Coalition ....................................... . Hon. &.ndy "Duke" Cunningham, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California ................................................................................. . Hon. Alfred McCandless, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California .................................................................................................. . Hon. Duncan Hunter, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ..................................................................................................... .. Hon. Bill Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................................................................................................. . Hon. Jerry Lewis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................................................................................................ .. Panel consisting of: 

Bill Horn, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, on behalf of 

the sportsman coalition ........................................................................ . Elden Hughes, director, Desert Protective Council .............................. .. David J. Simon, natural resources program manager, National Parks 

and Conservation Association .............................................................. . A. Aaron Medlock, Esq., director of legal and legislative affairs, the 

Fund of Animals ................................................................................... . Panel consisting of: 

Rob Blai~J California Cattlemen's Association ...................................... .. Kurt Hatnaway, American Motorcyclist Association ............................ .. Jam~s. Reddy, ~re~ident, Pleuss-Staufer, on behalf of the California 

M1mng AsSOClation ............................................................................... . Norbert Riedy, senior policy analyst, California region, the Wilder- ness Society .......................................................................................... .. William C. Matheson, vice president, sales and land management, 

Catellus Development Corp ................................................................ .. Additional material submitted by Members and witnesses: 

Hon. Richard H. Lehman: 

1. Economic Profile of the Joshua Tree National Monument ............... . 2. Economic Profile of the Death Valley National Monument .............. . 

(Ill) 

Pace 

1 

2 

72 

1 

103 

105 

110 

114 

141 

147 

94 

96 

100 

152 

170 

175 

206 

210 

213 

234 

242 

262 

271 

275 

288 

310 

321 

827 

334 

895 

119 

128 
IV 

Additional material submitted by Members and witnesses-Continued 

Hon. Alfred A. McCandless: 

1. National Outdoor Coalition: California Desert Plan-A Plan for 

Multiple-Use ......................................................................................... .. 2. Sierra Club Plan: Non-Multiple-Use of Our Public Lands ............... . Hon. Duncan Hunter: 

1. East Mesa and West Mesa Gunnery Ranges' proposed solution 

regarding withdrawal of 3151164 acres .............................................. .. 2. COrrespondence from Impenal County Fish and Game Commission 

to Representative Hunter regarding impact of H.R. 518 on wildlife 

Hon. -wfn~tiM:~~o:~rgos:rea:e~d~~~~·t;;·Fi~-;;:·oi~~·F;;~t;i;;.·&;;~ Representative Thomas r~arding effects of H.R. 518 and response ....... Hon. Jerry Lewis: Chart listing estimated land acquisition costs of desert 

Bifi~~~n&~Iati!~e;,:;;; .. &;;;··ih~ .. n~j;~~~;;,t·~r·Fi~'h .. ~d··a~~ .. i;;, 

Sacramento to iron. Dianne Feinstein ....................................................... . A. Aaron Medlock: Summary of Wildlife Management Related Data for 

w~u!88~.M~:;:::~sti~;~··-;;J~;;··~r··c~t;;ii~~··;;.irl'~~···i~~idi~ associated with S. 21 and H.R. 518 according to Bureau of Land Management California State Office October 1991 Report .............................. . 

APPENDIX 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

Prepared statement of Hon. Ken Calvert ...................................................... . Prepared statement of Hon. Richard H. Lehman ......................................... . Views of U.S. Department of Justice on H.R. 518 ....................................... .. Letter submitted by the U.S. Border Patrol of El Centro, CA, to Rep- resentative Vento, regarding the effects of H.R. 518 involving drug 

interdiction at U.S. borders ......................................................................... . Letter from the Department of Fish and Game in Sacramento, CA, to 

Representative Lehman, regarding public hunting in the California 

desert ............................................................................................................ . Letters from Mr. Chandler, et al., responding to the letter from the 

California Department of Fish and Game to Mr. Lehman, regarding public hunting in the California desert ...................................................... . Letter from the Wildlife Legislative Fund of American to Re~Jresentative 

Vento, regarding an advertisement in the WashiT~f~Wn Post, which 

included statements about the NRA and hunting m the California 

desert ............................................................................................................ . Letter and chart from Elden Hughes to Representative Vento, re~arding 

conflicting figures about visitors to Algodones Dunes in the testimonies 

of Mr. Hathaway and Representative Cunningham ................................ .. Letter and publication entitled "Looking Back. Movin~ Forward." from 

Mr. Hathaway to Representative Vento, regarding visitors to Algodones Dunes ............................................................................................................ . Hunter Survey from the California De{lartment of Fish and Game ........... . Letter fr?m Mr .. Blair to _Representative Vento, clarifying his statement 

regarding grazing P._ermtts ........................................................................... . Letter from the California Enduro Riders Association to Representative 

Vento, expressing its opposition to H.R. 518 ............................................ .. Letter and official position statement from Mr. Williams of the Motorcycle Industry Council to Representative Vento, regarding H.R. 518 .............. . Letter from Mr. !chord of Unocal Corp. to Representative Vento, submit- tin~ a statement by Robert Sega of Molycorp in regarcis to H.R. 518 ...... Position paper from Preston Stevens of United Four Wheel Drive Associations, opposing S. 21 .................................................................................... . Letter from Richard Spotts of Defenders of Wildlife and attached editorial 

to Representative Vento, supporting H.R. 518 .......................................... . Letter from Robert P. Will of Will and Muys, P.C., representing the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, to Representative 

Vento, regarding aqueduct and related facilities in the desert area ........ Letter and a copy of Los Angeles' official action paper from James F. 

Seely, representing the city of Los Angeles, to Representative Vento, 

supporting H.R. 518 ..................................................................................... . 

Page 

145 

146 

214 

220 

235 

243 

263 

299 

417 

421 

422 

427 

430 

433 

438 

445 

447 

449 

455 

479 

481 

484 

486 

493 

494 

496 

498 
v 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record-Continued 

Letter and resolution from Lester Krushat, mayor of Twentynine Palms, 

Le~te~:n7:!!FuJo~~~ ~-w:s:;l,\!~;o;··~fB~~·~~fp;;~d~~t of desert/mountain division of the League of California Cities, to RepLe~~r:!vw~:!::r ~Va:\)~ ~~~F,~t~~·~rth~.b;;~··;;f'~~· .. ·;;;i~~;~ of Imperial County, to Representative Vento, opposing H.R. 51r. ......... .. Letter from California State Senator Don Rogers to Representative Vento, 

requesting field hearings on H.R. 518 ........................................................ . Letter from H. Nick Ervin of the Sierra Club, San Diego division, to 

Representative Vento, thanking him for his support of the California 

Desert ........................................................................................................... .. Letter from Vincent J. Hecker of the Public Lands Foundation to RepM:n:~h! X:~te rtfo:!~·:~ ~:e;gy·m~fi·ifat~;;!f'i~~~~;;e;;;;·r;;;~ 

Le~~~ ~!!i W.Ilf=~~·l:chs::, ~!io~ !ie;; .. j;;~8id~~i .. ~f'j;~iicy:·imd'·~~: gressional affairs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to Representative 

Vento, regarding the effects ofH.R. 518 .................................................... . Resolution from Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce, opposing H.R. 518 .. Resolution from the Associated Chambers of Commerce in the Morongo 

Le~:;n~:OP~~ 'li:~;: ~r·th~··i~~~i.:ii~~i"l~iii~~-·~r~~ri;;;"t;; 

Le~ft:ntag:~d!:n~: w:n~:;: ::~~!~··ca~~··Mi~i~g .. ci~·.: .. ~j;j;~8i~ H.R. 518 ........................................................................................................ . Letter from Arnold Applebaum, private citizen, to Representative Vento, 

opposing H.R. 518 ........................................................................................ . Letter from Vll'gil Jordon, Hesperia, CA. [Editor's note.-Approximatel;r 70 Californians wrote to Representative Vento to express their opposi- tion to H.R. 518.) .......................................................................................... . 

504 

508 

512 

516 

517 

518 

522 

525 

528 

529 

530 

531 

532 

534 

H.R. 518, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN 

THE CALIFORNIA DESERT AS WILDERNESS, 

TO ESTABLISH THE DEATH VALLEY AND 

JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARKS AND THE 

MOJAVE NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; AND 

H.R. 880, TO WITHDRAW CERTAIN FEDERAL 

LANDS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR 

MIUTARY PURPOSES, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITrEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will be in order. 

As Members have been notified, we are meeting this morning for 

the hearing of two pending bills dealing with management of Federal lands in the desert region of California. The bills are H.R. 518 

introduced on January 21 by our colleague from California, Congressman Lehman, and H.R. 880 which I introduced on February 

4. Each of the bills is cosponsored by members of the committee, 

including Chairman Miller, and H.R. 518 has a number of other cosponsors as well. 

[Texts of the bills, H.R. 518 and H.R. 880, follow:] 

(1) 
103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

2 

H.R.518 

I 

To designate certain lands in the California Desert as wilderness, to establish 

the Death Va!Jey and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave 

National Monument, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 1993 

Mr. LEHMA.."\ (for himself, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. VENTO, Mr. STARK, 

Mr. OWENS, Mr. OLVER, Mr. MFUlllE, fils. PELOSI, Mr. MINETA, Mr. 

McDERMOTT, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, 

.Mr. WAni.AN, Mr. STOKES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. MALONEY, and Mr. 

HIKCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resourees 

A BILL 

To designate certain lands in the California Desert as wilderness, to establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree 

National Parks and the Mojave National Monument, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That this Act may be cited as the "California Desert 

4 Protection Act of 1993". 

5 FINDINGS AND POLICY 

6 SEc. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares that-
3 

2 

1 ( 1) the federally owned desert lands of South2 ern California constitute a public wildland resource 

3 of extraordinary and inestimable value for this and 

4 future generations; 

5 (2} these desert wildlands display unique scenic, 

6 historical, archeological, environmental, ecological, 

7 wildlife, cultural, scientific, educational, and rec8 reational values used and enjoyed by millions of 

9 Americans for hiking and camping, scientific study 

10 and scenic appreciation; 

11 ( 3) the public land resources of the California 

12 desert now face and are increasingly threatened by 

13 adverse pressures which would impair, dilute, and 

14 destroy their public and natural values; 

15 (4) the California desert, embracing wilderness 

16 lands, units of the National Park System, other 

17 Federal lands, State parks and other State lands, 

18 and private lands, constitutes a cohesive unit posing 

19 unique and difficult resource protection and manage20 ment challenges; 

21 (5) through designation of national monuments 

22 by Presidential proclamation, through enactment of 

23 general public land statutes (including section 601, 

24 of the Federal Land Policy and ~~ent Aif&r I'. 

25 1976, 90 Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et se¥ and 
4 

3 

1 through interim administrative actions, the Federal 

2 Government has begun the process of appropriately 

3 providing for protection of the significant resources 

4 of the public lands in the California desert; and 

5 (6) statutory land unit designations are needed 

6 to afford the full protection which the resources and 

7 public land :values of the California desert merit. 

8 (b) In order to secure for the American people of this 

9 and future generations an enduring heritage of wilderness, 

10 national parks, and public land values in the California 

11 desert, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Con12 gress that13 ( 1) appropriate public lands in the California 

14 desert shall be included within the National Park 

15 System and the National Wilderness Preservation 

16 System, in order to--

17 (A) preserve unrivaled scenic, geologic, and 

18 wildlife values associated with these unique nat19 ural landscapes; 

20 (B) perpetuate in their natural state sig21 nificant and diverse ecosystems of the Califor22 nia desert; 

23 (C) protect and preserve historical and cul24 tural values of the California desert associated 

25 with ancient Indian cultures, patterns of west-
5 

4 

1 ern exploration and settlement, and sites exem2 plifying the mining, ranching and railroading 

3 history of the Old West; 

4 (D) provide opportunities for compatible 

5 outdoor public recreation, protect and interpret 

6 ecological and geological features and historic, 

7 paleontological, and archeological sites, mainS tain wilderness resource values, and promote 

9 public understanding and appreciation of the 

10 California desert; and 

11 (E) retain and enhance opportunities for 

12 scientific research in undisturbed ecosystems. 

13 TITLE I-WILDERNESS ADDITIONS 

14 FINDINGS 

15 SEC. 101. The Congress finds and declares that16 (1) wilderness is a distinguishing characteristic 

17 of the public lands in the California desert, one 

18 which affords an unrivaled opportunity for experi19 encing vast areas of the Old West essentially 

20 unaltered by man's activities, and which merits pres21 ervation for the benefit of present and future gen22 erations; 

23 (2) the wilderness values of desert lands are in24 creasingly threatened by and especiaily vulnerable to 

25 impairment, alteration, and destruction by activities 

•BJllil8 m 
6 

5 

1 and intrusions associated with incompatible use and 

2 development; and 

3 (3) preservation of desert wilderness necessarily 

4 requires the highest forms of protective designation 

5 and management. 

6 DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS 

7 SEC. 102. In furtherance of the purpose of the Wil8 derness Act (78 Stat. 890, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and 

9 sections 601 and 603 of the Federal Land Policy and 

10 Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 1701 

11 et seq.), the following lands in the State of California, as 

12 generally depicted on maps, referenced herein, dated Feb13 ruary 1986 (except as otherwise dated), are hereby des14 ignated as wilderness, and therefore, as components of the 

15 National Wilderness Preservation System: 

16 (1) Certain lands in the California Desert Con17 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

18 which comprise approximately seventy-four thousand 

19 eight hundred and ninety acres, as generally de20 picted on a map entitled "Argus Range Wilder21 ness-Proposed 1", dated May 1991, and two maps 

22 entitled "Argus Range Wilderness-Proposed 2" 

23 and "Argus Range Wilderness-Proposed 3", dated 

24 January 1989, and which shall be known as the 

25 Argus Range Wilderness. 

•BRI18 m 
7 

6 

1 (2) Certain lands in the California Desert Con2 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

3 which comprise approximately ten thousand three 

4 hundred and eighty acres, as generally depicted on 

5 a map entitled "Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness-Proposed", dated October 1991, and which 

shall be known as the Bigelow Cholla Garden Wil8 derness. 

9 (3) Certain lands in the California Desert Con1 0 servation Area, of the Bure~~ of Land Management, 

11 and within the San Bernardino National Forest, 

12 which comprise approximately thirty-nine thousand 

13 two hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 

14 entitled "Bighorn Mountain Wilderness-Proposed", 

15 dated September 1991, and which shall be known as 

16 the Bighorn Mountain Wilderness. 

17 (4) Certain lands in the California Desert Con18 servation Area and the Yuma District, of the Bu19 reau of Land Management, which comprise approxi20 mately forty-seven thousand five hundred and sev21 enty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

22 "Big Maria Mountains Wilderness-Proposed", and 

23 which shall be known as the Big Maria Mountains 

24 Wilderness. 

•HR 518 m 
8 

7 

1 ( 5) Certain lands in the California Desert Con2 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

3 which comprise thirteen thousand nine hundred and 

4 forty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

5 "Black Mountain Wiiderness-Proposed", and which 

6 shall be known as the Black Mountain Wilderness. 

7 (6) Certain lands in the California Desert Con8 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

9 which comprise approximately nine thousand five 

10 hundred and twenty acres, as generally depicted on 

11 a map entitled "Bright Star Wilderness-Proposed", 

12 dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the 

13 Bright Star Wilderness. 

14 (7) Certain lands in the California Desert Con15 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

16 which comprise approximately sixty-eight thousand 

17 five hundred and fifteen acres, as generally depicted 

18 on two maps entitled "Bristol Mountains Wilder19 ness-Proposed 1", and "Bristol Mountains Wilder20 ness-Proposed 2", dated September 1991, and 

21 which shall be known as Bristol Mountains Wilder22 ness. 

23 (8) Certain lands in the California Desert Con24 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

25 which comprise approximately forty-two thousand six 

.. 

•BRI.i18m 
9 

8 

1 hundred and forty acres, as generally depicted on a 

2 map entitled "Cadiz Dunes Wilderness-Proposed", 

3 and which shall be known as the Cadiz Dunes Wil4 derness. 

5 (9) Certain lands in the California Desert Con6 servation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

7 which comprise approximately eighty-five thousand 

8 nine hundred and seventy acres, as generally de9 picted on a map entitled "Cady Mountains WildertO ness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall 

11 be known as the Cady Mountains Wilderness. 

12 (10) Certain lands in the California Desert 

13 Conservation Area and · Eastern San Diego County, 

14 of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 

15 approximately fifteen thousand seven hundred acres, 

16 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Carrizo 

17 Gorge Wilderness-Proposed" , and which shall be 

18 known as the Carrizo Gorge Wilderness. 

19 ( 11) Certain lands in the California Desert 

20 Conservation Area and Yuma District, of the Bu21 reau of Land Management, which comprise approxi22 mately sixty-four thousand SL'< hundred and forty 

23 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

24 "Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness-Proposed", 

•HR 1118 IH . 
10 

9 

1 dated October 1991, and which shall be known as 

2 the Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness. 

3 (12) Certain lands in the Bakersfield District, 

4 of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 

5 approximately thirteen thousand seven hundred 

6 acres, as generally depicted on two maps entitled 

7 "Chimney Peak Wilderness-Proposed 1" and 

8 "Chimney Peak Wilderness-Proposed 2", dated 

9 May 1991, and which shall be known as the Chim1 0 ney Peak Wilderness. 

11 (13) Certain lands m the California Desert 

12 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage13 ment, which comprise approximately one hundred 

14 fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and fifty acres, as 

15 generally depicted on two maps entitled "Chuckwalla 

16 Mountains Wilderness-Proposed 1" and 

17 "Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness-Proposed 2", 

18 dated January 1989, and which shall be known as 

19 the Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness. 

20 (14) Certain lands in the California Desert 

21 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage22 ment, which comprise thirty-four thousand three 

23 hundred and eighty acres, as generally depicted on 

24 a map entitled "Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness-Pro25 posed", dated September 1991, and which shall be 

HR.518 IH~2 
11 

10 

1 known as the Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness. The Sec2 retary may, pursuant to an application filed by the 

3 Department of Defense, grant a right-of-way for, 

4 and authorize construction of, a road within the area 

5 depicted as "non-wilderness road corridor" on such 

6 map. 

7 ( 15) Certain lands in the California Desert 

8 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage9 ment, which comprise approximately forty thousand 

10 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Clip11 per Mountain Wilderness-Proposed'', dated May 

12 1991, and which shall be known as Clipper Moun13 tain Wilderness. 

14 (16) Certain lands m the California Desert 

15 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage16 ment, which comprise approximately fifty thousand 

17 five hundred and twenty acres, as generally depicted 

18 on a map entitled "Coso Range Wilderness-Pro19 posed", dated May 1991, and which shall be known 

20 as Coso Range Wilderness. 

21 (17) Certain lands in the California Desert 

22 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage23 ment, which comprise approximately eighteen thou24 sand six hundred acres, as generally depicted on a 

25 map entitled "Coyote Mountains Wilderness-Pro-

•HR 518 IU 
12 

11 

1 posed", dated May 1991, and which shall be known 

2 as Coyote Mountains Wilderness. 

3 (18) Certain lands in the California Desert 

4 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately eight thousand 

6 six hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 

7 entitled "Darwin Falls Wilderness-Proposed", 

8 dated May 1991, and which shall be known as Dar9 win Falls Wilderness. 

10 (19) Certain lands m the California Desert 

11 Conservation Area and the Yuma District, of the 

12 Bureau of Land Management, which comprise ap13 proximately forty-eight thousand eight hundred and 

14 fifty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

15 "Dead Mountains Wilderness-Proposed", dated 

16 October 1991, and which shall be known as Dead 

17 Mountains Wilderness. 

18 (20) Certain lands in the Bakersfield District, 

19 of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 

20 approximately thirty-six thousand three hundred 

21 acres, as generally depicted on two maps entitled 

22 "Domeland Wilderness Additions-Proposed 1" and 

23 "Domeland Wilderness Additions-Proposed 2", and 

24 which 11re hereby incorporated in, and which shall be 

.. -118:'118 m 
13 

12 

1 deemed to be a part of, the Domeland Wilderness as 

2 designated by Public Laws 93-632 and 98-425. 

3 (21) Certain lands in the California Desert 

4 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately sixteen thou6 sand one hundred acres, as generally depicted on a 

7 map entitled "El Paso Mountains Wilderness--ProS posed", and which shall be known as the El Paso 

9 Mountains Wilderness. 

10 (22) Certain lands in the California Desert 

11 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage12 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-six 

13 thousand three hundred acres, as generally depicted 

14 on a map entitled "Fish Creek Mountains WilderIS ness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall 

16 be known as Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness. 

17 (23) Certain lands in the California Desert 

18 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage19 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-eight 

20 thousand one hundred and ten acres, as generally 

21 depicted on a map entitled "Fu_neral Mountains Wil22 derness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which 

23 · shall be known as Funeral Mountains Wilderness. 

24 (24) Certain lands in the California Desert 

25 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage-
14 

13 

1 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-seven 

2 thousand seven hundred acres, as generally depicted 

3 on a map entitled "Golden Valley Wilderness-Pro4 posed", and which shall be known as Golden Valley 

5 Wilderness. 

6 (25) Certain lands in the California Desert 

7 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately thirty-one thou9 sand seven hundred and twenty acres, as generally 

10 depicted on a map entitled "Grass Valley Wilder11 ness-Proposed", and which shall be known as the 

12 Grass Valley Wilderness. 

13 (26) Certain lands m the California Desert 

14 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage15 ment, which comprise approximately eight thousand 

16 eight hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 

17 entitled "Great Falls Basin Wilderness-Proposed", 

18 and which shall be known as the Great Falls Basin 

19 Wilderness. 

20 (27) Certain lands in the California Desert 

21 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage22 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-two 

23 thousand two hundred and forty acres, as generally 

24 depicted on a map entitled "Hollow Hills Wilder-

•Ba IS!& m 
15 

14 

1 ness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall 

2 be known as the Hollow Hills Wilderness. 

3 (28) Certain lands in the California Desert 

4 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage5 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-six 

6 thousand four hundred and sixty acres, as generally 

7 depicted on a map entitled "Ibex Wilderness-ProS posed", dated May 1991, and which shall be known 

9 as the Ibex Wilderness. 

10 (29) Certain lands in the California Desert 

11 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage12 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-five thou13 sand and fifteen acres, as generally depicted on a 

14 map entitled "Indian Pass Wilderness-Proposed", 

15 dated October 1991, and which shall be known as 

16 the Indian Pass Wilderness. 

17 (30) Certain lands in the California Desert 

18 Conservation Area and the Bakersfield District, of 

19 the Bureau of Land Management, and within the 

20 Inyo National Forest, which comprise approximately 

21 two hundred five thousand and twenty acres, as gen22 erally depicted on three maps entitled "Inyo Moun23 tains Wilderness-Proposed", numbered in the title 

24 one through three, and dated May 1991, and which 

25 shall be known as the Inyo Mountains Wilderness. 

' , , •HB lla ui , 
16 

15 

1 (31) Certain lands in the California Desert 

2 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage3 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-four 

4 thousand five hundred and fifty acres, as generally 

5 depicted on a map entitled "Jacumba Wuderness6 Proposed", dated October 1991, and which shall be 

7 known as the Jacumba Wilderness. 

8 (32) Certain lands in the California Desert 

9 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage1 0 ment, which comprise approximately one hundred 

11 and twenty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty 

12 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Kelso 

13 Dunes Wilderness-Proposed 1", dated October 

14 1991, a map entitled "Kelso Dunes Wilderness15 Proposed 2", dated May 1991, and a map entitled 

16 "Kelso Dunes Wilderness-Proposed 3", dated Sep17 tember 1991, and which shall be known as the Kelso 

18 Dunes Wilderness. 

19 (33) Certain lands m the California Desert 

20 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage21 ment, and the Sequoia National Forest, which oom22 prise approximately eighty-eight thousand. two hun23 dred and ninety acres, as generally depicted on a 

24 map entitled "Kiavah Wllderness-Proposed 1", 

25 dated February 1986, and a map entitled "Kiavah 

•BR 11811l 
17 

16 

1 Wilderness-Proposed 2", dated May 1991, and 

2 which shall be known as the Kiavah Wilderness. 

3 (34) Certain lands in the California Desert 

4 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately two hundred 

6 forty-nine thousand and three hundred and sixty7 eight acres, as generally depicted on two maps enti8 tied "Kingston Range Wilderness-Proposed 2", 

9 dated October 1991, and "Kingston Range WildertO ness-Proposed 4", dated January 1989, and .two 

11 maps entitled "Kingston Range Wilderness-Pro12 posed 1" and "Kingston Range Wilderness-Pro13 posed 3", dated May 1991, and which shall be 

14 known as the Kingston Range Wilderness. 

15 (35) Certain lands in the California Desert 

16 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage17 ment, which comprise approximately forty-six thou18 sand four hundred and sixty acres, as generally de19 picted on a map entitled "Little Chuckwalla Moun20 tains Wilderness-Proposed", dated October 1991, 

21 and which shall be known as the Little Chuckwalla 

22 Mountains Wilderness. 

23 · {36) Certain lands in the California Desert 

24 Conservation Area and the Yuma District, of the 

25 Bureau of Land Management, which comprise ap-
18 

17 

1 proximately thirty-six thousand four hundred and 

2 forty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

3 "Little Picacho Wilderness-Proposed", dated Octo4 ber 1991, and which shall be known as the Little 

5 Picacho Wilderness. 

6 (37) Certain lands in the California Desert 

7 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately thirty-two thou9 sand three hundred and sixty acres, as generally de10 picted on a map entitled "Malpais Mesa Wilder11 ness-Proposed", dated September 1991, and which 

12 shall be known as the Malpais Mesa Wilderness. 

13 (38) Certain lands in the California Desert 

14 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage15 ment, which comprise approximately sixteen thou16 sand one hundred and five acres, as generally de17 picted on a map entitled "Manly Peak WildernessIS Proposed", dated October 1991, and which shall be 

19 kuown as the Manly Peak Wilderness. 

20 (39) Certain lands in the California Desert 

21 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage22 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-four 

23 thousand two hundred and eighty acres, as generally 

24 depicted on a map entitled "Mecca Hills WilderHR 518 IH-:--3 
19 

18 

1 ness-Proposed", dated October 1991, and whit11 

2 shall be known as the Meeca Hills Wildern · ~~ 

3 (40) Certain lands in the California D~sert 

4 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately forty-seven 

6 thousand three hundred and thirty acres, as gen7 erally depicted on a map entitled "Mesquite Wilder8 ness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall 

9 be known as the Mesquite Wilderness. 

10 (41) Certain lands in the California Desert 

11 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage12 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-two 

13 thousand nine hundred acres, as generally depicted 

14 on a map entitled "Newberry Mountains Wilder15 ness-Proposed", and which shall be known as the 

16 Newberry Mountains Wilderness. 

17 ( 42) Certain lands in the California Desert 

18 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage19 ment, which comprise approximately one hundred 

20 ten thousand eight hundred and eighty acres, as 

21 generally depicted on a map entitled "Nopah Range 

22 Wilderness--Proposed", dated May 1991, and which 

23 shall be known as the Nopah Range Wilderness. 

24 ( 43) Certain lands in the California Desert 

25 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage-

•Ra SiifiH 
20 

19 

1 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-two thou2 sand two hundred and forty acres, as generally de3 picted on a map entitled "North Algodones Dunes 

4 Wilderness-Proposed", dated October 1991, and 

5 which shall be known as the North Algodones Dunes 

6 Wilderness. 

7 ( 44) Certain lands in the California Desert 

8 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage9 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-five 

10 thousand five hundred and forty acres, as generally 

11 depicted on a map entitled "North Mesquite Moun12 tains Wilderness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and 

13 which shall be known as the North Mesquite Moun14 tains Wilderness. 

15 ( 45) Certain lands in the California Desert 

16 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage17 ment, which comprise approximately one hundred 

18 forty-six thousand and seventy acres, as generally 

19 depicted on a map entitled "Old Woman Mountains 

20 Wilderness-Proposed 1", dated May 1991 and a 

21 map entitled "Old Woman Mountains Wilderness22 Proposed 2", dated October 1991, and which shall 

23 be known as the Old Woman Mountains Wilderness. 

24 ( 46) Certain lands in the California Desert 

25 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage-

•BR sts m · 
21 

20 

1 ment, which comprise approximately fifty-seven 

2 thousand five hundred acres, as generally depicted 

3 on a map entitled "Orocopia Mountains Wilder4 ness-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall 

5 be known as the Orocopia Mountains Wilderness. 

6 ( 4 7) Certain lands in the California Desert 

7 Conservation Area and the Bakersfield District, of 

8 the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 

9 approximately seventy-four thousand six hundred 

10 and forty acres, as generally depicted on a map enti11 tled "Owens Peak Wllderness-Proposed 1", dated 

12 February 1986, and two maps entitled "Owens Peak 

13 Wilderness-Proposed 2" and "Owens Peak Wilder14 ness-Proposed 3", dated May 1991, and which 

15 shall be known as the Owens Peak Wilderness. 

16 ( 48) Certain lands in the California Desert 

17 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage18 ment, which comprise approximately seventy-four 

19 thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted 

20 on a map entitled "Pahrump Valley Wilderness21 Proposed", and which shall be known as the 

22 Pahrump Valley Wilderness. 

23 ( 49) Certain lands in the California Desert 

24 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage25 ment, which comprise approximately two hundred 
22 

21 

1 fourteen thousand one hundred and forty-nine acres, 

2 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Palen/ 

3 McCoy Wilderness--Proposed 1", dated May 1991, 

4 and a map entitled "Palen/McCoy Wilderness-ProS posed 2", dated February 1986, and which shall be 

6 known as the Palen/McCoy Wilderness. 

7 (50) Certain lands in the California Desert 

8 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage9 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-two thou10 sand three hundred and twenty acres, as generally 

11 depicted on a map entitled "Palo Verde Mountains 

12 Wilderness-Proposed", dated January 1987, and 

13 which shall be known as the Palo Verde Mountains 

14 Wilderness. 

15 (51) Certain lands in the California Desert 

16 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage17 ment, which comprise approximately seven thousand 

18 seven hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 

19 entitled "Picacho Peak Wilderness--Proposed", 

20 dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the 

21 Picacho Peak Wilderness. 

22 (52) Certain lands in the California Desert 

23 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of I.~and Manage24 ment, which comprise approximately seventy-two 

25 thousand si..'i: hundred acres, as generally depicted on 
23 

22 

1 a map entitled "Piper Mountain Wilderness-Pro2 posed", dated May 1991, and which shall be known 

3 as the Piper Mountain Wilderness. 

4 (53) Certain lands in the California Desert 

5 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage6 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-seven 

7 thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted 

8 on a map entitled "Piute Mountains Wilderness9 Proposed", dated October 1991, and which shall be 

10 known as Piute Mountains Wilderness. 

11 (54) Certain lands in the California Desert 

12 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage13 ment, which comprise approximately seventy-eight 

14 thousand eight hundred and si.xty-eight acres, as 

15 generally depicted on a map entitled "Resting 

16 Spring Range Wilderness-Proposed", dated May 

17 1991, and which shall be known as the Resting 

18 Spring Range Wilderness. 

19 (55) Certain lands in the California Desert 

20 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage21 ment, which comprise approximately forty thousand 

22 · eight hundred and twenty acres, as generally de23 picted on a map entitled "Rice Valley Wilderness24 Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall be 

25 known as the Rice Valley Wilderness. 
24 

23 

1 (56) Certain lands in the California Desert 

2 Conservation Area and the Yuma District, of the 

3 Bureau of Land Management, which comprise ap4 proximately twenty-two thousand three hundred 

5 eighty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

6 "Riverside Mountains Wilderness-Proposed", dated 

7 May 1991, and which shall be known as the RiverS side Mountains Wilderness. 

9 (57) Certain lands in the California Desert 

I 0 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage11 ment, which comprise approximately twenty-seven 

12 thousand seven hundred acres, as generally depicted 

13 on a map entitled "Rodman Mountains Wilder14 ness-Proposed", dated January 1989, and which 

15 shall be known as the Rodman Mountains Wilder16 ness. 

17 (58) Certain lands in the California Desert 

18 Conservation Area and the Bakersfield District, of 

19 the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 

20 approximately fifty-one thousand nine hundred 

21 acres, as generally depicted on two maps ennled 

22 "Sacatar Trail Wilderness-Proposed 1'' :md 

23 "Sacatar Trail Wilderness-Proposed 2", date .. \ j',fay 

24 1991, and which shall be known as the Sacatar Trail 

25 Wilderness. 
25 

24 

1 (59) Certain lands in the California Desert 

2 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage3 ment, which comprise approximately one thousand 

4 eight hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 

5 entitled "Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness-Proposed", 

6 dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the 

7 Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness. 

8 (60) Certain lands in the California Desert 

9 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManagetO ment, which comprise approximately thirty-three 

11 thousand five hundred acres, as generally depicted 

12 on a map entitled "San Gorgonio Wilderness Addi13 tions--Proposed", and which are hereby incor14 porated in, and which shall be deemed to be a part 

15 of, the San Gorgonio Wilderness as designated by 

16 Public Laws 88-577 and 98-425. 

17 (61) Certain lands in the California Desert 

18 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage19 ment, which comprise approximately fifty-three thou20 sand two hundred and forty acres, as generally de21 picted on a map entitled "Santa Rosa Wilderness 

22 Additions-Proposed", dated May 1991, and which 

23 are hereby incorporated in, and which shall be 

24 deemed to be a part of, the Santa Rosa Wilderness 

25 designated by Public Law 98-425. 

r• .. 

•BR'·alsm·. 
26 

25 

1 ( 62) Certain lands in the California Desert Dis2 trict, of the Bureau of Land Management, which 

3 comprise approximately thirty-five thousand four 

4 hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map enti5 tled "Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness-Proposed", 

6 and which shall be known as the Sawtooth Moun7 tains Wilderness. 

8 ( 63) Certain lands in the California Desert 

9 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManagetO ment, which comprise approximately one hundred 

11 seventy-four thousand eight hundred acres, as gen12 erally depicted on two maps entitled "Sheephole Val13 ley Wilderness-Proposed 1", dated October 1991, 

14 and "Sheephole Valley Wilderness-Proposed 2", 

15 dated February 1986, and which shall be known as 

16 the Sheephole Valley Wilderness. 

17 (64) Certain lands in the California Desert 

18 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage19 ment, which comprise approximately forty-four thou20 sand four hundred and ten acres, as generally de21 picted on a map entitled "Slate Range Wilderness22 Proposed", dated October 1991, and which shall be 

23 known as the Slate Range Wilderness. 

24 ( 65) Certain lands in the California Desert 

25 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageHR518IH~ 
27 

26 

1 ment, which comprise approximately sixty-one thou2 sand six hundred and thirty acres, as generally de3 picted on a map entitled "South Algodones Dunes 

4 Wilderness-Proposed", dated January 1989, and 

5 which shall be known as the South Algodones Dunes 

6 Wilderness. 

7 (66) Certain lands in the California Desert 

8 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage9 ment, which comprise approximately sixteen thou1 0 sand seven hundred and eighty acres, as generally 

11 depicted on a map entitled "South Nopah Range 

12 Wilderness-Proposed", and which shall be known 

13 as the South Nopah Range Wilderness. 

14 (67) Certain lands in the California Desert 

15 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage16 ment, which comprise approximately seven thousand 

17 and fifty acres, as generally depicted on a map enti18 tled "Stateline Wilderness-Proposed", dated May 

19 1991, and which shall be known as the Stateline 

20 Wilderness. 

21 ( 68) Certain lands in the California Desert 

22 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage23 ment, which comprise approximately eighty-one 

24 thousand six hundred acres, as generally depicted on 

25 a map entitled "Stepladder Mountains Wilderness-

•BR ats m 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 2 
28 

27 

1 Proposed", and which shall be known as the Step2 ladder Mountains Wilderness. 

3 (69) Certain lands in the California Desert 

4 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land ManageS ment, which comprise approximately hventy-nine 

6 thousand one hundred and eighty acres, as generally 

7 depicted on a map entitled "Surprise Canyon Wil8 derness--Proposed", dated September 1991, and 

9 which shall be known as the Surprise Canyon Wil10 derness. 

11 (70) Certain lands in the California Desert 

12 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage13 ment, which comprise approximately seventeen thou14 sand eight hundred and twenty acres, as generally 

15 depicted on a map entitled "Sylvania Mountains 

16 Wilderness-Proposed", and which shall be known 

17 as the Sylvania Mountains Wilderness. 

18 (71) Certain lands in the California Desert 

19 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage20 ment, which comprise approximately thirty-three 

21 thousand seven hundred and twenty acres, as gen22 erally depicted on a map entitled "Trilobite Wilder23 ness--Proposed", dated May 1991, and which shall 

24 be known as the Trilobite Wilderness. 

•HR 1118 m , 
29 

28 

1 (72) Certain lands m the California Desert 

2 Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Manage3 ment, which comprise approximately one hundred 

4 forty-four thousand five hundred acres, as generally 

5 depicted on a map entitled "Turtle Mountains Wil6 derness-Proposed 1", dated February 1986 and a 

7 map entitled "Turtle Mountains Wilderness-ProS posed 2", dated May 1991, and which shall be 

9 known as the Turtle Mountains Wilderness. 

10 (73) Certain lands in the California Desert 

11 Conservation Area and the Yuma District, of the 

12 Bureau of Land Management, which comprise ap13 proximately seventy-five thousand three hundred 

14 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

15 "Whipple Mountains Wilderness-Proposed", dated 

16 May 1991, and which shall be known as the Whipple 

17 Mountains Wilderness. 

18 ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS 

19 SEC. 103. Subject to valid existing rights, each wil20 derness area designated under section 102 shall be admin21 istered by the appropriate Secretary in accordance with 

22 the provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any ref23 erence in such provisions to the effective date of the Wil24 derness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the effec25 tive date of this title and any reference to the Secretary 

26 of Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

•HR 1518 IB 
30 

29 

1 Secretary who has administrative jurisdiction over the 

2 area. 

3 GRAZING 

4 SEC. 104. Within the wilderness areas designated 

5 under section 102, the grazing of livestock, where estab6 lished prior to the enactment of this Act, shall be per7 mitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations, 

8 policies, and practices as the Secretary deems necessary, 

9 as long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully 

10 conform with and implement the intent of Congress re11 garding grazing in such areas as such intent is expressed 

12 in the Wilderness Act and section 108 of Public Law 96-

13 560 (16 U.S.C. 133 note). 

14 BUFFER ZONES 

15 SEC. 105. The Congress does not intend for the des16 ignation of wilderness areas in section 102 of this Act to 

17 lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer 

18 zones around any such wilderness area. The fact that 

19 nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from 

20 areas within a wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such 

21 activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilde~ess 

22 area. 

23 MINING CLAIM VALIDITY REVIEW 

24 SEC. 106. The Secretary of the Interior and the Sec25 retary of Agriculture shall not approve any plan of oper26 ation prior to determining the validity of the unpatented 

•BR 518 m 
31 

30 

1 mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites affected by such 

2 plan within any wilderness area designated under section 

3 102. 

4 FILING OF MAPS AND DESCRIPTIONS 

5 SEC. 107. As soon as practicable after enactment of 

6 section 102, a map and a legal description on each wilder-

? ness area designated under this title shall be filed by the 

8 Secretary concerned with the Committee on Energy and 

9 Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 

10 Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, and 

11 each such map and description shall have the same force 

12 and effect as if included in this title, except that the Sec13 retary may correct clerical and typographical errors in 

14 each such legal description and map. Each such map and 

15 legal description shall be on file and available for public 

16 inspection in the office of the Director of the Bureau of 

17 Land Management, Department of the Interior, or the 

18 Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, 

19 as is appropriate. 

20 WILDERNESS REVIEW 

21 SEC. 108. (a) The Congress hereby finds and directs 

22 that except for those areas provided for in subsection (b), 

23 the public lands in the California Desert Conservation 

24 Area, managed by the Bureau of Land Management, not 

25 designated as, wilderness or wilderness study areas by this 

26 Act, have been adequately studied for wilderness designa-

•BR 111s m 
32 

31 

1 tion pursuant to section 603 of the Federal Land Policy 

2 and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 

3 1701 et seq.), and are no longer subject to the require4 ments of section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 

5 Management Act of 1976 pertaining to the management 

6 of wilderness study areas in a manner that does not impair 

7 the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness. 

8 (b} Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal lands 

9 identified on maps as "Avawatz Mountains WJ.lderness10 Proposed", dated May 1991; "South Avawatz WilderIt ness-Proposed", dated May 1991; and two maps entitled 

12 "Soda Mountains Wilderness-Proposed 1", dated May 

13 1991, and "Soda Mountains Wilderness-Proposed 2", 

14 dated Januacy 1989, are hereby withdrawn from disposi15 tion under the public lands laws and from entcy or appro16 priation under the mining laws of the United States, from 

17 the operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United 

18 States, and from operation of the Geothermal Steam Act 

19 of 1970. 

20 DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

21 SEC. 109. In furtherance of the provisions of the Wil22 derness Act, certain public lands in the California Desert 

23 Conservation Area of the Bureau of Land Management 

24 which comprise eleven thousand two hundred acres as gen25 erally depicted on a map entitled ''Whi~ Mountains WII26 derness Study Area-Proposed", dated May 1991, are 
33 

32 

1 hereby designated the White Mountains Wilderness Study 

2 Area and shall be administered by the Secretary in accord3 ance with the provisions of section 603 (c) of the Federal 

4 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

5 SUITABILITY REPORT 

6 SEc. 110. The Secretary is required, ten years after 

7 the date of enactment of this Act, to report to Congress 

8 on current and planned exploration, development or min9 ing activities on, and suitability for future wilderness des10 ignation of, the lands as generally depicted on maps enti11 tled "Surprise Canyon Wilderness-Proposed", ''Middle 

12 Park Canyon Wilderness-Proposed", and "Death Valley 

13 National Park Boundary and 'Yilderness 15", dated Sep14 tember 1991 and a map entitled "Manly Peak Wilder15 ness-Proposed", dated October 1991. 

16 WILDERNESS DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT IN THE 

17 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

18 SEc. 111. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the 

19 Wilderness Act, the following lands are hereby designated 

20 as wilderness and therefore, as components · of the Na21 tional Wilderness Preservation System: 

22 (1) Certain lands in the Havasu National Wild23 life Refuge, California, which comprise approxi24 mately three thousand one hundred and ninety-five 

25 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

26 "Havasu Wilderness-Proposed", and dated October 

•BR518 iH 
33 

1 1991, and which shall be known as the Havasu Wll2 derness. 

3 (2) Certain lands in the Imperial National 

4 Wlldlife Refuge, California, which comprise approxi5 mately five thousand eight hundred and thirty-six 

6 acres, as generally depicted on two maps entitled 

1. "Imperial Refuge Wilderness-Proposed 1" and 

8 "Imperial Refuge Wilderness-Proposed 2", and 

9 dated October 1991, and which shall be known as 

10 the Imperial Refuge Wilderness. 

11 (b) Subject to valid existing rights, the wilderness 

12 areas designated under this section shall be administered 

13 by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the 

14 Wilderness Act governing areas designated by that Act as 

15 wilderness, except that any reference in such provisions 

16 to the effective date of the Wilderness Act (or any similar 

17 reference) shall be deemed to be a reference to the date· 

18 of enactment of this Act and any reference to the Sec19 retary of Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference 

20 to the Secretary of the Interior. 

21 (c) As soon as practicable after enactment of this sec22 tion, the Secretary shall file a map and a legal description 

23 of each wilderness area designated under this section with 

24 the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and 

25 Environment and Public Works of the Senate and Natural 
35 

34 

1 Resources and Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the 

2 House of Representatives. Such map and description shall 

3 have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, 

4 except that correction of clerical and typographical errors 

5 in such legal description and map may be made. Such map 

6 and legal description shall be on file and available for pub7 lie inspection in the Office of the Director, United States 

8 Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 

9 TITLE II-DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK 

10 FINDINGS 

11 SEC. 201. The Congress hereby finds that12 (1) proclamations by Presidents Herbert Hoo13 ver in 1933 and Franklin Roosevelt .in 1937 estab14 lished and expanded the Death Valley National 

15 Monument for the preservation of the unusual fea16 tures of scenic, scientific, and educational interest 

17 therein contained; 

18 (2) Death Valley National Monument is today 

19 recognized as a major unit of the National Park 

20 System, having extraordinary values el\ioyed by mil21 lions of visitors; 

22 (3) the Monument boundaries established in the 

23 1930's exclude and thereby expose to ineop}patible 

24 development and inconsistent management, eontig25 uous Federal lands of essential and superlative natu-

.... 118 Ill'_" 
36 

35 

1 ral, ecological, geological, archeological, paleontolog2 ical, enltural, historical and wilderness values; 

3 (4) Death Valley National Monument should be 

4 substantially enlarged by the addition of all contig5 uous Federal lands of national park caliber and af6 forded full recognition and statutory protection as a 

7 national park; and 

8 (5) the wilderness within Death Valley should 

9 receive maximum statutory protection by designation 

10 pursuant to the Wilderness Act. 

11 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK 

12 SEc. 202. There is hereby established the Death Val13 ley National Park, as generally depicted on 23 maps enti14 tled "Death Valley National Park Boundary and Wuder15 ness-Proposed", numbered in the title one through twen16 ty-three, and dated September 1991 or prior, which shall 

17 be on file and available for public inspection in the offices 

18 of the Superintendent of the Park and the Director of the 

19 National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The 

20 Death Valley National Monument is hereby abolished as 

21 such, the lands and interests therein are hereby incor22 porated within and made part of the new Death Valley 

23 National Park, and any funds available for purposes of 

24 the monument shall be available for purposes of the park. 

•BR IUUB: " ' 
37 

36 

1 TRANSFER AND ADMINISTRATION OF LANDS 

2 SEC. 203. Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary 

3 shall transfer the lands under the jurisdiction of the Bu4 reau of Land Management depicted on the maps described 

5 in section 202 of this title, without consideration, to the 

6 administrative jurisdiction of the Director of the National 

7 Park Service for administration as part of the National 

8 Park System. The boundaries of the public lands and the 

9 national parks shall be adjusted accordingly. The Sec10 retary shall administer the areas added to the National 

11 Park System by this title in accordance with the provisions 

12 of law generally applicable to units of the National Park 

13 System, including the Act entitled "An Act to establish 

14 a National Park Service, and for other purposes,, ap15 proved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1-4). 

16 MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

17 SEC. 204. Within six months after the enactment of 

18 this title, the Secretary shall file maps and a legal descrip19 tion of the park designated under this title with the En20 ergy and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate and 

21 the Natural Resources Committee of the House of Rep22 resentatives. Such maps and legal description shall have 

23 the same force and effect as if included, in this title, except 

24 that the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 

25 errors in such legal description and in the maps referred 

26 to in section 202. The maps and legal description shall 

•ml iJ'ilJil 
38 

37 

1 be on file and available for public inspection in the offices 

2 of the Superintendent of the Park and the Director of the 

3 National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

4 WITHDRAWAL 

5 SEC. 205. Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal 

6 lands and interests therein added to the National Park 

7 System by this title are withdrawn from disposition under 

8 the public land laws and from entry or appropriation 

9 under the mining laws of the United States, from the oper10 ation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States, and 

11 from operation of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. 

12 STUDY AS TO VALIDITY OF MINING CLAIMS 

13 SEC. 206. The Secretary shall not approve any plan 

14 of operation prior to determining the validity of the 

15 unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites af16 fected by such plan within the additions to the park and 

17 shall submit to Congress recommendations as to whether 

18 any valid or patented claims should be acquired by the 

19 United States, including the estimated acquisition costs of 

20 such claims, and a discussion of the environmental con21 sequences of the extraction of minerals from these lands. 

22 GRAZING 

23 SEc. 207. The privilege of grazing domestic livestock 

24 on lands within the park may continue to be exercised at 

25 no more than the current level, subject to applicable laws 

26 and National Park Service regulations, by those persons 
39 

38 

1 holding pennits for such grazing on July 1, 1991. Upon 

2 the expiration of such permits the Secretary, acting 

3 through the Director of the National Park Service, may 

4 issue to such persons new pennits for such grazing, subS ject to applicable laws and National Park Service regula6 tions, but all grazing of such livestock on such lands shall 

7 cease on July 1, 2016. Further, if such a pennittee in8 forms the Secretary that such pennittee is willing to con9 vey to the United States any base property with respect 

10 to which the permit was issued &:!d to which such pennit11 tee holds title, the Secretary shall make the acquisition 

12 of such base property a priority as compared with the ac13 quisition of other lands within the park, provided agree14 ment can be reached concerning the terms and conditions 

15 of such acquisition. Any such base property which is lo16 cated outside the park and acquired as a priority pursuant 

17 to this section shall be managed by the Federal agency 

18 responsible for the majority of the adjacent lands in ac19 cordance with the laws applicable to such adjacent lands. 

20 TITLE ill-JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK 

21 FINDINGS 

22 SEC. 301. The Congress hereby finds that--

23 ( 1) a proclamation by President Franklin Roo24 sevelt in 1936 established Joshua Tree National 

•DR IIlli m , .. 
40 

39 

1 Monument to protect various objects of historical 

2 and scientific interest; 

3 (2) Joshua Tree National Monument today is 

4 recognized as a major unit of the National Park 

5 System, having extraordinary values el\ioyed by mil6 lions of visitors; 

7 (3) the Monument boundaries as modified in 

8 1950 and 1961 exclude and thereby expose to in9 compatible development and inconsistent managetO ment, contiguous Federal lands of essential and su11 perlative natural, ecological, archeological, paleon12 tological, cultural, historical and wilderness values; 

13 (4) Joshua Tree National Monument should be 

14 elllarged by the addition of contiguous Federal lands 

15 of national park caliber, and afforded full reoogni16 tion and statutory protection as a national park; and 

17 (5) the nondesignated wilderness within Joshua 

18 Tree should receive statutory protection by designa19 tion pursuant to the Wilderness Act. 

20 ESTABLISHMENT OF JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK 

21 SEC. 302. There is hereby established the Joshua 

22 Tree National Park, as generally depicted on a map enti23 tied "Joshua Tree National Park Boundary-Proposed", 

24 dated May 1991, and four maps entitled "Joshua Tree 

25 National Park Boundary and Wilderness", numbered in 

26 the title one through four, and dated October 1991 or 
41 

40 

1 prior, which shall be on file and available for public inspec2 tion in the offices of the Superintendent of the Park and 

3 the Director of the National Park Service, Department of 

4 the Interior. The Joshua Tree National Monument is here5 by abolished as such, the lands and interests therein are 

6 hereby incorporated within and made part of the new 

7 Joshua Tree National Park, and any funds available for 

8 purposes of the monument shall be available for purposes 

9 of the park. 

10 TRANSFER AND ADMINISTRATION OF LANDS 

11 SEc. 303. Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary 

12 shall transfer the lands under the jurisdiction of the Bu13 reau of Land Management depicted on the maps described 

14 in section 302 of this title, without consideration, to the 

15 administrative jurisdiction of the Director of the National 

16 Park Service for administration as part of the National 

17 Park System. The boundaries of the public lands and the 

18 national parks shall be adjusted accordingly. The Sec19 retary shall administer the areas added to the National 

20 Park System by this title in accordance with the provisions 

21 of law generally applicable to units of the National Park 

22 System, including the Act entitled "An Act to establish 

23 a National Park Service, and for other purposes", ap24 proved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1-4). 

•Q"418 JH' 
42 

41 

l MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

2 SEC. 304. Within six months after the enactment of 

3 this title, the Secretary shall file maps and legal descrip4 tion of the park designated by this title with the Energy 

5 and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate and the 

6 Natural Resources Committee of the House of Represent-

? atives. Such maps and legal description shall have the 

8 same force and effect as if included in this title, except 

9 that the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 

lO errors in such legal description and in the maps referred 

11 to in section 302. The maps and legal description shall 

12 be on file and available for public inspection in the offices 

13 of the Superintendent of the Park and the Director of the 

14 National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

15 WITHDRAWAL 

16 SEC. 305. Subject to valid existing rights, Federal 

17 lands and interests therein added to the National Park 

18 System by this title are withdrawn from disposition under 

19 the public lands laws and from entry or appropriation 

20 under the mining laws of the United States, from the oper21 ation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States, and 

22 from the operation of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. 

23 UTILITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

24 SEC. 306. Nothing in this title shall have the effect 

25 of terminating any validly issued right-of-way or cus26 tomaiy operation maintenance, repair, and replacement 

•HR !Its m 
43 

42 

1 activities in such right-of-way, issued, granted, or per2 mitted to the Metropolitan Water District pursuant to the 

3 Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617-619b), which 

4 is located on lands included in the Joshua Tree National 

5 Park, but outside lands designated as wilderness under 

6 section 501(2). Such activities shall be conducted in a 

7 manner which will minimize the impact on park resources. 

8 Nothing in this title shall have the effect of terminating 

9 the fee title to lands or customary operation, maintenance, 

10 repair, and replacement activities on or under such lands 

11 granted to the Metropolitan Water District pursuant to 

12 the Act of June 18, 1932 (47 Stat. 324), which are located 

13 on lands included in the Joshua Tree National Park, but 

14 outside lands designated as wilderness under section 

15 501(2). Such activities shall be conducted in a manner 

16 which will minimize the impact on park resources. The 

17 Secretary shall prepare within 180 days after the date of 

18 enactment of this Act, in consultation 'vith the Metropoli19 tan Water District, plans for emergency access by the 

20 Metropolitan Water District to its lands and rights-of-way. 

21 STUDY AS TO VALIDITY OF MINING CLAIMS 

22 SEc. 307. The Secretary shall not approve any plan 

23 of operation prior to determining the validity of the 

24 unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunttel sites af25 fected by such plan within the park and shall submit to 

26 Congress recommendations as to whether any valid or pat-

•HR 518 .1H 
44 

43 

1 ented claims should be acquired by the United States, in2 eluding the estimated acquisition costs of such claims, and 

3 a discussion of the environmental consequences of the ex4 traction of minerals from these lands. 

5 TITLE IV-MOJAVE NATIONAL MONUMENT 

6 FINDINGS 

7 SEC. 401. The Congress hereby finds that8 (1) Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 

9 Parks, as established by this Act, protect unique and 

10 supedative desert resources, but do not embrace the 

11 particular ecosystems and transitional desert type 

12 found in the Mojave Desert area lying between them 

13 on public lands now afforded only impermanent ad14 ministrative designation as a national scenic area; 

15 (2) the Mojave Desert area possesses outstand16 ing natural, cultural, historical, and recreational val17 ues meriting statutory designation and recognition 

18 as a unit of the National Park System; 

19 (3) the Mojave Desert area should be afforded 

20 full recognition and statutory protection as a na21 tiona! park; 

22 ( 4) the wilderness within the Mojave Desert 

23 should receive ma:"<imum statutory protection by des24 ignation pursuant to the Wilderness Act; and 

•HR 618 IH 
45 

44 

1 (5) the Mojave Desert area provides an out2 standing opportunity to develop services, programs, 

3 accommodations and facilities to ensure the use and 

4 el\ioyment of the area by individuals with disabil5 ities, consistent with section 504 of the Rehabilita6 tion Act of 1973, Public Law 101-336, the Ameri7 cans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

8 12101), and other appropriate laws and regulations. 

9 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MOJAVE NATIONAL MONUMENT 

10 SEc. 402. There is hereby established the Mojave NaIl tional Monument, comprising approximately one million 

12 four hundred and ninety-one thousand acres, as generally 

13 depicted on a map entitled "Mojave National Park Bound14 ary-Proposed", dated May 1991, and ten maps entitled 

15 "Mojave National Park Boundary and Wilderness-Pro16 posed", numbered in the title one through ten, and dated 

17 September 1991 or prior, which shall be on file and avail18 able for inspection in the offices of the Director of the 

19 National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

20 TRANSFER OF LANDS 

21 SEC. 403. Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary 

22 shall transfer the lands under the jurisdiction of the Bu23 reau of Land Management depicted on the maps described 

24 in section 402 of this title, without consideration, to the 

25 administrative jurisdiction of the Director of the National 

•HR G181B 
46 

45 

1 Park Service. The boundaries of the public lands shall be 

2 adjusted accordingly. 

3 MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

4 SEC. 404. Within six months after the enactment of 

5 this title, the Secretary shall file maps and a legal descrip6 tion of the monument designated under this title with the 

7 Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate 

8 and the Natural Resources Committee of the House of 

9 Representatives. Such maps and legal description shall 

10 have the same force and effect as if included in this title, 

11 except that the Secretary may correct clerical and typo12 graphical errors in such legal description and in the maps 

13 referred to in section 402. The maps and legal description 

14 shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 

15 offices of the National Park Service, Department of the 

16 Interior. 

17 ABOLISHMENT OF SCENIC AREA 

18 SEC. 405. The East Mojave National Scenic Area, 

19 designated on January 13, 1981 (46 FR 3994), and modi20 fled on August 9, 1983 (48 FR 36210), is hereby abol21 ished. 

22 ADMINISTRATION OF LANDS 

23 SEc. 406. The Secretary shall administer the monu24 ment in accordance with this title and with the provisions 

25 of law generally applicable to units of the National Park 

26 System, including the Act entitled "An Act to establish 

•HR 1118 IH 
47 

46 

1 a National Park Service, and for other purposes", ap2 proved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1-4). 

3 WITHDRAWAL 

4 SEC. 407. Subject to valid existing rights, Federal 

5 lands within the monument, and interests therein, are 

6 withdrawn from disposition under the public land laws and 

7 from entry or appropriation under the mining laws of the 

8 United States, from the operation of the mineral leasing 

9 laws of the United States, and from operation of the Geo10 thermal Steam Act of 1970. 

11 STUDY AS TO VALIDITY OF MINING CLAIMS 

12 SEC. 408. The Secretary shall not approve any plan 

13 of operation prior to determining the validity of the 

14 unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites af15 fected by such plan within the monument and shall submit 

16 to Congress recommendations as to whether any valid or 

17 patented claims should be acquired by the United States, 

18 including the estimated acquisition costs of such claims, 

19 and a discussion of the environmental consequences of the 

20 extraction of minerals from these lands. 

21 REGULATION OF l\HNING 

22 SEC. 409. Subject to valid existing rights, all mining 

23 claims located within the monument shall be subject to 

24 such reasonable regulations as the Secretary may pre25 scribe to assure that mining will, to the maximum extent 

26 practicable, be consistent with the protection of the scenic, 

•DR 1518 Ill 
48 

47 

l scientific, cultural and other resources of the monument, 

2 and any patent which may be issued after the date of en3 actment of this title shall convey title only to the minerals 

4 together with the right to use the surface of lands for min5 ing purposes subject to such reasonable regulations. 

6 GRAZING 

7 SEC. 410. The privilege of grazing domestic livestock 

8 on lands within the monument may continue to be exer9 cised at no more than the current level, subject to applica10 ble laws and National Park Service regulations, by those 

11 persons holding permits for such grazing on July 1, 1991. 

12 Upon the expiration of such permits the Secretary, acting 

13 through the Director of the National Park Service, may 

14 issue to such persons new permits for such grazing, sub15 ject to applicable laws and National Park Service regula16 tions, but all grazing of such livestock on such lands shall 

17 cease on July 1, 2016. Further, if such a permittee in18 forms the Secretary that such permittee is willing to con19 vey to the United States any base property with respect 

20 to which the permit was issued and to which such permit21 tee holds title, the Secretary shall make the·acquisition 

22 of such base property a priority as compared with the ac23 quisition of other lands within the monument, provided 

24 agreement can be reached concerning the terms and condi25 tions of such acquisition. Any such base property which 

26 is located outside the monument and acquired as a priority 

•HRII18 m 
49 

48 

1 pursuant to this section shall be managed by the Federal 

2 agency responsible for the majority of the adjacent lands 

3 in accordance with the laws applicable to such adjacent 

4 lands. 

5 UTILITY RIGHTS OF WAY 

6 SEC. 411. (a)(l) Nothing in this title shall have the 

7 effect of terminating any validly issued right-of-way or 

8 customary operation, maintenance, repair, and ·replace9 ment activities in such right-of-way, issued, granted, or 

10 permitted to Southern California Edison Company, which 

11 is located on lands included in the Mojave National Monu12 ment, but outside lands designated as wilderness under 

13 section 501(3). Such activities shall be conducted in a 

14 manner which will minimize the impact on monument 

15 resources. 

16 (2) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of pro17 hibiting the upgrading of an existing electrical trans18 mission line for the purpose of increasing the capacity of 

19 such transmission line in the Southern California Edison 

20 Company validly issued Eldorado-Lugo Transmission Line 

21 right-of-way and Mojave-Lugo Transmission Line right22 of-way, or in a right-of-way if issued, granted, or per23 mitted by the Secretary adjacent to the existing Mojave24 · Lugo Transmission Line right-of-way ·(hereafter in this 

25 section referred to as "adjacent right-of-way"), including 

•HR s1a m 
50 

49 

1 construction of a replacement transmission line: Provided, 

2 That3 (A) in the Eldorado-Lugo Transmission Line 

4 rights-of-way (hereafter in this section referred to as 

5 the "Eldorado rights-of-way") at no time shall there 

6 be more than 3 electrical transmission lines, 

7 (B) in the Mojave-Lugo Transmission Line 

8 right-of-way (hereafter in this section referred to as 

9 the "Mojave right-of-way") and adjacent right-oftO way, removal of the existing electrical transmission 

11 line and reclamation of the site shall be completed 

12 no later than three years after the date on which 

13 construction of the upgraded transmission line be14 gins, after which time there may be only one elec15 trical transmission line in the lands encompassed by 

16 Mojave right-of-way and adjacent right-of-way, 

17 (C) if there are no more than two electrical 

18 transmission lines in the Eldorado rights-of-way, two 

19 electrical transmission lines in the lands encom20 passed by the Mojave right-of-way and adjacent 

21 right-of-way may be allowed, 

22 (D) in the Eldorado rights-of-way and Mojave 

23 right-of-way no additional land shall be issued, 

24 granted, or permitted for such upgrade unless· an 
51 

50 

1 addition would reduce the impacts to monument re2 sources, 

3 (E) no more than 350 feet of additional land 

4 shall be issued, granted, or permitted for an aclja5 cent right-of-way to the south of the Mojave right6 of-way unless a greater addition would reduce the 

7 impacts to monument resources, and 

8 (F) such upgrade activities, including helicopter 

9 aided construction, shall be conducted in a manner 

10 which will minimize the impact on monument re11 sources. 

12 (3) The Secretary shall prepare within 180 days after 

13 the date of enactment of this Act, in consultation with the 

14 Southern California Edison Company, plans for emer15 gency access by the Southern California Edison Company 

16 to its rights-of-way. 

17 {b) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of termi18 nating any validly issued right-of-way, or customary oper19 ation, maintenance, repair, and replacement activities in 

20 such right-of-way; prohibiting the upgrading of and con21 struction on existing facilities in such right-of-way for the 

22 purpose of increasing the capacity of the existing pipeline; 

23 or prohibiting the renewal of such right-of-way; issued, 

24 granted, or permitted to the Southern Califor~ia Gas 

25 Company, which is located on lands included in the Mojave 
52 

51 

1 National Monument, but outside lands designated as wil2 derness under section 501(3). Such activities shall be con3 ducted in a manner which will minimize the impact on 

4 monument resources. 

5 (c) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of termi6 nating any validly issued right-of-way or customary oper7 ation, maintenance, repair, and replacement activities of 

8 existing facilities issued, granted, or permitted for commu9 nications cables or lines, which are located on lands in10 eluded in the Mojave National Monument, but outside 

11 lands designated as wilderness under section 501(3). Such 

12 activities shall be conducted in a manner which will mini13 mize the impact on monument resources. 

l4 PREPARATION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN 

15 SEC. 412. Within three years after the date of enact16 ment of this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Energy 

17 and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate and the 

18 Natural Resources Committee of the House of Represent19 atives a detailed and comprehensive management plan for 

20 the monument. Such plan shall place emphasis on histori21 cal and cultural sites and ecological and wilderness values 

22 >vi thin the boundaries of the monument. Any development, 

23 including road improvements, proposed by such plan shall 

24 be strictly limited to that which is essential and appro25 priate for the administration of the monument and shall 

26 be designed and located so as to maintain its primitive 

•HR 1518 Ill< 
53 

52 

1 nature of the area and to minimize the impairment of 

2 monument resources or ecological values. To the extent 

3 practicable, administrative facilities, employee housing, 

4 commercial visitor services, accommodations, and other 

5 monument-related development shall be located or pro6 vided for outside of the boundaries of the monument. Such 

7 plan shall evaluate the feasibility of using the Kelso Depot 

8 and existing railroad corridor to provide public access to 

9 and a facility for special interpretive, educational, and sci1 0 entific programs within the monument. Such plan shall 

11 specifically address the needs of individuals with disabil12 ities in the design of services, programs, accommodations 

13 and facilities consistent with section 504 of the Rehabilita14 tion Act of 1973, Public Law 101-336, the Americans 

15 with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101), and 

16 other appropriate laws and regulations. 

17 GRANITE MOUNTAINS NATURAL RESERVE 

18 SEC. 413. (a) There is hereby designated the Granite 

19 Mountains Natural Reserve within the monument com20 prising approximately nine thousand acres as generally de21 picted on a map entitled "Mojave National Park Boundary 

22 and Wilderness-Proposed 6", dated May 1991. 

23 (b) Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary of the 

24 Interior shall enter into a cooperative management ~-

25 ment with the University of California for1 the purposes 

26 of managing the lands within the Granite Mbuntains Nat-

•HR llBIH 
54 

53 

1 ural Reserve. Such cooperative agreement shall ensure 

2 continuation of arid lands research and educational activi3 ties of the University of California, consistent with the 

4 provisions of law generally applicable to units of the Na5 tiona} Park System. 

6 CONSTRUCTION OF VISITOR CENTER 

7 SEC. 414. The Secretary is authorized to construct 

8 a visitor center in the monument for the purpose of provid9 ing information through appropriate displays, printed mal 0 terial, and other interpretive programs, about the re11 sources of the monument. 

12 ACQUISITION OF LANDS 

13 SEc. 415. The Secretary is authorized to acquire all 

14 lands and interest in lands within the boundary of the 

15 monument by donation, purchase, or exchange, except 

16 that17 (1) any lands or interests therein within the 

18 boundary of the monument which are owned by the 

19 State of California, or any political subdivision 

20 thereof, may be acquired only by donation or ex21 change except for lands managed by California State 

22 Lands Commission; and 

23 (2) lands or interests therein within the bound24 ary of the monument which are not owned by the 

25 State of California or any political subdivision there26 of may be acquired only with the consent of the 

•BR 518 m 
55 

54 

1 owner thereof unless the Secretary determines, after 

2 written notice to the owner and after opportunity for 

3 comment, that the property is being developed, or 

4 proposed to be developed, in a manner which is det5 rimental to the integrity of the monument or which 

6 is otherwise incompatible with the purposes of this 

7 title. 

8 TITLE V-NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS 

9 DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS 

10 SEC. 501. The following lands are hereby designated 

11 as wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act (78 

12 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and shall be adminis13 tered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with 

14 the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act: 

15 (1) Death Valley National Park Wllderness, 

16 comprising approximately three million one hundred 

17 eighty-three thousand four hundred and thirty-eight 

18 acres, as generally depicted on 23 maps entitled 

19 "Death Valley National Park Boundary and Wilder20 ness", numbered in the title one through twenty21 three, and dated September 1991 or prior, and three 

22 maps entitled "Death Valley National Park Wilder23 ness", numbered in the title one through three, and 

24 dated May 1991 or prior, and which shall be known 

25 as the Death Valley Wilderness; 

•Data m-
56 

55 

1 (2) Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness Ad2 ditions, comprising approximately one hundred thir3 ty-one thousand seven hundred and eighty acres, as 

4 generally depicted on four maps entitled "Joshua 

5 Tree National Park Boundary and Wilderness-Pro6 posed", numbered in the title one through four, and 

7 dated October 1991 or prior, and which are hereby 

8 incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be a 

9 part of the Joshua Tree Wilderness as designated by 

10 Public Law 94-567; and 

11 (3) Mojave National Monument Wilderness, 

12 comprising approximately six hundred ninety-five 

13 · thousand fifty-six acres, as generally depicted on ten 

14 maps entitled "Mojave National Park Boundary and 

15 Wilderness--Proposed", numbered in the title one 

16 through ten, and dated October 1991 or prior, and 

17 seven maps entitled "Mojave National Park Wilder18 ness-Proposed", numbered in the title one through 

19 seven, and dated October 1991 or prior, and which 

20 shall be known as the Mojave Wilderness. 

21 (4) Upon cessation of all uses prohibited by the 

22 Wilderness Act and publication by the Secretary in 

23 the Federal Register of notice of such cessation, po24 tential wilderness, comprising approximately six 

25 thousand eight hundred and forty acres, as dedJallBW~ 
57 

56 

1 scribed in "1988 Death Valley National Monument 

2 Draft General Management Plan Draft Environ3 mental Impact Statement" (hereafter in this title re4 ferred to as "Draft Plan") and as generally depicted 

5 on map in the Draft Plan entitled "Wilderness Plan 

6 Death Valley National Monument", dated January 

7 1988, and which shall be deemed to be a part of the 

8 Death Valley Wilderness as designated in paragraph 

9 (1). Lands identified in the Draft Plan as potential 

10 wilderness shall be managed by the Secretary insofar 

11 as practicable as wilderness until such time as said 

12 lands are designated as wilderness. 

13 FILING OF MAPS AND DESCRIPTIONS 

14 SEc. 502. Maps and a legal description of the bound15 aries of the areas designated in section 501 of this title 

16 shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 

.17 Office of the Director of the National Park Service, De18 partment of the Interior, and in the Office of the Super19 intendent of each area designated in section 501. As soon 

20 as practicable after this title takes effect, maps of the wil21 derness areas and legal descriptions of their boundaries 

22 shall be filed with the Committee on Energy and Natural 

23 Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural 

24 Resources of the House of Representatives, and such~ps ... 25 and descriptions shall have the salile force and effect as 

26 if included in this title, except that the SeerJtary may ~r-

•JPtlliQI 
58 

57 

1 rect clerical and typographical errors in such maps and 

2 descriptions. 

3 ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS .AREAS 

4 SEc. 503. The areas designated by section 501 of this 

5 title as wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary 

6 in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilder7 ness Act governing areas designated by that title as wil8 derness, ·except that any reference in such provision to the 

9 effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to 

10 be a reference to the effective date of this title, and where 

11 appropriate, and reference to the Secretary of Agriculture 

12 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of the 

13 Interior. 

14 TITLE VI-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

15 TRANSFER OF LANDS TO RED ROCK CANYON STATE PARK 

16 SEC. 601. Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary 

17 of the Interior shall transfer to the State of California cer18 tain lands within the California Desert Conservation Area, 

19 California, of the Bureau of Land Management, compris20 ing approximately twenty thousand five hundred acres, as 

21 generally depicted on two maps entitled "Red Rock Can22 yon State Park Additions 1" and "Red Rock Canyon State 

23 Park Additions 2", dated May 1991, for inclusion in the 

24 State of California Park System. Should the State of Cali25 fornia cease to manage these lands as part of the State 

26 Park System, ownership of the lands shall revert to the 

•HR ate m 
59 

58 

1 Department of the Interior to be managed as part of the 

2 California Desert Conservation Area to provide maximum 

3 protection for the area's scenic and scientific values. 

4 DESERT LILY SANCTUARY 

5 SEC. 602. (a) There is hereby established the Desert 

6 Lily Sanctuary within the California Desert Conservation 

7 Area, California, of the Bureau of Land Management, 

8 comprising approximately two thousand forty acres, as 

9 generally depicted on a map entitled "Desert Lily Saneto tuary", dated February 1986. The Secretary of the Inte11 rior shall administer the area to provide maximum protec12 tion to the desert lily. 

13 (b) Subject to valid existing rights, Federal lands 

14 within the sanctuary, and interests therein, are withdrawn 

15 from disposition under the public land laws and from 

16 entry or appropriation under the mining laws of the Unit17 ed States, from the operation of the mineral leasing laws 

18 of the United States, and from operation of the Geo19 thermal Steam Act of 1970. 

20 LAND TENURE .ADJUSTMENTS 

21 SEc. 603. In preparing land tenure adjustment deci22 sions within the California Desert Conservation Area, of 

23 the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary shall give 

24 priority to consolidating Federal ownership within the na25 tional park units and wilderness areas designated by this 

~6 Act. 

•BB 1181B 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 3 
60 

59 

1 DISPOSAL PROHIBITION 

2 SEC. 604. Notwithstanding any other provision of 

3 law, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Ag4 rieulture may not dispose of any lands within the boundS aries of the wilderness, park, or monument designated 

6 under this Act or grant a right-of-way in any lands within 

7 the boundaries of the wilderness designated under this 

8 Act. Further, none of the lands within the boundaries of 

9 the wilderness, park, or monument designated under this 

10 Act shall be granted to or otherwise made available for 

11 use by the Metropolitan Water District and any other 

12 agencies or persons pursuant to the Boulder Canyon 

13 Project .Act (43 U.S.C. 617-619b) or any similar acts. 

14 MANAGEMENT OF NEWLY ACQUIRED LANDS 

15 SEC. 605. Any lands within the boundaries of a wil16 derness area designated under this Act which are acquired 

17 by the Federal Government, shall become part of the wil18 derness area within which they are located and shall be 

19 managed in accordance with all the provisions of this Act 

20 and other laws applicable to such wilderness area. 

21 NATIVE AMERICAN USES 

22 SEC. 606. In recognition of the past use of the parks, 

23 monument, and wilderness areas designed under this Act 

24 by Indian people for traditional cultural and religious pur25 poses, the Secretary shall ensure access to such parks, 

26 monument, and wilderness areas by Indian people for such 

.•Uit&·.·m· 
61 

60 

1 traditional culiural and religious purposes. In implement· 

2 ing this section, the Secretary, upon the request of an In· 

3 dian tribe or Indian religious community, shall temporarily 

4 close to the general public use of one or more specific por· 

5 tions of park, monument, or wilderness areas in order to 

6 protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious ac7 tivities in such areas by Indian people. Such access shall 

8 be consistent with the purpose and intent of Public Law 

9 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996) commonly referred to as the 

10 "American Indian Religious Freedom Act", and with re11 spect to areas designated as wilderness, the Wilderness 

12 Act (78 Stat. 890; 16 u.s.a. 1131). 

13 WATER RIGHTS 

14 .SEc. 607. (a) With respect to each wilderness area 

15 designated by this Act, Congress hereby reserves a quan· 

16 tity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of this Act. 

17 The priority date of such reserved water rights shall be 

18 the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 (b) The Secretary of the Interior and all other offi· 

20 cers of the United States shall take all steps necessary 

21 to protect the rights reserved by this section, including the 

22 filing by the Secretary of a claim for the quantification 

23 of such rights in any present or future appropriate stream 

24 adjudication in the courts of the State of Cali(ornia in 

25 which the United States is or may be joined and which 

I 

26 is conducted in accordance with section 208 of the Act 

•BK 118 IB 
62 

61 

1 of July 10, 1952 (66 Stat. 560, 44 U.S.C. 666; commonly 

2 referred to as the McCaiTan Amendment). 

3 (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a relin4 quishment or reduction of any water rights reserved or 

5 appropriated by the United States in the State of Califor6 nia on or before the date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (d) The Federal water rights reserved by this Act are 

8 specific to the wilderness areas located in the State of 

9 California designated under this Act. Nothing in this Act 

10 related to the reserved Federal water rights shall be con11 strued as establishing a precedent with regard to any fu12 ture designations, nor shall it constitute an interpretation 

13 of any other Act or any designation made thereto. 

14 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

15 SEC. 608. There are hereby authorized to be appro16 priated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

17 purposes of this Act. 

18 STATE SCHOOL LANDS 

19 SEC. 610. (a) Upon request of the California State 

20 Lands Commission (hereinafter in this section referred to 

21 as the "Commission"), the Secretary shall enter into nego22 tiations for an agreement to exchange Federal lands or 

23 interests therein on the list refeiTed to in subsection (b)(2) 

24 for California State School Lands (hereinafter in this sec25 tion referred to as "State School Lands") or interests 

26 therein which are located within the boundaries of one or 

•BR 118 IB 
63 

62 

1 more of the wilderness areas or park units designated by 

2 this Act. The Secretary shall negotiate in good faith to 

3 reach a land exchange agreement consistent with the re4 quirements of section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and 

5 Management Act of 1976. 

6 (b) Within 6 months after the date of enactment of 

7 this Act, the Secretary shall send to the Commission and 

8 to the Committees a list of the following: 

9 ( 1) The State School Lands or interests therein 

10 (including mineral interests) which are located with11 in the boundaries of the wilderness areas or park 

12 units designated by this Act. 

13 (2) Lands under the Secretary's jurisdiction to 

14 be offered for exchange, including in the following 

15 priority: 

16 (A) Lands with mineral interests, including 

17 geothermal, which have the potential for com18 mereial development but which are not cur19 rently under mineral lease or producing Federal 

20 mineral revenues. 

21 (B) Federal lands m California managed 

22 by the Bureau of Reclamation that the Sec23 retary determines are not needed for any Bu24 reau of Reclamation project. 

•HR 518 IH 
63 

1 (C) Any public lands in California that the 

2 Secretary, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy 

3 and Management Act of 1976, has detennined 

4 to be suitable for disposal through exchange. 

5 (c)(l) If an agreement under this section is for an 

6 exchange involving five thousand acres or less of Federal 

7 land or interests therein, or Federal lands valued at less 

8 than $5,000,000, the Secretary may carry out the ex9 change in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 

10 Management Act of 1976. 

11 (2) If an agreement under this section is for an ex12 change involving more than five thousand acres of Federal 

13 land or interests therein, or Federal land valued at more 

14 than $5,000,000, the agreement shall be submitted to the 

15 Committees, together with a report containing16 (A) a complete list and appraisal of the lands 

17 or interests in lands proposed for exchange; and 

18 (B) a determination that the State School 

19 Lands proposed to be acquired by the United States 

20 do not contain any hazardous waste, toxic waste, or 

21 radioactive waste. 

22 (d) An agreement submitted under subsection (c)(2) 

23 shall not take effect unless approved by a joint resolution 

24 enacted by the Congress. 

-•HR 518IH 
65 

64 

1 (e) If exchanges of all of the State School Lands are 

2 not completed by October 1, 1996, the Secretary shall ad3 just the appraised value of any remaining inholdings con4 sistent with the provisions of section 206 of the Federal 

5 Land Management Policy Act of 1976. The Secretary 

t? shall establish an account in the name of the Commission 

7 in the amount of such appraised value. Title to the State 

8 School Lands shall be transferred to the United States 

9 at the time such account is credited. 

10 (f) The Commission may use the credit in its account 

11 to bid, as any other bidder, for excess or surplus Federal 

12 property to be sold in the State of California in accordance 

13 with the applicable laws and regulations of the Federal 

14 agency offering such property for sale. The account shall 

15 be adjusted to reflect successful bids under this section 

16 or payments or forfeited deposits, penalties, or other costs 

17 assessed to the bidder in the course of such sales. In the 

18 event that the balance in the account has not been reduced 

19 to zero by October 1, 2000, there are authorized to be 

20 appropriated to the Secretary for payment to the Califor21 nia State Lands Commission funds equivalent to the bal22 ance remaining in the account as of October 1, 2000. 

23 (g) As used in this section, the term "Committees" 

24 means the Committee on Natural Resources of the House 

•HR 1118 IH 
66 

65 

1 of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

2 Natural Resources of the Senate. 

3 EXCHANGES 

4 SEC. 611. (a) Upon request of the Catellus DevelopS ment Corporation (hereafter in this section referred to as 

6 "Catellus"), the Secretary shall enter into negotiations for 

7 an agreement or agreements to exchange Federal lands 

8 or interests therein on the list referred to in subsection 

9 (b)(2) of this section for lands of Catellus or interests 

lO therein which are located within the boundaries of one or 

11 more of the wilderness areas or park units designated by 

12 this Act. 

13 (b) Within six months after the date of enactment 

14 of this Act, the Secretary shall send to Catellus and to 

15 the Committees a list of the following: 

16 (1) Lands of Catellus or interests therein (in17 eluding mineral interests) which are located within 

18 the boundaries of the wilderness areas or park units 

19 designated by this Act. 

20 (2) Lands, wherever located, under the Sec21 retary's jurisdiction to be offered for exchange, in 

22 the following priority: 

23 (A) Lands, including lands with mineral 

24 and geothermal interests, which have the poten25 tial for commercial development but which are 

•HR 618 m 
67 

66 

1 not currently under lease or producing Federal 

2 revenues. 

3 (B) Federal lands managed by the Bureau 

4 of Reclamation that the Secretary determines 

5 are not needed for any Bureau of Reclamation 

6 project. 

7 (C) Any public lands that the Secretary, 

8 pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Man9 agement Act of 1976, has determined to be 

10 suitable for disposal through exchange. 

11 (c)(l) If an agreement under this section is for (A) 

12 an exchange involving lands outside the State of Califor13 nia, (B) more than 5,000 acres of Federal land or inter14 ests therein in California, or (C) Federal lands in any 

15 State valued at more than $5,000,000, the Secretary shall 

16 provide to the Committees a detailed report of such land 

17 exchange agreements. 

18 (2) All land exchange agreements shall be consistent 

19 with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

20 1976. 

21 (3) Any report submitted to the Committees under 

22 this subsection shall include the following: 

23 (A) A complete list and appraisal of the lands 

24 or interests in land proposed for exchange. 

•HR 1ns m 
68 

67 

1 (B) A complete list of the lands, if any, to be 

2 acquired by the United States which contain any 

3 hazardous waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste 

4 which requires removal or remedial action under 

5 Federal or State law, together with the estimated 

6 costs of any such action. 

7 ' (4) An agreement under this subsection shall not take 

8 effect unless approved by a joint resolution enacted by the 

9 Congress. 

10 (d) The Secretary shall provide the California State 

11 Lands Commission with a one hundred eighty-day right 

12 of first refusal to exchange for any Federal lands or inter13 ests therein, located in the State of California, on the list 

14 referred to in subsection (b)(2). Any lands with respect 

15 to which a right of first refusal is not noticed within such 

16 period or exercised under this subsection shall be available 

17 to Catellus for exchange in accordance with this section. 

18 (e) On January 3, 1996, the Secretary shall provide 

19 to the Committees a list and appraisal consistent with the 

20 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 of all 

21 Catellus lands eligible for exchange under this section for 

22 which an exchange has not been completed. With respect 

23 to any of such lands for which an e.xchange has not been 

24 completed by October 1, 1996 (hereafter in this section 

25 referred to as "remaining lands"), the Secretary shall es-

•HKII18 m 
69 

68 

1 tablish an account in the name of Catellus (hereafter in 

2 this section referred to as the "exchange account"). Upon 

3 the transfer of title by Catellus to all or a portion of the 

4 remaining lands to the United States, the Secretary shall 

5 credit the exchange account in the amount of the ap6 praised value of the transferred remaining lands at the 

7 time of such transfer. 

8 (f) Catellus may use the credit in the exchange ac9 count to bid, as any other bidder, for any property real, 

10 personal, or mixed, wherever located, owned or controlled 

11 by the United States, including in a corporate capacity 

12 or as a receiver, conservator, or similar fiduciary capacity 

13 to be sold in accordance with the applicable laws and regu14 lations of the Federal agency or instrumentality, or any 

15 element thereof, offering such property for sale. Upon ap16 proval by the Secretary in writing, the credits in Catellus's 

17 exchange account may be transferred or sold in whole or 

18 in part by Catellus to any other party, thereby vesting 

19 such party with all the rights formerly held by Catellus. 

20 The exchange account shall be adjusted to reflect success21 ful bids under this section or payments or forfeited depos22 its, penalties, or other costs assessed to the bidder in the 

23 course of such sales. 

•HR 1118 IH 
70 

69 

1 (g)(l) The Secretary shall not accept title pursuant 

2 to this section to any lands unless such title includes all 

3 right, title, and interest in and to the fee estate. 

4 (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary 

5 may accept title to any subsurface estate where the United 

6 States holds title to the surface estate. 

7 (3) This subsection does not apply to easements and 

8 rights-of-way for utilities or roads. 

9 (h) In no event shall the Secretary accept title under 

10 this section to lands which contain any hazardous waste, 

11 toxic waste, or radioactive waste which requires removal 

12 or remedial action under Federal or State law unless such 

13 remedial action has been completed prior to the transfer. 

14 (i) For purposes of the section, any appraisal shall 

15 be consistent with the provisions of section 206 of the Fed16 eral Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

17 (j) As used in this section, the term "Committees" 

18 means the Committee on Natural Resources of the House 

19 of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

20 Natural Resources of the Senate. 

21 TITLE VII-DEFINITIONS 

22 DEFINITIONS 

23 SEC. 701. For the purposes of this Act: 

•DR 5l81B 
71 

70 

1 (1) The term "Secretary", unless specifically 

2 designated otherwise, means the Secretary of the In3 terior. 

4 (2) The term "public lands" means any land 

5 and interest in land owned by the United States and 

6 administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

7 through the Bureau of Land Management. 

0 
103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

72 

H.R.880 

To withdraw certain Federal lands in the State of California for military 

purpoees, and f~ other purposes. 

IN ·THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 1993 

I 

Mr. VEI\"'TO (for himself, Mr. LEIDIAN, and Mr. MiLLER of California) introduced the follO"I,ing bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on 

Armed Sel'\ices and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain Federal lands in the State of California 

for military purposes, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION I. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights 

6 Act of 1993". 

7 (b) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that8 ( 1) the Federal lands within the desert regions 

9 of California have provided essential opportunities 

10 for military training, research, and development for 
73 

2 

1 the Armed Forces of the United States and allied 

2 nations; 

3 (2) alternative sites for military training and 

4 other military activities carried out on Federal lands 

5 in the California desert area are not readily avail6 able; 

7 ( 3) while changing world conditions have less8 ened to some extent the immediacy of military 

9 threats to the national security of the United States 

10 and its allies, there remains a need for military 

11 training, research, and development activities of the 

12 types that have been carried out on Federal lands in 

13 the California desert area; and 

14 ( 4) continuation of existing military training, 

15 research, and development activities, under appro16 priate terms and conditions, is not incompatible with 

17 the protection and proper management of the natu18 ral, environmental, cultural, and other resources and 

19 values of the Federal lands in the California desert 

20 area. 

21 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS. 

22 (a) CHINA LAKE.-(1) Subject to valid existing rights 

23 and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Federal 

24 lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all other areas 

25 within the boundary of such lands as depicted on the map 

•HR 880 IH 
74 

3 

1 specified in such paragraph which may become subject to 

2 the operation of the public land laws, are hereby with3 drawn from all forms of appropriation under the public 

4 land laws (including the mining laws and the mineralleas5 ing laws). Such lands are reserved for use by the Secretary 

6 of the Navy for7 (A) use as a research, development, test, and 

8 evaluation laboratory; 

9 (B) use as a range for air warfare weapons and 

10 weapon systems; 

11 (C) use as a high hazard training area for aer12 ial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare and coun13 termeasures, tactical maneuvering and air support; 

14 and 

15 (D) subject to the requirements of section 4(f), 

16 other defense-related purposes consistent with the 

17 purposes specified in this paragraph. 

18 (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the 

19 Federal lands, located within the boundaries of the China 

20 Lake Naval Weapons Center, comprising approximately 

21 1,100,000 acres in Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Coun22 ties, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

23 "China Lake Naval Weapons Center Withdrawal-Pro24 posed", dated January 1985, and filed in accordance with 

25 section 3 . 

. .. •HR sao m 
75 

4 

1 (b) CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN.-(!) Subject to valid ex2 isting rights and except as otherwise provided in this Act, 

3 the Federal lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all 

4 other areas within the boundary of such lands as depicted 

5 on the map specified in such paragraph which may become 

6 subject to the operation of the public land laws, are hereby 

7 withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the pub8 lie land laws (including the mining laws and the mineral 

9 leasing and the geothermal leasing laws). Such lands are 

10 reserved for use by the Secretary of the Navy for11 (A) testing and training for aerial bombing, 

12 missile firing, tactical maneuvering and air support; 

13 and 

14 (B) subject to the provisions of section 4(f), 

15 other defense-related purposes consistent with the 

16 purposes specified in this paragraph. 

17 (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1} are the 

18 Federal lands comprising approximately 226,711 acres in 

19 Imperial County, California, as generally depicted on a 

20 map entitled "Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

21 Proposed-Withdrawal" dated November 1991 and filed 

22 in accordance with'section 3. 
76 

5 

1 SEC. 3. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPI'IONS. 

2 (a) PuBLICATION AND FILING REQUffiEMENT.-As 

3 soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, 

4 the Secretary of the Interior shall5 (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice 

6 containing the legal description of the lands with7 drawn and reserved by this Act; and 

8 (2) file maps and the legal description of the 

9 lands withdrawn and reserved by this Act with the 

10 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

11 United States Senate and with the Committee on 

12 Natural Resources of the United States House of 

13 Representatives. 

14 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.-Such maps and 

15 legal descriptions shall have the same force and effect as 

16 · if they were included in this Act except that the Secretary 

17 of the Interior may correct clerical and typographical er18 rors in such maps and legal descriptions. 

19 (c) AVAilABILITY FOR PUBLIC lNSPECTION.-Copies 

20 of such maps and legal descriptions shall be available for 

21 public inspection in the Office of the Director of the Bu22 reau of Land Management, Washington, District of Co23 lumbia; the Office of the Director, California State Office 

24 of the Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, Califor25 nia; the office of the commander of the Naval Weapons 

26 Center, China Lake, California; the office of the com-

•HR 880 IH 
77 

6 

1 manding officer, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Ari2 zona; and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washing3 ton, District of Columbia. 

4 (d) REnmuRSEMENT.-The Secretary of Defense 

5 shall reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for the cost 

6 of implementing this section. 

7 SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS. 

8 (a) MANAGEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTE9 RIOR.-(1) Except as provided in subsection (g), during 

10 the period of the withdrawal the Secretary of the Interior 

11 shall manage the lands withdrawn under section 2 pursu12 ant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

13 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other applicable law, 

14 including this Act. 

15 (2) To the extent consistent with applicable law and 

16 Executive orders, the lands withdrawn under section 2 

11 may be managed in a manner permittingIS (A) the continuation of grazing pursuant to ap19 plicable law and Executive orders where permitted 

20 on the date of enactment of this Act; 

21 (B) protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

22 (C) control of predatory and other animals; 

23 (D) recreation (but only on lands withdrawn by 

24 section 2(a) (relating to China Lake)); 

•HR880 m, 
78 

7 

1 (E) the prevention and appropriate suppression 

2 of brush and range fires resulting from nonmilitary 

3 activities; and 

4 (F) geothermal leasing on the lands withdrawn 

5 under section 2(a) (relating to China Lake). 

6 (3)(A) All nonmilitary use of such lands, including 

7 the uses described in paragraph (2), shall be subject to 

8 such conditions and restrictions as may be necessary to 

9 permit the military use of such lands for the purposes 

10 specified in or authorized pursuant to this Act. 

11 (B) The Secretary of the Interior may issue any 

12 lease, easement, right-of-way, or other authorization with 

13 respect to the nonmilitary use of such lands only with the 

14 concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy. 

15 (b) CLOSURE TO PuBLIC.-(1) If the Secretary of the 

16 Navy determines that military operations, public safety, 

17 or national security require the closure to public use of 

18 any road, trail, or other portion of the lands withdrawn 

19 by this Act, the Secretary may take such action as the 

20 Secretary determines necessary or desirable to effect and 

21 maintain such closure. 

22 (2) Any such closure shall be limited to the minimum 

23 areas and periods which the Secretary of the Navy deter24 mines are required to carry out this subsection. 

•HR seo m 
79 

8 

1 (3) Before and during any closure under this sub2 section, the Secretary of the Navy shall3 (A) keep appropriate warning notices posted; 

4 and 

5 (B) take appropriate steps to notify the public 

6 concerning such closures. 

7 (c) MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The Secretary of the lnte8 rior (after consultation with the Secretary of the Navy) 

9 shall develop a plan for the management of each area with10 drawn under section 2 during the period of such with11 drawal. Each plan shall12 (1) be consistent with applicable law; 

13 (2) be subject to conditions and . restrictions 

14 specified in subsection (a)(3); 

15 (3) include such provisions as may be necessary 

16 for proper management and protection of the re17 sources and values of such area; and 

18 (4) be developed not later than three years after 

19 the date of enactment of this Act. 

20 (d) BRUSH AND RANGE FIRES.-The Secretary of 

21 the Navy shall take necessary precautions to prevent and 

22 suppress brush and range fires occurring within and out23 side the lands withdrawn under section 2 as a. result of 

24 military activities and may seek assistance from the Bu25 reau of Land Management in the suppression of such 

oail iao m 
80 

9 

1 fires. The memorandum of understanding required by sub2 seetion (e) shall provide for Bureau of Land Management 

3 assistance in the suppression of such fires, and for a 

4 transfer of funds from the Department of the Navy to the 

5 Bureau of Land Management as compensation for such 

6 assistance. 

7 (e) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.-(!) The 

8 Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy 

9 shall (with respect to each land withdrawal under seetion 

10 2) enter into a memorandum of understanding to imple11 ment the management plan developed under subseetion 

12 (c). Any such memorandum of understanding shall provide 

13 that the Direetor of the Bureau of Land Management 

14 shall provide assistance in the suppression of fires result15 ing from the military use of lands withdrawn under section 

16 2 if requested by the Secretary of the Navy. 

17 (2) The duration of any such memorandum shall be 

18 the same as the period of the withdrawal of the lands 

19 under section 2. 

20 (f) ADDITIONAL MILITARY USES.-(1) Lands with21 drawn by section 2 may be used for defense-related uses 

22 other than those speeified in such seetion. The Secretary 

23 of Defense shall promptly notify the Secretary of the Inte24 rior in the event that the lands withdrawn by this Act will 

25 be used for defense-related purposes other than those 

HR880IH-2 
81 

10 

1 specified in section 2. Such notification shall indicate the 

2 additional use or uses involved, the proposed duration of 

3 such uses, and the extent to which such additional military 

4 uses of the withdrawn lands will require that additional 

5 or more stringent conditions or restrictions be imposed on 

6 otherwise-permitted nonmilitary uses of the withdrawn 

7 land or portion~-thereof. 

8 (g) MANAGEMENT OF CmNA LAKE.-(1) The Sec9 retary of the Interior may assign the management respon10 sibility for the lands withdrawn under section 2(a) to the 

11 Secretary of the Navy who shall manage such lands, and 

12 issue leases, easements, rights-of-way, and other author13 izations, in accordance with this Act and cooperative man14 agement arrangements between the Secretary of the lnte15 rior and the Secretary of the Navy. In the case that the 

16 Secretary of the Interior assigns such management re17 sponsibility to the Secretary of the Navy before the devel18 opment of the management plan under subsection (c), the 

19 Secretary of the Navy (after consultation with the Sec20 retary of the Interior) shall develop such management 

21 plan. 

22 (2) The Secretary of the Interior shall be responsible 

23 for the issuance of any lease, easement, right-of-way, and 

24 other authorization with respect to any activity which in25 volves both the lands withdrawn under section 2(a) and 

•DR aso m 
82 

11 

1 any other lands. Any such authorization shall be issued 

2 only with the consent of the Secretary of the Navy and, 

3 to the extent that such activity involves lands withdrawn 

4 under section 2(a), shall be subject to such conditions as 

5 the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe. 

6 (3) The Secretary of the Navy shall prepare and sub7 mit to the Secretary of the Interior an annual report on 

8 the status of the natural and cultural resources and values 

9 of the lands withdrawn under section 2(a). The Secretary 

10 of the Interior shall transmit such report to the Committee 

11 on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and 

12 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

13 Senate. 

14 ( 4) The Secretary of the Navy shall be responsible 

15 for the management of wild horses and burros located on 

16 the lands withdrawn under section 2(a) and may utilize 

17 helicopters and motorized vehicles for such purposes. Such 

18 management shall be in accordance with laws applicable 

19 to such management on public lands and with an appro20 priate memorandum of understanding between the Sec21 retary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy. 

22 (5) Neither this Act nor any other provision of law 

23 shall be construed to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior 

24 from issuing and administering any lease for the develop25 ment and utilization of geothermal steam and associated 

·' ··HR 880 m· 
83 

12 

1 geothermal resources on the lands withdrawn under sec2 tion 2(a) pursuant to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 

3 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and other applicable law, but 

4 no such lease shall be issued without the concurrence of 

5 the Secretary of the Navy. 

6 (6) This Act shall not affect the geothermal explo7 ration and development authority of the Secretary of the 

8 Navy under section 2689 of title 10, United States Code, 

9 except that the Secretary of the Navy shall obtain the contO currence of the Secretary of the Interior before taking ac11 tion under that section with respect to the lands with12 drawn under section 2(a). 

13 SEC. IS. DURATION OF WITHDRAWALS. 

14 (a) DURATION.-The withdrawal and reservation es15 tablished by this Act shall terminate 15 years after the 

16 date of enactment of this Act. 

17 (b) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.-

18 No later than 12 years after the date of enactment of this 

19 Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall publish a draft envi20 ronmental impact statement concerning continued or re21 newed withdrawal of any portion of the lands withdrawn 

22 by this Act for which that Secretary intends to seek such 

23 continued or renewed withdrawal. Such draft environ24 mental impact statement shall be consistent with the re25 quirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
84 

13 

1 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) applicable to such a draft 

2 environmental impact statement. Prior to the termination 

3 date specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Navy 

4 shall hold a public hearing on any draft environmental im5 pact statement published pursuant to this subsection. 

6 Such hearing shall be held in the State of California in 

7 order to receive public comments on the alternatives and 

8 other matters included in such draft environmental impact 

9 statement. 

10 (c) EXTENSIONS OR RENEWALS.-The withdrawals 

11 established by this Act may not be extended or renewed 

12 except by an Act or joint resolution. 

13 SEC. 6. ONGOING DECONTAMINATION. 

14 (a) PROGRAM.-Throughout the duration of the ·with15 drawals made by this Act, the Secretary of the Navy, to 

16 the extent funds are made available, shall maintain a pro17 gram of decontamination of lands withdrawn by this Act 

18 at least at the level of decontamination activities per19 formed on such lands in fiscal year 1986. 

20 (b) REPORTS.-At the same time as the President 

21 transmits to the Congress the President's proposed budget 

22 for the first fiscal year beginning after the date of enact23 ment of this Act and for each subsequent fiscal year, the 

24 Secretary of the Navy shall transmit to the Committees 

25 on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Energy and Nat-

•HR 886 IH 
85 

14 

1 ural Resources of the Senate and to the Committees on 

2 Appropriations, Armed Services, and Natural Resources 

3 of the House of Representatives a description of the de4 contamination efforts undertaken. during the previous fis5 cal year on such lands and the decontamination activities 

6 proposed for such lands during the next fiscal year 

7 including: 

8 (1) amounts appropriated and obligated or ex9 pended for decontamination of such lands; 

10 (2) the methods used to decontaminate such 

11 lands; 

12 (3) amount and types of contaminants removed 

13 from such lands; 

14 (4) estimated types and amounts of residual 

15 contamination on such lands; and 

16 ( 5) an estimate of the costs for full decon17 tamination of such lands and the estimate of the 

18 time to complete such decontamination. 

19 SEC. 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL. 

20 (a) NOTICE AND FILING.-(1) No later than three 

21 years prior to the termination of the withdrawal and res22 ervation established by this Act, the Secretary of the Navy 

23 shall advise the Secretary of the Interior as to whether 

24 or not the Secretary of the Navy will have a continuing 

25 military need for any of the lands withdrawn under section 

•BR 880 m 
86 

15 

1 2 after the termination date of such withdrawal and res2 ervation. 

3 (2) If the Secretary of the Navy concludes that there 

4 will be a continuing military need for any of such lands 

5 after the termination date, the Secretary shall file an ap6 plication for extension of the withdrawal and reservation 

7 of such needed lands in accordance with the regulations 

8 and procedures of the Department of the Interior applica9 ble to the extension of withdrawals of lands for military 

10 uses. 

11 (3) If, during the period of withdrawal and reserva12 tion, the Secretary of the Navy decides to relinquish all 

13 or any of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this Act, 

14 the Secretary shall file a notice of intention to relinquish 

15 with the Secretary of the Interior. 

16 (b) CONTM:IINATION.-(1) Before transmitting a no17 tice of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a), 

18 the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department 

19 of Navy, shall prepare a written determination concerning 

20 whether and to what extent the lands that are to be relin21 quished are contaminated with explosive, toxic, or other 

22 hazardous materials. 

23 (2) A copy of such determination shall be transmitted 

24 with the notice of intention to relinquish. 

•HR 880.JH 
87 

16 

1 ( 3) Copies of both the notice of intention to relinquish 

2 and the detennination concerning the contaminated state 

3 of the lands shall be published in the Federal Register by 

4 the Secretary of the Interior. 

5 (c) DECONTMflNATION.-If any land which is the 

6 subject of a notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to 

7 subsection (a) is contaminated, and the Secretary of the 

8 Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, 

9 detennines that decontamination is practicable and eco10 nomically feasible (taking into consideration the potential 

11 future use and value of the land) and that upon decon12 tamination, the land could be opened to operation of some 

13 or all of the public land laws, including the mining laws, 

14 the Secretary of the Navy shall decontaminate the land 

15 to the extent that funds are appropriated for such 

16 purpose. 

17 (d) ALTERNATIVES.-If the Secretary of the Interior, 

18 after consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, con19 eludes that decontamination of any land which is the sub20 ject of a notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to sub21 section (a) is not practicable or economically feasible, or 

22 that the land cannot be decontaminated sufficiently to be 

23 opened to operation of some or all of the public land laws, 

24 or if Congress does not appropriate a sufficient amount 

25 of funds for the decontamination of such land, the Sec-

•HR 880 IH 
88 

17 

1 retary of the Interior shall not be required to accept the 

2 land proposed for relinquishment. 

3 (e) STATUS OF CONTAMINATED LANDs.-If, because 

4 of their contaminated state, the Secretary of the Interior 

5 declines to accept jurisdiction over lands withdrawn by 

6 this Act which have been proposed for relinquishment, or 

7 if at the expiration of the withdrawal made by this Act 

8 the Secretary of the Interior determines that some of the 

9 lands withdrawn by this Act are contaminated to an extent 

10 which prevents opening such contaminated lands to oper11 ation of the public land laws12 (1) the Secretary of the Navy shall take appro13 priate steps to warn the public of the contaminated 

14 state of such lands and any risks associated with 

15 entry onto such lands; 

16 (2) after the expiration of the withdrawal, the 

17 Secretary of the Navy shall undertake no activities 

18 on such lands except in connection with decon19 tamination of such lands; and 

20 (3) the Secretary of the Navy shall report to 

21 the Secretary of the Interior and to the Congress 

22 concerning the status of such lands and all actions 

23 taken in furtherance of this subsection. 

24 (f) REVOCATION AUTHORITY.-Notwithstanding any 

25 other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior, upon 
89 

18 

1 deciding that it is in the public interest to accept jurisdic2 tion over lands proposed for relinquishment pursuant to 

3 'subsection (a), is authorized to revoke the withdrawal and 

4 reservation established by this Act as it applies to such 

5 lands. Should the decision be made to revoke the with6 drawal and reservation, the Secretary of the Interior shall 

7 publish in the Federal Register an appropriate order 

8 which shall9 ( 1) terminate the withdrawal and reservation; 

10 {2) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdic11 tion over the lands by the Secretary of the Interior; 

12 and 

13 (3) state the date upon which the lands will be 

14 opened to the operation of some or all of the public 

15 lands laws, including the mining laws. 

16 SEC. 8. DELEGABILITY. 

17 (a) DEFENSE.-The functions of the Secretary of De18 fense or the Secretary of the Navy under this Act may 

19 be delegated. 

20 (b) INTERIOR.-The functions of the Secretary of the 

21 Interior under this Act may be delegated, except that an 

22 order described in section 7(f) may be approved and 

23 signed only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under 

24 Secretary of the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the 

25 Department of the Interior. 
90 

19 

l SEC. I. BUNTING, FISBJNG, AND TBAPPING. 

2 .All hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands with· 

3 drawn by this Act shall be conducted in accordance with 

4 the provisions of section 2671 of title 10, United States 

5 Code. 

6 SEC. 10. IMMUNITY OF UNITED STATES. 

7 The United States and all departments or agencies 

8 thereof shall be held harmless and shall not be liable for 

9 any injury or damage to persons or property suffered in 

10 the course of any geothermal leasing or other authorized 

11 nonmilitary activity conducted on lands described in see12 tion 2 of this Act. 

13 SEC. 11. EL CENTRO RANGES. 

14 The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to permit 

15 the Secretary of the Navy to use until January 1, 1994, 

16 the approximately 44,870 acres of public lands in Imperial 

17 County, California, known as the East Mesa and West 

18 Mesa ranges, in accordance with the Memorandum of Un19 derstanding dated June 29, 1987, between the Bureau of 

20 Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

21 Department of the Navy. Such use shall be consistent with 

22 such Memorandum of Understanding and such additional 

23 terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may 

24 require in order to protect the natural, scientific, environ· 

25 mental, cultural, and other resources and values of such 

26 lands and to minimize the extent to which use of such 
91 

20 

1 lands for military purposes impedes or restricts use of 

2 such or other public lands for other purposes. All military 

3 uses of such lands shall cease on January 1, 1994, unless 

4 authorized by subsequent Act of Congress. 

5 SEC. 12. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS. 

6 (a) DISCLAIMER.-Nothing in this Act or the Califor7 nia Desert Protection Act of 1993 shall preclude low-level 

8 overflights by military aircraft, the designation of new 

9 units of special airspace, or the use or establishment of 

10 military flight training routes over the new units of the 

11 National Park or National Wilderness Preservation Sys12 terns (or any additions to existing units of such Systems) 

13 designated by this Act or the California De.sert Protection 

14 Act of 1993. 

15 (b) MONITORING.-The Secretary of the Interior 

16 shall monitor the effects of aircraft overflights on the re17 sources and values of the units of the N&tional Park Sys18 tern and National Wilderness Preservation System des19 ignated or e}.'"J)anded by this Act or the California Desert 

20 Protection Act of 1993, and on visitor enjoyment of such 

21 units. The Secretary of the Interior shall actively seek the 

22 assistance of the Secretary of Defense, consistent with na23 tiona! security needs, to resolve concerns related to sl\ch 

24 overflights and to prevent, eliminate, or minimize the dero· ' 

•HR 880 m 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 4 
92 

21 

1 gation of resources and values and of visitor enjoyment 

2 associated with overflight activities. 

0 

•HR 880 m 
93 

Mr. VENTO. The principal measure here, H.R. 518, would designate certain lands in California as wilderness, including lands to 

be managed by the BLM and the National Park Service. It would 

also expand the National Park System by transferring to the National Park Service management of certain lands now managed by 

BLM and has other provisions as well. H.R. 880 would renew the 

withdrawal for military purposes of additional public lands in the 

California Desert that the Department of Defense has used for very 

important training and testing procedures. 

Background information on the bills is before Members. The committee has an extensive record of public review and comment on 

the California Desert legislation, having held hearings in the last 

three Congresses, including three field hearings in California. Last 

Congress, the committee reported and the House passed legislation 

that is nearly identical to the bills before us today. 

As Members have been advised, in recognition of Secretary 

Babbitt's presence and schedule, we will dispense with opening 

statements, and I will briefly recognize my colleague and ranking 

member, Mr. Hansen. Members wishing to make statements will 

be accorded the regular five minutes in questioning the Secretary 

and can utilize that time, which often is used, to make statements 

in any case, and I will recognize Members in the order of arrival, 

with the normal rotation that is used. We will recognize Members, 

incidentally, that wish to testify before the committee at 1 p.m. 

promptly this afternoon. 

Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lewis and Mr. McCandless be 

permitted to sit with the subcommittee and participate in questioning the witnesses. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection. Hearing no objection, Mr. 

McCandless and Mr. Lewis, Members who represent the area affected, as well as others on the committee are given the privilege 

of sitting with the subcommittee. 

Mr. Hansen, did you have any brief remarks this morning. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think, in deference to the Secretary being here, 

I would rather hear from him than me, and I would look forward 

to hearing his remarks. I will enter mine later, if that is all right, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Secretary, we have sort of instituted this procedure. I know that you have been extraordinarily open to dialogue 

with many members of this committee and with the Congress, 

which is greatly appreciated, and we are very pleased, after the announcement yesterday, that you are still with us working to complete the aggressive agenda that you have set forth. 

In any case, Mr. Secretary, all your statements and the statements of witnesses, without objection, in their entirety will be 

made part of the record as well as opening statements of the Members which they may want to submit for the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

Secretary Babbitt, you may proceed. 
94 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Secretary BABBITr. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be back, reconfirmed in my job, and I appreciate your letting me go forward. 

I do confess to a certain neglect of some of the details of my office 

for the last ten days, and I have a lot of things awaiting me. 

I have a written statement. I think what I would like to do is 

just summarize on a more personal level some of my thoughts about this bill which, as you know, the Department and the Administration endorse in its broad provisions. 

I took a trip out to the California Desert with Mr. Hastey, the 

State director of the Bureau of Land Management, over Easter 

weekend to have a look at this proposal and to see what effects it 

has on the ground. I reviewed the record of the hearings from the 

last several years, and my conclusion, based on the hearings and 

a personal trip and refreshing my feeling about the California 

Desert, going back in the process to read an extraordinary book 

written back in the 1920s called Land of Little Rain, one of the 

great classics of Western writing by Mary Austin, a bill devoted entirely to this region of the California Desert-I come back with a 

real sense of urgency and enthusiasm about the importance of this 

area and about the need for an added level of protection either 

through Monument or Park expansion and designation. 

I saw particularly in the East Mojave some very urg(.'lnt facts 

that I think underline the importance of this legislation. There are 

now some 15 million people living just to the west of this area in 

Southern California, and you can almost palpably sense this enormous urban agglomeration turning toward the out-of-doors, and 

you can see the intensity of the interest as it moves across the 

West Mojave out toward these areas. 

When you combine the people pressures, the off-road uses, the 

delicacy of the desert, the problems being caused by a variety of 

mining interests, I think most lamentably the stripping of some of 

the cinder cones for common aggregate that is available anywhere 

and certainly not an appropriate use for this area, it underlines my 

sense that we must take a major step toward the designation and 

protection of this area. 

A few thoughts about some of the specific issues in the bill. The 

Death Valley expansion, it seems to me, is undeniably warranted. 

The Saline Valley, the Panamint Areas, up to the north and west 

of the current boundaries of the Park, are so obviously a part of 

the ecosystem and the geologic basin and range structure of that 

area that it seems to me the only question is, why weren't they 

originally included, not why should they now be included. 

The expansions at Joshua Tree have not drawn a great deal of 

controversy, and again it seems to me that if the heart of that particular Park is desert flora and the surrounding ecosystem, all you 

have to do is look and see that what we are doing is moving toward 

a broader and more logical definition of that boundary. 

The East Mojave has obviously gotten a lot more discussion. 

What I have heard most often is, "Well, should the East Mojave 

really be a National Park considering that there is a Southern Pacific track right-of-way, that there is an old abandoned train station at Kelso, that there are some in-holdings, that there are 
95 

mines, including the Viceroy operation up on the Colorado River 

side?" 

Looking and traveling across the East Mojave, down through 

Kelso Dunes, across through the New York Mountains and down 

through the Lanfair Valley, I don't think there is any question that 

this merits recognition as a National Park. 

My thoughts turn back to 1919 when I was listening to those arguments because in 1919 when the bill to designate Grand Canyon 

National Park was before this body there were, in fact, objections raised that there were operating mines, in-holdings, roads, settlements, and even a railroad within the boundaries of what was subsequently to become Grand Canyon National Park. I do think there 

is a fair question of how to deal in the legislation itself with those 

realities, and I would like quickly to go through them. 

The Viceroy mine has been excluded in the Senate version of the 

bill. I think that is a reasonable decision because the Viceroy mine 

is on the peripheral boundary. It is a large area with a great deal 

of surface disturbance, and I would think the discussion should 

probably be reduced to what are the boundaries of that exclusion. 

The provisions for sheep management in the Old Dad Mountains 

and in these block fault mountains out on the western part of the 

East Mojave seem to me to make sense. I think that the case that 

the California Game and Fish Commission makes for using these 

mountains as a breeding and management ground for sheep which 

have been successfully reestablished there requires some attention 

to exactly how it is we guarantee that the management and some 

export of that sheep crop, can take place. The Lanfair Valley, which is down on the Colorado River side of 

this area, requires some discussion. There was originally, as I understand it, actually a railroad into that area, and it was extensively homesteaded during one of the rare rainy phases back in the 

1920s. Those old homesteads have, in some degree, now been broken up and resold in various land promotions. There is some small 

amount of settlement there, and I would suggest to the committee 

that we might try some language which says if we could get a satisfactory land use plan established with San Bernadino County- ! am not sure whether it is in San Bernadino or Riverside-if we 

could get a satisfactory management plan laid over that valley, it 

might not be necessary in the long run to have a commitment to 

simply buy out or condemn all of those in-holdings, and I would 

commend that approach for your consideration. 

Lastly, a few words about the Catellus and State in-holdings. I 

think the language with respect to the in-holdings held by the 

State of California is quite adequate. I think the approach toward 

the Catellus in-holdings is conceptually correct. I would ask you to 

consider only two things. The language, as it is presently drafted, 

could be read to say that I have an absolute obligation to offer up, 

on an interstate basis, to Catellus almost anything that would be 

inventoried as available for exchange, excess Bureau of Reclamation lands, or commercially developable land, and I would like very 

much to have language which sa1s to me, "Make them some reasonable offers from the following, rather than inferring that somehow we surface everything and they get a smorgasbord from which 

to pick. 
96 

Lastly in that respect, I would ask you to revisit the credit mechanism that is at the end of the Catellus exchange process and ask 

whether or not it might make sense to say that in the year 1998 

those bidding credits can be extended, not that they are automatically extended. 

The reason for these comments is that I think it is important to 

take those in-holdings out, but I don't think that we need to say 

to Catellus, "You are automatically taken out" by any given date, 

because I think it subtracts from our negotiating leverage. What I 

would really like to have is a free hand to go to work with Catellus 

using the public domain and see if we can strike a deal but in the 

context of some incentives for Catellus to come to the table rather 

than saying, "Well, we are not interested because we have got an 

automatic credit take-out in the year 1998." · With that, and with those thoughts, I would underline my firmly 

held conviction based upon my discussions with the Bureau of 

Land Management, with Roger Kennedy in the National Park 

Service, that this area does deserve Monument or Park status, and 

you can certainly take your choice on that score. It needs, it must 

have, intensive management of a kind and style that we associate 

with the National Park Service. 

Lastly, with respect to H.R. 880, I am pleased to acquiesce in 

what I think is a nicely bargained set of agreements with the military. We have a few technical suggestions as to the length, the role 

of mining withdrawals, a few other things. I don't think I need to 

take your time. I think they can be worked out at the staff level 

and it represents an entirely reasonable compromise. I think the 

wilderness and Park designations that we are contemplating ought 

to leave space for the kinds of military activities that we see out 

of these areas and that can be done. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statements of Secretary Babbitt follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE 

INTERIOR, ON H.R. 518 

Secretary BABBITT. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here 

today to discuss the Administration's view of H.R. 518. 

The California Desert is a unique and extraordinary resource. 

For many Americans, their picture of the American West is the 

California Desert. It is the mystique; the vast open space; the arid, 

impenetrable, and unforgiving landscape. It is stoic rock monuments, majestic sunsets, and rugged territory that makes heroes 

and villains, and where good and evil are offered up in black hats 

and white hats. 

The California Desert is also criss-crossed by the tracks of the 

people who made the deserts bloom. You can still see roads cut 

through sand by Conestoga wagons. Scars mark the mines that delivered fortunes to claim settlers who would not be turned away. 

But today, the expansive and historic California Desert is threatened. Its air, its mystical solitude, its diversity is challenged by 

those who would pillage its subtle bounty. We need to protect this 

treasure for future Americans, for those who wish to preserve both 

the culture and the spirit of the wild West. 
97 

The issues we visit today are not new to you, But the moment 

to save the desert may disappear as quickly as desert seasons turn. 

We stand in support of H.R. 518, and urge the Committee to act 

expeditiously so we can protect the rich historical, archaeological, ecological, cultural, and recreational values enjoyed by millions of 

Americans. 

We favor expanding the boundaries of the Joshua Tree and 

Death Valley National Monuments and desi!Plating them as na· 

tional parks, and as well we favor the creation of a Mojave Na· 

tiona! Park. H.R. 518 would create a national monument; however, 

we recommend consistency among the three areas of Mojave, Death 

Valley, and Joshua 'll-ee. We support the provisions of the bill that 

make significant additions of Bureau Land Management (BLM) 

and National Park Service (NPS) lands to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. We defer to the Department of Agriculture 

concerning National Forest System lands addressed in this bill. 

Additions proposed for the Joshua Tree National Park would pro. 

vide protection of ecosystems now only partly included in the exist. 

ing monument. These ecosystems include the Coxcombe Mountains, 

Pinto Basin and Pinto Mountains, Little San Bernardino Mountains, and Eagle Mountains. Resource protection would be greatly 

enhanced here with the full ecosystem included under on management entity. 

Additions proposed for the Death Valley National Park in H.R. 

518 would add valuable resources and park quality lands to the 

unit. 

The _proposed additions to the west of the existing monument 

generally comprising all or portions of the Eureka Valley, the Sa· 

line Range and Saline Valley and Panamint Valley are particularly 

significant. The BLM's 1979 Desert Planning Team Report and the 

National Park Service's 1987 Resource Evaluation Study found 

these general areas to be highly deserving of protection and eligible 

for inclusion in the Monument. 

The proposed Mojave National Monument would be a significant and very special addition to the National Park System. The East 

Mojave area is located at the junction of three major desert divisions-Sonoran, Mojave, and Grant Basin. The biological resources 

of the area are extremely varied. Elevations range from less that 

2000' in western valley areas to more than 7500' in mountain 

areas. The lower desert is colored with plants characteristic of the 

Colorado desert--smoke trees, cat-claw acacia, and assorted cactus. 

The upper elevations are checkered with pinyon-juniper. The desert 

prairie is also colored with unique and surprising foliage: fern gardens sprouting from spring-fed oases, and remnant stands of white 

fir of some higher peaks. 

In the desert, the bighorn sheep, mountain lion, Gila Monsters, 

and desert tortoise carve out a hard-fought existence. In the subtle 

calm of the desert it is often easier to hear the creatures of this 

stark climate than to see them. The dove and Gambel's quail remind us that there is more here to sustain life than we can easily 

appreciate. 

The California Desert holds valuable cultural resources as well. 

The pictographs, petroglyphs, turquoise quarries, rock shelters, 

milling sites, camp sites, and prehistoric trails colored our image 
98 

of the West. The old Army outposts, historic mines, and early homesteads and ranches are the legacy of Western settlement. 

This desert is unique for its variety of recreational uses and the 

opportunity to interpret and preserve fragile desert in an area accessible to literally millions of urban and suburban residents. 

Hunting inside the proposed Mojave National Monument would 

conflict with other recreational interests and should be prohibited 

inside the park. There are clearly ample hunting opportunities 

elsewhere in the California Desert. 

We do believe, however, that the National Park Service should 

be given discretion to continue to actively manage certain areas of 

the East Mojave for wildlife, particularly bighorn sheep, in order to 

continue existing cooperative arrangements between the California 

fish and wildlife authorities and the BLM to improve sheep habitat 

and relocate excess bighorn to other desert ranges. 

One of the concerns raised with respect to the designation of the 

Mojave National Monument is the amount of privately owned land 

within the proposal. H.R. 518 addresses a significant part of this 

problem through the inclusion of language providing for innovative 

land exchange proposals for the California State School lands and 

lands owned by the Catellus Corporation. These two entities own 

the vast majority of non-federal land in the proposed park and we 

support, with only some minor modifications, the mechanisms in 

the bill to deal with these two major landowners. 

The Lanfair Valley area in the eastern portion of the proposed 

park poses a different problem. This area contains numerous relatively small parcels of privately owned land in various ownerships. The BLM has estimated that perhaps as many as 1,000 individual privately owned parcels are located in the Lanfair Valley 

area. I am concerned about the impact this concentration of small 

land holdings may have on the proposed park. It is my view that 

the pressure to develop these parcels will increase once the park 

is established and our only options will be to permit incompatible development on these properties or to purchase these properties, 

most likely through condemnation. 

We need to think about a different and more innovative approach for the Lanfair Valley. I proposed that we involve the local government entity, San Bernardino Country, and state authorities to the 

extent necessary in a process to create a forward-looking comprehensive land-use plan for the Valley to promote park purposes 

while affording private inholders the maximum flexibility to continue traditional appropriate uses of their property. Once such a 

plan is developed by the county and approved by the Secretary, the 

Department's authority to condemn private lands in the area would 

be suspended for the duration of the plan. 

With technical assistance from the Department, such a plan could protect park resources far more effectively than simply wielding the draconian threat of potential condemnation. Local landowners would benefit from participating in the process of determining the future of the Valley, from obtaining a sense of certainty, 

and from removal of the threat of condemnation. 

This approach would provide a mechanism to encourage local 

guidance and direction to landowners with Lanfair Valley with respect to development of their property without fear of condemna-
99 

tion while providing for the protection of park resources. We would 

be pleased to work with the Committee staff and others to draft 

statutory language to implement this approach. As noted above, we generally support the land exchange provi- sions included in sections 609 and 610 of S. 21 for California State 

School Lands and the Catellus Development Corporation. We 

would, however, propose that the language be modified to make 

clear that in preparing the lists of Federal lands available for exchange, the Secretary has ample discretion to include on those lists 

lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior suitable 

for exchange and that the Secretary not simply be required to prepare a list of every acre of land under Interior's jurisdiction that 

might fall into the broad categories of lands identified in the legislation. We also propose that the deadline for completion of the land 

exchanges be changed from October 1, 1996 to October 1, 1998. 

This change would give the parties extra time to ensure that all 

possible exchanges have taken place before the alternate provisions 

must take effect. 

As I said earlier, we generally support the wilderness and park 

boundaries proposed in H.R. 518. However, as you know, since legislation to protect the California Desert was first introduced in 

1986, there have been numerous boundary modifications and refmements made to these areas to address various concerns and in 

response to the most recent field data available. Such a process is 

continuing and it is possible that other boundary changes and clarifications may be desirable as the legislation moves through the legislative process. We want you to know that we are prepared to 

work with you and your staffs to assist in making these adjustments. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that the position the Administration is 

taking today differs in many significant respects from the position 

taken by previous Administrations, and I would like to make a couple of points in this regard. First, I believe the position we take 

today more accurately reflects the view shared by millions of Americans, both in and out of California, that the California Desert warrants a very high degree of protection. For much of the land affected by H.R. 518, the choice has never been a simple one between 

unlimited development or total preservation. Many of the designations and boundary decisions presented by H.R. 518 have been, and 

remain, very close calls because of the significant resource values 

involved. The position we take today is, in a sense, a cautious one 

that preserves the best of what the desert has to offer by providing 

the extra level of protection these lands deserve and, at the same 

time, help to end the gridlock that has plagued this legislation for 

the past eight years. 

We recognize, of course, that there are significant differences in 

the statutory mission and resulting policy between the BLM and 

the NPS, as well as different public expectations regarding management by the two agencies. To address these concerns, I have established a multi-agency working group in the Department that 

will involve my office, the office of the appropriate Assistant Secretaries, as well as BLM and NPS personnel to begin working together on how best to plan for and facilitate the implementation of 

this legislation. I believe these issues should be carefully consid-
100 

ered as expeditiously as possible and I am convinced such a group 

can play a very positive role as the Congress continues to consider 

the California Desert legislation and in implementing the legislation after it is enacted. 

Finally, it is important to understand that we are not criticizing 

BLM's management of the Desert. I recently had the opportunity 

to tour a portion of this area with BLM California State Director 

Ed Hastey and was impressed with his accomplishments and those 

of his staff in managing such a diverse area. The BLM and Mr. 

Hast(:ly have done an excellent job given the available resources 

and Congressional mandates, and have preserved the Desert's values in a way that has given us options for the future. It is the need 

to meet the expectations for the future that leads me to support 

H.R. 518. 

I urge your immediate action on this important legislation and 

I will be pleased to answer your questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

ON H.R. 880 

Secretary BABBITT. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here 

today to give you our views on H.R. 880, the "California Military 

Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1993." 

H.R. 880 would withdraw for 15 years approximately 1,100,000 

acres of land within the boundaries of China Lake Naval Weapons Center (China Lake), and approximately 226,711 acres, compnsing 

the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (Chocolate Mountain), from all forms of appropriations under the public land laws, 

including the mining and mineral leasing laws, except for geo- thermal leasing at China Lake. The lands would be withdrawn for 

use for a variety of defense-related purposes, including military training, research, development, and testing. Non-military uses 

would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

under a management plan and related Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

The bill also authorizes the continuation of military use of ap- proximately 44,870 acres of public lands in Imperial County, California, known as the East Mesa and West Mesa Ranges without 

further legislation until January 1, 1994. Finally, it would establish that nothing in the proposed "California Desert Protection Act 

of 1993" shall preclude or otherwise affect low-level overflights of 

military aircraft in the California Desert area. 

We would support enactment of H.R. 880 if it is amended to address our concerns. 

WITHDRAWAL FROM MINING AND MINERAL LEASING 

Under H.R. 880, both China Lake and Chocolate Mountain would 

be withdrawn from mining and mineral leasing. Chocolate Mountain would also be withdrawn from geothermal leasing. We agree 

that the lands in question should be withdrawn from the Mining 

Law and from mineral leasing. However, we strongly urge that a 

mechanism, similar to the process in Section 12 of the Military 

Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986, Public Law 99-606, be incorporated 

in H.R. 880. Using that approach, the lands would be withdrawn 
101 

from mining and from mineral and geothermal leasing, but selected 

areas could be reopened by a modification and opening order published in the Federal Register if the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy, fmds 

that the mineral activity would be suitable, given the military use. 

NEPA and other environmental and cultural resource laws requiring consultation in appropriate cases would have to be complied 

with. The 1986 Act also contains special authority for promulgation 

of regulations, emergency closures, and issuance of limited patents 

for only the locatable minerals. 

In addition to provisions along the lines of those in the 1986 Act, 

we urge inclusion of a provision concerning salable minerals or 

mineral materials which are normally disposed of by sale under the 

Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601). These are neither leasable nor 

locatable. We assume that in absence of specific mention in the bill, 

those minerals could be disposed of under the 194 7 Act. However, 

it would be helpful to clarify that such sales are authorized. 

IMMUNITY PROVISIONS 

If H.R. 880 is amended to include our recommendation regarding 

mining and mineral leasing, then the immunity language in section 

10 should be amended to cover mining, mineral leasing, and material sales. 

ASSIGNMENT OF MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 

We support the provisions of Section 4(g)(1) of H.R. 880 that 

would authorize the Secretary to assign management responsibilities for lands withdrawn for China Lake to the Secretary of the 

Navy. However, we urge that these provisions also be made applicable to Chocolate Mountain. Chocolate Mountain is apparently 

heavily contaminated with munitions waste, including unexploded 

ordnance, and any surface or subsurface use or occupancy could be 

hazardous. Given this situation, military management and land development for that portion of the withdrawn lands intensively used 

for military purposes would be preferable to BLM management and 

plan development. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

H.R. 880 provides for 3 years to complete a management plan. 

We prefer a 5-year period, because it allows for a more thorough 

and professional product. Our experience since enactment of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) has 

been that 5 years are generally necessary to authorize, program, 

and schedule planning activities. 

TERMS OF THE WITHDRAWAL 

H.R. 880 provides that the withdrawals would terminate in 15 

years. We believe that 25 years is necessary for military withdrawals to allow for a more efficient long-range planning and implementation process. We urge that the bill be amended to provide for the 

longer term. The 12-year period for the publication of a draft EIS 

should likewise be modified. 
102 

WILD HORSES AND BURROS 

We support the provisions in subsection 4(g)(4) for management 

of wild horses and burros at China Lake by the Secretary of the 

Navy. We recommend that a similar provision be included to cover 

Chocolate Mountain. 

REVOCATION OF EXISTING WITHDRAWALS 

To facilitate transition from current authorizations, to clarify the 

governing authorities, and to obviate the need for further administrative actions, we recommend that a section be added to H.R. 880 

to repeal or revoke the existing withdrawals for China Lake and 

Chocolate Mountain, whether statutory or administrative in nature. We have previously provided language to the subcommittee to 

effect these revocations. 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Subsection 5(b) of H.R. 880 would require the Secretary of the 

Navy to publish a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) concerning continued or renewed withdrawal of any portion of the 

land. We do not believe an EIS is necessary in every case for continuation of existing military reservations. We believe that an application by the Secretary of the Navy for extension of the withdrawals in accordance with the regulations and procedures of the 

Department of the Interior should be sufficient. 

EL CENTRO RANGE 

Section 11 of the bill would authorize the Secretary to allow the 

Secretary of the Navy to use until January 1, 1994, approximately 

44,870 acres of public lands in Imperial County, California, known 

as the East and West Mesa Ranges. Most of this land has been 

under a withdrawal for the All-American Canal Division, Boulder 

Canyon Project by the Bureau of Reclamation. A cooperative agreement between the Navy and the Bureau of Reclamation has authorized the Navy to use these lands. This withdrawal has been 

identified by the Bureau of Reclamation for relinquishment. Section 11 of the bill would provide for the continued use by the Navy 

until January 1994. 

Since only 7 months remain before the January 1994 termination 

date, we recommend that section 11 be amended to authorize continued use of the El Centro Range by the Secretary of the Navy 

until January 1, 1996. The withdrawal proposal for the El Centro 

ranges is currently undergoing review in BLM headquarters and 

will be forwarded to Congress within the next few months. 

MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS 

H.R. 880 strikes the appropriate balance between national defense and concerns as to the noise and other adverse effects of aircraft overflights on park resources. Further, H.R. 880 recognizes 

the importance of military overflights now and in the future. The 

National Park Service will continue to monitor the effects of aircraft overflights on park resources and values. 
103 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, I believe that enactment of H.R. 880 with the 

amendments we suggest would furnish an excellent foundation for 

continued military use of both the China Lake Naval Weapons 

Center and Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range and would 

adequately provide for appropriate use of other resources under 

proper management guidelines. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The Chairman of the committee is present, a Member from California immensely interested in this issue, and who arrived first, I 

might say, before the subcommittee chairman. 

Mr. Miller. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I don't have questions for the Secretary. 

I just want to commend you for your very forthright statement. 

I think the issues that you have raised in that statement are certainly those which we should continue to, as you say, engage in a 

discussion about as we contemplate the markup of this legislation 

before this committee. 

But I really want to once again thank Chairman Vento for holding these hearings. I think this is the twelfth hearing that we have 

had on this legislation over the last several years, to try and provide the public input and the input of our colleagues. I also want 

to thank Rick Lehman for his shepherding of this legislation over 

the last couple of years. 

We obviously look forward to working with you, and I think, 

again, the suggestions and comments that you have made this 

morning will be given very serious consideration by this committee 

as we try to reach agreement on this matter, and I appreciate your time, Mr. Secretary. I have a statement I would like to include in the record, if there 

is no objection. 

Mr. VENTO. Your statement will be made a part of the record. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for holding hearings on H.R. 518, the 

California Desert Protection Act, and H.R. 880, legislation to withdrawal certain Federal lands in California for military purposes. 

This is the 12th Congressional hearing held since 1987 on California Desert protection legislation. As an original cosponsor of both 

bills, I appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to the California 

Desert. 

H.R. 518 

H.R. 518 is nearly identical to legislation which passed the 

House in the 102nd Congress by a vote of 297 to 136. The bill designates approximately 4 million acres as wilderness, expands the 

existing Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Monuments by 

200,000 acres and 1.3 million acres respectively, and redesignates 
104 

the Monuments As National Parks. In addition, H.R. 518 creates 

a new 1.5 million acre Mojave National Monument managed by the 

National Park Service on lands presently administered as the East 

Mojave National Scenic Area by the Bureau of Land Management. 

According to a Field Poll taken last year, 71 percent of Californians 

favor National Park Service management in the existing East Mojave National Scenic Area. 

If the California Desert Protection Act is adopted, all existing 

uses of the desert will continue, sometimes in different areas under 

different management prescriptions. But there is no use of the 

desert land permitted today that will be precluded by enactment of 

this legislation. 

For those who like the backpack, there are thousands of trail 

miles to walk along in the 4 million acres of wilderness. All of the 

areas to be designated wilderness were classified as roadless by the 

Bureau of Land Management in its desert plan. 

For those who like to use off road vehicles, the legislation leaves 

open approximately 33,000 miles of roads, including 18,000 miles 

of primitive routes and 15,000 miles of paved and unmaintained 

dirt roads. In addition, approximately 430,000 acres of public 

land-an area approximately 10 times the size of Washington, 

D.C.-will remain open primarily for use as off road play areas for 

trail bike and all terrain vehicle users. 

For those who enjoy the privilege of mining on public land, the 

legislation allows anyone with valid existing rights to continue operating. The bill was carefully crafted to exclude most current and 

historical mining districts. 

For those who run cattle on public lands, grazing also will be 

permitted to continue for approximately 25 years in the proposed 

Mojave National Monument and existing Death Valley National 

Monument, and in perpetuity in wilderness areas. 

HUNTING 

Under terms of this legislation, hunting would be prohibited in 

the Mojave National Monument. The National Rifle Association apparently objects to the prohibition and is seeking support for an 

amendment to allow hunting to continue. Yet, there are ample opportunities for hunting on almost 40 million acres of Federal land 

in California, including more than 4 million acres in the California 

Desert. In addition, the Mojave is not a major harvest ground-approximately 26 deer and 5 bighorn sheep are taken each year. 

Given the large numbers of visitors expected at the proposed Mojave National Monument and the relatively small harvest, hunting 

could jeopardize the safety of the visitors. In 1987, the NRA Board 

of Directors adopted a resolution opposing further expansion of the 

national wilderness and National Park System, unless the areas remained open to hunters. The NRA also supported the restoration 

of hunting access in areas where hunting has been curtailed. N ationa! conservation organizations claim the NRA is using the California Desert Protection Act to gain a foothold in its efforts to require hunting in our National Parks and Monuments. under existing law, hunting is permitted in only 1 out of 79 National Monuments and 1 out of 51 National Parks. 
105 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

Critics also have suggested that the California Desert Protection 

Act will cause the loss of jobs in southern California. Yet, according 

to a report prepared by LSA Associates for the Wilderness Society, 

non-fuels mining jobs account for less than one percent of total employment in the five counties affected by this legislation. As for future mining jobs precluded by this legislation, the same report estimates that several hundred jobs at most will be affected by passage 

of the California Desert Protection Act. Yet, the proposed Mojave 

National Monument can be expected to provide service sector jobs. 

Although NPS is presently preparing an estimate on jobs expected 

to be created as a result of designation of the Mojave National 

Monument, NPS studies show that the Death Valley National 

Monument provides 885 jobs generating about $60 million per year. 

Given that the Mojave is located between two major interstate 

highways, the proposed Mojave National Monument has the potential to create additional jobs. 

H.R. 880 

H.R. 880 is identical to military withdrawal and overflight language adopted as a floor amendment during House consideration of 

the California Desert Protection Act in 1991. 

CONCLUSION 

Given that about 17 years have passed since 1976 when Congress ordered the first study about future uses of the California 

Desert in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it is time 

to enact legislation so that all desert users-miners, hikers, educators, off-road vehicle users and others-may have some certainty 

about the future of the desert. At the same time as this legislation 

will preserve natural and scenic areas for the health, enjoyment 

and education of future generations, this legislation also maintains 

off road vehicle recreational opportunities, and allows mining, grazing, and other activities to continue in specific areas. 

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the 

record. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, general leave has been given that the entire 

statements be made a part of the record. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:] 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the Chairman for holding today's hearing. 

I remember vividly attending a hearing, chaired by Mel Levine, on 

this issue four years ago in Barstow. That hearing attracted a massive crowd that was very polarized. Looking at today's witness list, 

it appears that much of that polarization remains today. 

H.R. 518 includes over twice as much wilderness as the BLM recommended to Congress and converts 3.0 million acres of multiple 

use public lands into national parks. In the process, it eliminates 
106 

hunting on all 3.0 million acres of the new National Park landsa land acreage the size of the state of Connecticut. 

I am concerned about the inherent and unmanageable conflicts 

we are creating for the National Park Service by creating an East 

Mojave National Monument. This area has 2,500 miles of roads 

and routes, 55 miles of transcontinental railroad, several high voltage transmission lines, a pipeline, 120 miles of telephone lines and 

10,000 mining claims. It is inconceivable to me that this area was 

even considered for national monument status. 

As an avid hunter and sportsmen, I agree with the 235 Members 

of the House who voted in 1991 to continue hunting in the East 

Mojave. I know the chairman does not like the precedent of hunting in national monuments, but that vote should serve to alert him 

that hunting is just one more compelling reason why this area 

should remain in multiple use management. 

Another concern I have with H.R. 518, is the effort to close numerous established roads that provide access to recreationalist. 

These roads do not fit the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness Act and 

should be cherry-stemmed out of the Wilderness Area. 

I note that all four Congressman representing the Desert areas, 

lead by Jerry Lewis, strongly oppose H.R. 518. This clearly indicates that H.R. 518 does not represent a consensus but rather 

places preservation above true conservation. I believe that H.R. 

2379, introduced by Mr. Lewis and supported by all the Desert 

Congressman, is closer to a consensus. It would implement the recommendations made by the BLM in designating 2.3 million acres 

as wilderness and expanding the national park system by 108,000 

acres. It is strongly supported by Desert residents who must live 

with the consequences of what the Congress enacts. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I look forward to listening to today's 

witnesses. 

Mr. HANsEN. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your statement. 

The California Desert plan was developed pursuant to FLPMA 

and was the result of exhaustive study by the career professionals 

at the Bureau of Land Management. That plan was agreed to by 

former Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus as well as his successors. 

Today you are supporting legislation that recommends twice as 

much wilderness and 28 times more Park lands than the plan developed by your Department. I would just be curious, and I say it 

very respectfully, why this radical departure, and also, if I may 

piggy-back on that question, I understand that a past BLM employee is going to testify later that says this will cost over one billion dollars in land acquisition, and you did allude to it in your 

opening statement of the trades, and I appreciate that. 

I would appreciate if you would comment briefly on those two 

questions, if you would, please. 

Secretary BABBITI'. Sure. 

My basic feeling about these issues from my own experience in 

Arizona and elsewhere in the Southwest is that these desert regions are extraordinarily fragile, and as the use pressures mount 

they degrade in remarkably rapid fashion. Of course, when they 

are degraded by use, they take literally centuries, if ever, to recover. 
107 

The original plan back in the 1970s was, I think, a reasonable 

approach in the context of that time, but the bottom line is, it 

hasn't worked. The mining issues in the East Mojave, I think, border on an outrage. I mean the Aikin cinder cone is being stripped 

and hauled away. Now, I am not prepared to address blame for 

that, but the fact is that it has happened. The Kelso Sand Dunes 

have been blanketed with speculative, if not outright fraudulent, 

mining claims, and there is going to be an extraordinary amount 

of time and expense spent stripping away these speculative mining 

claims. 

If you look at the other cinder craters off beyond the Aiken cone, 

two-thirds of them now have roads driven to the top preparatory 

to this same kind of blasting up and pulling apart. 

I had a careful look at the off-road use issues. I think there is 

room for that kind of thing in the desert, but you can't have it just 

willy-nilly across the entire desert or you risk losing the entire ecosystem. It is now a problem in the East Mojave. 

I think if you add all those things up, it is clear to me that we 

ought to have a mining withdrawal, that we ought to have much 

more intensive administration of the area to protect the endangered species, the flora of the desert. If you add all of that up, it 

starts to sound an awful lot like the National Park System. 

Now, with respect to the amounts of money, I think I have already given you my response. I don't think that that kind of expenditure is necessary. I think in the case of the Lanfair Valley 

that a zoning plan, land use plan, at the county level might well 

be adequate. I believe that if I have more flexibility the Catellus 

lands can be exchanged without any kind of premium, and that 

would leave essentially a cash obligation to the State of California 

for the take-out of their lands. I have not separately valued that, 

but I think that is a fair question. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Secretary, back in the days of your good friend 

Scott Matheson from the State of Utah, I was Speaker of the 

House, and we used to always be battling situations as far as hunting on some of the areas that we were looking at that would go into 

different designations. This seems to be an issue that a lot of us 

worked on a couple of terms ago with Ron Marlenee. What is your 

opinion on hunting? And, while we are at it, let me piggy-back on 

to that one about grazing. As I understand the way this bill is 

drafted, it would substantially reduce the amount of grazing in the 

East Mojave. 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Yes, there would be a phase-out of grazing at 

the year 2016. I am from Arizona; you are from Utah. I think even 

coming from our States, you would be astounded at what this land 

is all about. No offense to California intended; there isn't much 

very much grazing out here. I don't know, there may be-somebody 

help me-a handful of permits-four, five, half a dozen-involving 

how many head of livestock? There can't be a thousand. I would 

guess several hundreds of livestock across this entire area. It is 

really de minimis. 

Now with respect to the hunting, I tried to imagine what I would 

be hunting in the East Mojave, and the bottom line is, there is one 

real issue, and that is the sheep. There are a few-very few-
108 

white-tailed deer, a few odds and ends. The sheep are a substantial 

issue. 

It is my understanding that the California Game and Fish Commission is saying, out of this nucleus herd in these mountains to 

the west, we believe we can restock the desert ranges outside these 

areas, and that surely includes most of the desert ranges that get 

wilderness d ation in this bill, all the way from the 

Chemehuevi an Whipple Mountains clear down to the Colorado 

River all the way back up to the west. I mean there are 20, 30, 

40, maybe 50 of those desert ranges, which I think are tremendous 

hunting terrain. The right to hunt would be protected by the wilderness designation. I guess my bottom line on hunting is, there 

is still plenty of space for it. 

Mr. HANsEN. I see. 

Not to be argumentative in any way, I understand there is dove, 

quail, chukar, jackrabbits, cottontails, coyotes, and bobcats; there 

were 21,000 hunters who hunted in 1991 and 213 different species 

were taken at that time. I guess it is kind of like beauty, it is in 

the eye of the beholder. Knowing of your arid State and my arid 

State, I sure remember John Seiberling going with me out in those 

areas and the north strip of the Arizona which I border in my district, stating that he couldn't see where any respectable cow would 

ever be there, but yet we do have-and I am sure your own background is in that area-we do have some very respectable cattle 

areas there. Admittedly, our cows have to wander a long way for 

a drink of water and for a blade of grass occasionally, but we do 

raise substantial cattle there. 

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate it very 

much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman, and let me just recognize myself. 

The East Mojave, the designation of it as a Park or as a Monument, as a unit of the National Park System, is one of the more 

difficult issues and challenges that are faced here, Mr. Secretary. 

I note in your testimony you point out that in the Sonoran 

Desert, the National Park System, as a ~oal, ought to include the 

Sonoran and all the major desert areas m the United States as a 

representative area. For instance, the Great Basin, which I did 

some work on with Senator Harry Reid when he was in the House, 

we were able to include it, and so we have a representative area. 

I think we need a little more of the Great Basin, to be candid with 

you, in order to take in more of the desert playa areas. The 

Sonoran Desert is represented, but we don't have any real representation of the Mojave Desert in the National Park System. Is 

that correct? 

Secretary BABBITT. That is my understanding. There is really, I 

think, a kind of confluence of the Basin and Range areas of the Mojave Desert and the Sonoran Desert on the West. 

I don't necessarily want to get rhapsodic in these hearings, but 

the longer one spends in these desert areas of the Southwest, the 

more clear it is that there is nothing like them anywhere else in 

the world. In a way, a mountain is a mountain. You have seen alpine mountains in Switzerland, in South America, and they all 
109 

have striking similarities. This kind of desert isn't replicated-well, 

I knew that was· not going to have the intended effect. 

In any event, my point is simply, this desert doesn't occur any- where else. It is extraordinarily fragile, and we ought to be out protecting it. 

Mr. VENTO. It has the intended effect, I think, Mr. Secretary. I 

mean I have spent hours and hours flying over this, as have many 

of my colleagues that represent the area, and you see the alluvial 

fans and the refracted light in the purple sort of color that comes 

off these areas. It is an amazing area, and to some extent, these 

dry areas are very, very fragile. 

I think it should be recognized, and I know you did in your statement, but I recall that it struck me in 1987 or 1988, when we first 

were considering that before my subcommittee, and Congressman 

Lehman did a great job last year in bringing this to a conclusion 

on the House side, representing a part of that area and the principal sponsor of the measure. But at that time we focused on the 

BLM role. I think they had 25 people assigned to the California 

Desert Conservation area. 

Now included in this area that we studied, we have some military withdrawal lands and there are some Park Service, but I 

think it points out the fact that since then there has been a significant increase in problems because of the deplorable numbers, the 

too few BLM people in the area. I think we have since then improved that greatly, and considering the veneer-thin presence of 

BLM personnel in that area, they have done a remarkable job in 

terms of trying to keep a focus on this and do the job that they have to do, and I know you recognize that in your statement. There 

is certainly the recognition that inclusion of Park areas and/or wilderness and/or modification from the recommendations that have 

been made by the previous Administration in no way reflects on 

the role of the BLM in this particular instance, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary BABBITI'. Mr. Chairman, I would simply concur enthusiastically with that comment. 

Mr. VENTO. I think what has occurred here is that we really have 

sort of a fast forward in terms of beginning to deal with issues, 

rather than coming back and dealing with this in pieces, because 

it has been, I think, the subject of public debate and discussion and 

deliberation for the last ten years of some controversial nature. I 

think the suggestion is that there should be a conclusion. 

I think one of the great failures of the national government is 

that we don't bring things to conclusion and people get weary, I 

think, many times with land use questions, and we come back and 

nibble away at it each year, year in and year out. 

So I hope that the conclusion of this year's activity is to arrive 

at a final product, a land use plan that is more comprehensive, I 

think more ambitious, more aggressive, in terms of trying to set a 

policy path that is clear here rather than one that leaves us in a 

quandary of additional studies. In fact, in this bill there is very little that is left to study-some areas-but it does, I think, deal with 

making decisions, which is what this committee has obviously been 

poised to do for a long time. But I think that finall>" we have a reliable partner in the national government now, m the executive 

branch, that is ready to make decisions on this. 
110 

I would point out on the grazing issue, I think it was on this area 

that we had 2,500 acres per AUM in this dry area. As I said to you, 

Mr. Secretary, when I reported that to you at one time, these cows 

have more miles on them than my old Chevrolet. I think that sort 

of speaks to the nature, and I think the impact, nevertheless, of 

cattle, of grazing, on these areas is even more dramatic in these 

areas where there is so little vegetation. So that has to be drawn 

into contrast as well as, of course, the hunting issue. 

Last year during the testimony on the designation of the Mojave 

Desert, the great extent of hunting there indicated that there were 

only about 15,000 visitor days. That doesn't mean 15,000 people, it 

means that they spent that many days in the desert. Now there is 

some controversy over the numbers. I hope we can arrive at what 

the impact is to try to understand that, and the fact that there 

were 25 to 30 mule deer that were actually successfully hunted in 

that area annually, which is a pretty small number considering the 

number of days, and of course, there are other things that are 

hunted there, as my colleague said, a number of different species. 

I didn't know that we hunted bobcats, but some people apparently 

do. 

As far as mining in the Parks and in-holdings, as you have indicated, Mr. Secretary, those issues are as old as the National Park 

System itself. In fact, we have specific laws that deal with mining 

in the Parks, and you pointed out mining that, in fact, has taken 

place, active mining that took place in the Grand Canyon. 

As far as in-holdings, we have had in-holdings in some of the 

Parks that were established as reserves, over 100 years ago, and 

they persist. So I think finding a solution, as you indicated, to the 

Lanfair Valley and the number of in-holdings there is especially 

crucial, and I would be willing to discuss with you and others any 

type of method that we can utilize, working especially with the 

county and/or others to achieve the ends desired in terms of trying 

to limit adverse impact on the basis for which the Park might be 

established. So I have a specific interest in that. 

When we look at the amount of wilderness, the expansion of the 

Parks, I think this really does set us on a final policy path, one 

that will, I think, sustain the judgment of time for some period, 

and I hope that we can take this aggressive new posture in the Administration and the good work of my colleagues from California 

across the country on this issue and move it forward. 

Mr. LaRocco is next in recognition. 

Mr. LaRocco. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY LaROCCO 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see that "Sec." in front of your name down 

there. It is great to have you back on the job. 

I will just make an observation with regard to hunting. I am very 

concerned about this issue and what message the House passes on 

to the Administration. I would make the observation further that, 

on the Floor of the House in the 102d Congress, there was actually 

an amendment passed to allow hunting in a National Park. I think 

that is precedent-setting, and so I am faced with the dilemma of 

trying to walk a fine line here on the hunting in the East Mojave 
111 

Desert. I have drafted an amendment that at this point I plan to 

offer during the markup to change the status to a preserve. It is 

just an effort not to break with precedent on that critical issue. I 

think Mr. Hansen has correctly stated the number of hunter days 

in the area, 169,000 I believe. I am not sure whether you want to 

take a further position on that, but I don't know whether the administration would rather have a precedent-setting amendment 

passed on the Floor which I think would again be successful or to 

try and walk some fine line legislatively. I don't know how else to 

do it, and I am faced with that dilemma. 

Furthermore, Mr. Secretary, with regard to the East Mojave, I 

heard what you said about the Viceroy mine and the exclusion 

there. I think as we move ahead, it is the responsibility of the 

framers of public policy to make favorable comments about mining 

operations which are responsible within the environmental regulations, and for those mining operations that go the extra mile, which 

I think Viceroy has demonstrated there. As you correctly pointed 

out, there are bad operations where there is a sincere and true deterioration of the land. 

My question is, with regard to the Viceroy, they have a claim 

block that I think goes beyond their current operations. Does the 

Administration have a position on how big that exclusion might be 

with regard to their existing operations and to their whole claim 

block? I would welcome anything you have to say about the hunting, and that would be the end of my questions. 

Secretary BABBITr. Congressman, the claim block is a fair issue. 

I think what I prefer to do is follow up in writing on that. There 

has been a great deal of discussion, but I am not certain that we 

have kind of reduced it to meet some bounds in terms of our view. 

Obviously, I share your judgment about that mine. They have 

done an adequate job. They have, by and large, as far as I can see, 

been a pretty darn good operation, and I think they are entitled to 

reasonable treatment on that score. 

I don't have a solution to your dilemma on the hunting issue. It 

is a dilemma. It is my judgment that this area does need designation as a Monument or preferably a Park. I wouldn't even care to 

face the idea of a proposal for hunting in a National Park. It is utterly at variance with our perception of Parks. It would be violently 

opposed by the Park constituency. 

I guess the best I can do is just to repeat what I said to Congressman Hansen. It is my judgment that, on the whole, there is 

plenty of hunting space in Southeastern California. It is an enormous place, and I don't think there is any shortage of hunting 

space. 

The one exception that I think we need to think about is the 

sheep, because it really is an extraordinary hunting resource. It 

has by and large not been widely available in the Southwest. That 

is changing precisely because of the success at reestablishing these 

sheep herds in these separate, discrete mountain ranges, and my 

sense is that if we can construct a bill that makes certain that 

California Game and Fish can use this area, not for hunting but 

for the raising and transplanting of sheep herds to these other 

mountains, that would in my judgment answer the question completely, Is there an adequate hunting opportunity available across 
112 

all of these different species in the California Desert within prox- imity of the Los Angeles metropolitan area? If the sheep issue is 

taken care of, my answer would be yes. 

I understand that that may or may not solve your dilemma. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the opportunity to ask questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that the Catellus land holding language was conceptually okay. However, in the Senate hearing several weeks ago that was not the case. Several western Senators, including Senator Bumpers, who is the chairman of that subcommittee, had major problems with this language. Could you explain the 

difference between why you believe that there was no problem and 

Senator Bumpers believing that there was? 

Secretary BABBITr. Mr. Congressman, I don't recall whether or 

not I was present at the discussion with Senator Bumpers, but just 

to sharpen my view on this, I don't think the language is okay in 

its current form. I believe-and I suspect this may be what Senator 

Bumpers was getting at-that what we should have is authority in 

the Secretary to devise a land exchange, if you want, subject to approval by the Congress, and then possibly have, if we can't work 

out an exchange, the option of a bidding credit, as a fall-back. But 

I think what Senator Bumpers was objecting to was the kind of 

mandatory sound of all this. It puts Catellus in too strong a position. 

These in-holdings, I think, should be understood in their full context. This is one of these old railroad grants that goes across there, 

and they are very common in these areas. By and large, this is 

land which was dealt out free or for a few cents an acre. It is not 

as if it is land which has any development tial. It is land 

which could, in fact, sit inside a National k for the next 50 

years without threatening the Park or the integrity of the Park administration. So there is no sense of urgency about moving this out 

and saying it must be done. I think in due course and fairness to 

Catellus it is reasonable to say to the Secretary, "Try to work it 

out." 

I will tell you honestly, my opening position in these checkerboard trades is, you j_ust block the checkerboard. You don't look for 

some kind of windfall. You say to Catellus, "We would be happy to 

get you out of the Park boundaries because we have identical land 

just outside the Park boundary, and it is not our job to put you into 

a commercial development in Seattle or Minneapolis or New York." 

Mr. CALVERT. Was there a task force that was agreed upon at 

the hearing with Senator Bumpers? Has that formed, and what is 

the status of that? 

Secretary BABBITr. Congressman, not to my knowledge. My staff 

has had some discussions with Catellus, but it hasn't come anywhere near any kind of task force or structured process. I think my 

staff understands my feelings on this, and my feelings again are, 

I would be quite aggressive about trying to work out a land exchange, but I would not one-up the ante by having any mandates 

or having my hands tied, and I would be quite willing to bufferin case you don't have a high opinion of my horse-trading ability-
113 

I would be quite willing to have a requirement of congressional approval. This seems to me reasonable. 

Mr. CALVERT. One other question. It was alluded that there are 

too few people and resources for the BLM to manage the desert. 

However, earlier this year this committee had an oversight hearing 

on the similar problems faced by the National Park Service. It 

seems the National Park Service is facing also a land acquisition 

backlog of approximately $4 billion. Existing Parks such as Yosemite are facing shortages, making upkeep and maintenance difficult. 

If we are having troubles addressing this, how are we going to take 

on the entire California Desert? 

Secretary BABBITT. It is a fair question because we do have a resource and management backlog on all sides of public lands-Fish 

and Wildlife land base, BLM, the National Park System. That is 

undeniably correct. 

My sense is simply this. We really must make a decision about 

the future of this desert. It does need a higher degree of protection 

and administration that I believe is best placed in the National 

Park Service. I don't think we can dodge that imperative by pleading lack of resources. It is a fair question. 

I have submitted to the Budget Committees a substantial increase in the budget for the National Park System this coming 

year. It is about 20 percent. Most of that, not all of it, but most 

of it comes from a reallocation of priorities within the Department, 

and I would hope that in the future I can continue to find efficiencies, to reallocate, to squeeze. It is not going to be easy, but it 

has to be done. 

Mr. CALVERT. One last question and comment. As you know, 

California is going through some very tough times right now, especially Southern California. We have not been able to benefit from 

any economic expansion. This legislation over time would pretty 

much eliminate mining, eliminate grazing, leave little room for 

hunting, recreational vehicles in the desert, all of these which have 

economic impact to that region. California is fighting for every single job that it can retain and to try to bring others in to employ 

more and more people. This is not, in my mind, helping our region, 

and I would hope that there would be some reasonable compromises, especially within the East Mojave. 

I know there is some great interest not only with the mining people but hunting, and as this process continues as it has, I would 

hope that you will be open minded and will listen to the two Congressmen who are here today who represent that area and who are 

more knowledgeable about that area than anyone else in this room, 

I think. 

With that, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, just briefly, I am of course sensitive to the economics and jobs issue. I think I can say flat out, 

without much fear of contradiction that, without exception, everywhere in the United States since the creation of the National Park 

System the placement of a land unit into National Park status has 

been a direct, immediate, sustained, unyielding inducement to the 

creation of jobs and income. It is true absolutely everywhere. It is 

a reflection, if you will, of the magnetism and esprit and impor-
114 

tance that people attach to that designation. It draws people from 

all over the world, and it will here. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lehman. 

STATEMENT OF BON. RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again, and I certainly want 

to commend you for the level of involvement you have put into this 

issue. I think given the new circumstances, one being you being Secretary of the Interior and actively supporting this legislation, I 

believe you testified in favor of it in the Senate and in your opening 

remarks before this committee you supported it, and here you are 

today as well, and with the support of the two United States Senators who also actively endorse this legislation, it ought to be clear 

to everyone involved with this issue that the gridlock with respect 

to desert protection is over and we are going to enact legislation 

in this session. 

I think the important thing then for us as we go forward here 

is not just to enact legislation but to make sure that what we do 

is good legislation, that it makes sense, that it is reasonable, and 

that we can all be proud of it. 

I, frankly, for the past three years that I have been involved directly, hands on, with crafting this legislation, have been very frustrated because, while I have attempted to have an open door and 

talk to everyone involved with the legislation, we have seen very little movement on the other side, and maybe hopefully today some 

of my colleagues will change that somewhat, but all we have seen 

on the other side of the table is holding fast to the prior BLM recommendation, which is about a third of the acreage in this bill. 

Nonetheless, when I took over this legislation three years ago, I 

sought to compromise with the bill's opponents, and the bill before 

us today reflects an awful lot of compromise in that regard. First 

of all, I took out 270,000 acres from the original Cranston proposal. Second, we eliminated all active mines from wilderness areas in 

the legislation. The only question with the Viceroy mine here is 

whether or not it be included in the Park. It is out of wilderness 

and could mine under the legislation before us in Park status. If 

it is your desire to remove it-and Senator Feinstein has already 

done that in her bill-I have no problem taking that extra step 

here as well in the name of compromise. 

With respect to off-road vehicle use in the area, we took 75,000 

acres out of the Cranston bill and put 114 miles back in for off-road 

vehicle use. 

Three years ago, every utility in California was opposed to this 

bill. Today, none of them is opposed to this bill. Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, L.A. Water and 

Power, the Met, all of their problems with respect to this legislation have been met satisfactorily, and they are not opposed to the 

bill. Indeed, some of them have actively written letters supporting 

the legislation before us. 

We also provided language to protect the State Teachers Retirement System in California, and I am happy you have endorsed that 

language today in this bill, and we crafted language with respect 

to the Catellus Corporation. You suggest some refinements to that 
115 

language, and if that can be done, meeting the overall framework 

that we have established here, I certainly have no problem with 

moving in that regard as well. 

With respect to grazing, the original bill eliminated grazing in 

the East Mojave. This legislation, the one before us today, does not 

make a Park of the East Mojave, it puts it under Monument status 

under Park Service jurisdiction. I did that purposely with the consent of many of the supporters because I felt with Monument status we would be more able to deal with multiple-use issues that 

will automatically be involved on the East Mojave, but there again, 

even with that movement on my part, we are seeing no commensurate movement in that direction from any of those who have just steadfastly opposed the legislation, and I suspect if there isn't a 

movement then Senator Feinstein's position of making this a Park 

will prevail, although I personally would prefer to allow a little bit 

more multiple-use management than I think the generic Park Act 

will permit. 

In that regard, I am very happy to note that you have offered 

somewhat of a compromise here yourself, Mr. Secretary, with respect to the Lanfair Valley to say that maybe we could set up a 

scheme whereby we can have a management plan for that area 

adopted and accepted by all the parties that might not necessitate 

some of the things that the generic Park Act will· bring into play 

with the authority that the Park Service will have. But there 

again, it will take the cooperation of others if we are going to make 

that a reality here. 

The defense issues in the bill which Mr. Vento has, which I believe is also before us today, have been adequately worked out, and 

again, the language that Senator Feinstein has in the Senate, if 

that is more suitable, it is fine with me over here as well in that 

regard. 

But in all these issues during all the years I have been involved 

here, we have attempted to have an open door and to listen to all 

the parties involved and improve this legislation. That went up to 

as recently as two weeks ago when the mayors of Victorville and 

Barstow met with me in my Fresno office and discussed some pro- posed changes that they would like to see in the bill, or at least 

get some clarifications with respect to their water rights and issues 

like that, which I think we can move forward with if they are willing to do so. 

Finally, with respect to the grazing issues that have come up here this morning, as I said, the original bill would not have allowed any grazing. We have worked out a scheme here whereby cattlemen, who are still not happy with this and will testify to that 

effect later, can continue their operations for 25 years. After such 

a period of time, they will not be able to use their leases, but they will in the meantime be given priority by you in possible purchase 

of the properties that they do own. 

I don't like to look at this issue as a matter of how many of them 

there are. I think there are six cattle operations in the area. The 

fact is, they are private property owners on their own land. They 

have been there for a long time, some of them 100 years or more, 

and I disagree with my chairman, Mr. Vento, as to the degree of 

problems they have created, and you could make equal arguments 
116 

that by developing some of the water sources on the desert and 

other things that they have, in fact, probably enhanced the situation. 

But maybe we can go further there, and maybe we ought to explore that, because I think they are a part of the West. I have attempted to do it in my legislation. I still don't have their su:eport 

on it but have gone further in that regard than others were willing 

to go in the past. 

There are other issues to be resolved. My problem has been, we 

have been doing them before just on our own without the help of 

the Department of the Interior, without the help of a lot of parties 

that ought to be involved. Now we have your assistance; I am very, 

very grateful for that. 

I don't really have any questions today. I just want to tell you 

that I think we are entering a very crucial period now over the 

next couple of months when we move beyond the concept of .Protecting the desert into what will actually be in place in the legtslation, 

and you and your successors will have to interpret, with the aid of 

the courts, I assume, over the next several years. I want to make 

sure we do it right, and I want to make sure that 30, 40, 50 years, 

or 100 years from now, people can look at this and say, ''Boy, they did the right thing back then in the 1990s when they stood up and 

protected this very valuable resource" that you have so articulately described this morning. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Doolittle, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, following up on Mr. Calvert's question to you, what is the total cost estimate of implementing H.R. 518 as your figures reveal? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Congressman, I don't have that at my fingertips. It seems to me that the estimate, based upon direct acquisi- tion of all in-holdings and claims I think was from $100 million to 

$300 million. Now, bear in mind that I don't think that that is an 

accurate cost of the approach that I would propose to take. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. You think it would be more than that? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. I think it would be substantially less, because 

I believe that we could work out a plan that would avoid purchases 

in the Lanfair Valley, for example, which I think in terms of land 

values is the highest value area of private in-holdings. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. It is my understanding that just the provision of 

the bill that requires the Bureau of Land Management to examine 

each of the 25,700 mining claims within the area at $10,000 minimum per claim, that would be a cost alone of, what, $257 million 

simply for that part of it. That is the information that I have available. What is your understanding as to the cost of evaluating each 

of the 25,700 mining claims? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Well, sir, to my knowledge, we have not made 

that evaluation, and the reason is, there is no sense of urgency 

about that. There is still a mining claim in the heart of Grand Canyon National Park which has been there since 1919, owned by the 

Hearst Corporation, and to my knowledge nobody has ever evaluated it because there hasn't been any need to. I mean that is an 

entirely sort of theoretical approach. 
117 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. But I thought the bill required the evaluation. 

Secretary BABBITT. Well, if it does, I would certainly be ready 

and willing to help in a redraft because I think a general mandate 

over time is fine, but I don't think it is necessary to do it in any mandated time frame. · Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am informed that Ed Hastey, the State director 

of BLM, is the one who has provided the estimates, at least 

$10,000 per evaluation, and I would just urge you to have your 

staff look into this, because it is my understanding the evaluation 

is required. 

Secretary BABBITT. I would be quite happy to do that and to suggest some language that might obviate the need for that kind of approach if, in fact, that is what it does. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Where, sir, do you believe the money will come 

from to pay for the cost of implementing this bill, whatever they 

end up being, I guess somewhere in the range of $100, $200, $300 

million? 

Secretary BABBITT. Well, as I have explained, I have suggested 

language which I think could substantially alter those kinds of cost 

estimates, and the answer, of course, is that to the extent that cash 

outlays are needed rather than land exchanges, for example, the 

answer is the United States Congress. 

Mr. DoOLI'ITLE. I find it interesting. We are always criticized as 

the Congress for placing some little pet project always ahead of 

dealing with the most pressing national problem fiscally, which is 

the deficit, and I hear you in essence saying the same thing: You 

know, the values in this desert land, which has been the training 

grounds for the military and produced so many minerals and everything for our State, that these are so valuable that we just have 

to subordinate the interests of senior citizens and children and everybody who hopes to have a future in this country to the need to 

acquire this land. 

Why do we need to acquire this land? If we can't afford a space 

station, which I think we can't afford, and we can't afford a 

superconducting supercollider, how can we afford to buy more Government land? As I recall, the Federal Government already owns 

46 percent of our land in California. I mean how does a member 

of the President's Cabinet-the President being committed to reducing the deficit-how do you reconcile those competing points of 

view? 

Secretary BABBITT. Well, sir, that is the purpose of my testimony. I think that if we work this bill hard and intensively we can bring 

those estimates way down. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I don't mean to be argumentative about this, but 

just to observe that this is a question of having to cut back in every 

area we can conceivably think of, and yet however much your estimates are as to what it is going to cost, suppose you cut it in half 

of what the estimates are, it is still arguably more money than we 

can honestly afford, given the priority of reducing the deficit, is it 

not? 

Secretary BABBITT. There was an election in California which, in 

some measure, I think, was a referendum on this issue, and I 

would suggest that the people of California would dissent from 
118 

your position and that they would say this desert has extraordinary meaning and value not only for us but for future generations. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Are you referring to the election of our two U.S. 

Senators? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. That is correct. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. Well, I would strongly differ from your interpre- tation of that election as being a referendum on this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I just would point out to the gentleman, Mr. Doolittle, that in 1991 CBO estimated the additional administrative 

costs would be as much as $30 million over five years, including 

the examination of unpatented mining claims, and CBO's estimate 

was, of course, based on the previous Administration's information. 

So I don't know where the number, $300 million, came from, but 

I want to certainly challenge that notion. 

I did read over the study as to the validity of mining claims, and 

that really talks about whether or not they are patented and valid 

claims. It does say "including the estimated acquisition costs of 

such claims that are patented claims," not necessarily just claims, 

which of course is far different, as the Secretary and as the gentleman from California know. 

Mr. Lehman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to at this point insert 

in the record a study by the Park Service on the economic impacts and benefits of Joshua Tree National Park and a similar study on 

the economic impacts of Death Valley and just respond to Mr. Doolittle by saying we can't afford not to protect the California Desert. 

That is the real answer. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, they will be added to the record. 

[The studies follow:] 
E C 0 II 0 " I C 

0 F 

JOSHUA 

NATIONAL 

PROFILE 

THE 

TREE 

fUNUfHIIT 

J II A 6 A 0 W I II G 

R E L A T I 0 N S H I P 

WITH THE 

TOWNS OF THE 

M 0 R 0 II G 0 B A S I II 
120 

ECONOMIC PROFILE OF JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL ~ONUMENT 

The purpose of this Economic Profile of the Joshua Tree National 

Monument is to describe the impact of how - and how much - the 

presence of the national park affects the Morongo Basin. 

While the National Parks are not established to afford a profit to 

anyone, they do contribute a considerable amount of income to the 

towns nearby. State Route 62 brings visitors to the Joshua Tree 

National Monument directly through the Morongo Basin. This access offers exposure to the many facilities available in the towns which are situated along this northern park boundary. It is also 

apparent the properties within close proximity to the park borders 

enjoy the maintained values of a well placed neighborhood. In 

other words, National Parks and Monuments are natural "greenbelts" having a reputation of upgrading the values of adjacent lands. 

Alon~ the southern edge of the Morongo Basin, the National Park 

serv1ce protects some 560,000 acres of the contrasting, picturesque vacation land which now draws over 1,150,000 visitors annually from 

all over the world. A polling of visitors in 1991 indicated 76t come !rom the state of california and 13t trqm foreign countries 

with the remaining vacationers traveling from all areas of the 

United States. Based upon this poll by the University of Idaho 

Cooperative Park Studies Unlt, and sales of local park passes, we interpret our visitation to be· composed of 74% non-local 

individuals. By non-local, we are indicatinq those who travel more than 50 miles to visit the Joshua Tree National Monument. 

During this time of deep concern and attention to the national 

deficit, it is of interest to note how the public's tax dollars 

spent to protect, preserve, maintain and manage a park or monument 

provide a significant financial return to the local area. Some 

comprehensive statistics are presented which will show how those 

tax dollars affect the local economy. 

Methods and Procedures used In This Report 

For this report, we have selected a modal used to establish how 

parks generate money for profits, taxes and jobs tor the local 

communities which was developed by the National Park Service's 

Denver Service center (DSC), Statistical Office, with consultation 

!rom Dr. Dick Walsh, outdoor Recreation Bconomist, Colorado State 

university. In this model we include the visitation statistics 

reported for Joshua Tree National Monument covering the year 1991. 

As mentioned above, we have also incorporated information developed by the cooperative Park studies unit or the University of Idaho in 

their Report. 139 "Visitor services Project, Joshua Tree National 

Monument" o! Novemoer ~99~. 
121 

Expenditures by tourists, Federal Government, and outside parties all benefit the local areas. These include (1) new saleg measured 

by increased purchases of qoods and servioes1 (2) increased ~ales 

tax and income tax revenues; and (3) iobs created at the park. 

Income Generation - Primary and Secondit~ 

Primary Income is defined •• Direct Import Revenue (DIR). Expenditure• were •urveyed by the University of Idaho and the 

visitor averaqe daily expenditure was developed at $31 per person. This amount then, was used for the Direct Import Revenue. 

secondary Incomt is a function or sales and salary income which 

arise from indirect and induced spendinq by tourists. Indirect 

impact occurs lUI travel industry business operators (such as restaurants) purchase goods (food and beveraqas) and services. 

Those aupplyinq the restaurant must, in turn, purchase qoods and 

services from their suppliers. This chain of buyinq and sellinq 

continues in the area until the initial traveler dollars completely dissipate out of the area throuqh taxes, purchases from outside of 

the area, business savings and payment to employees. 

Induced Sgending is the result of the business employees and their 

suppliers spandinq part of their earninqs in the area. This 

spending generates sales additional to the indirect impact. The sum of the in<lirect and induced effect• comprises the total 

secondary impact of traveler expenditures in the area. The ratio 

ot: the sum of primary output generated (traveler spending less 

taxes) plus secondary output to initial expenditures is commonly termed the sales or output multiplier. 

oerivinq the secondary income multiplier for an area can be an expensive and drawn out process. such multipliers qenerally rang• from 1. 2 to 2. 8. This report utilizes the average of 2. 0 and 

Secondary Income is calculated by the formula: OIR times 2.0 equals Total Sales (TS) (direct and indirect which result from tourism and 

tourism support businesses). 

Induced Spending occurs also through the expenditure of government salaries and purchases. This amount is the sum of basic park appropriated funds, National Park service (NPS) project funds, NPS 

fire funds, conetruction funda, commerci•l use license payroll and 

association sales. 

Total Secondary Impact comprises the sum of Tqtal Salea (traveler 

expenditures) and Induced Spen4ing (NPS salaries, oontracta and 

purchases) in the Morongo Basin. 
122 

Tax &ass Impact is the amount of dollars flowinq into the tax baae as a result of expended tourist dollars. It is derived in this 

nport by the formula: TS times . 25 (profit/salary multiplier) equal• Nat Import Revenue (NIR) times .14 (eatimated tax rate) equals tax base added by tourism. 

Job Bose Impact was calculated by the model approach which allows a rather wide ranqe of estimates between 10 and so. As our visitation is l!lomewhat varied durinq the year, a lower figure of 20 was selected rather than the averaqe, 

The methodology and procedure• are a very conservative estimate of 

the contribution of this National Monument to the Moronqo Basin. 

we have sele~ted the Denver model upon which to build our presentation showinq the contribution of the Monument to the local area because of it produces an easy to follow, clear and tactual 

report. 

ANALYSIS 

Ourinq 1991 a total of 1, 1!50,026 people visited Joshua Tree 

National Monument. In the Idaho survey it was found their 

contribution in direct import raven~• was $26,381,596 and 

generated $52,763,196 in total sales benefits from direct and 

indirect tourism induced sales. 

Futher benefit to the local area is derived from Secondary Ineomt 

through sales and salary income arising from indirect and induced 

spending by to1.1rists and the National Park service. 'l'hia is l!lhown as $4,331,206 additional park related funds disbursed into tbe 

Morongo Basin. · 

MORE ANALYSIS TO 1!1!: DEVELOPED 

Please direct comments on thia report to: 

Kathy TUstanowski-Karah, Administrative Officer 

Joshua Tree National Monument 

Phone 619/367•6376 
123 

WORKSHEETS 

FROM DENVER 

M 0 DEL 

72-354 0- 93 - 5 
124 

iQ&KSHE!I el JCQBQKIQ B£NEtlTS RESVLTI~G fROM PARK VISitOR EXPEND!~ 

A. SAtES BEH!FIT$ fBOM TOQIISM; Dollar value of aoods and service« purchased 

in the local area. · 

2. Look up tha -=ual RECI!!:AtlOII VISITOR.·DA'l volUM. 

(Fr~• annual MIS Statiatical Abstract) 

3. Enter the avtraae dally W£ZIDITUR!S 1.'!11. PU.SON. 

(May ~• AAA data fro• Appen41~ A if other 

intoraation 1• not available) 

4. Calculate DIUCT SALIS. (1) x (2) x (3) 

~1.00 

...~,.36'~)t, 

$. Enter the eatiaat:ed IHDllliCT & IJDUC!Il SALIS llULTIPt..lER.. 

(laft&e 1& 1.2 • 2.8; &VI • 2.0) ;(,C) 

6. Calculate TOTAL SALIS IINif'ITS FllOM tomUSK. (ll) ll (5) S:'J,?~l93 

I. TAX ll§Y!HU! BE!f!FIIS f'I!.OK TOUBUK 

2. !nt:er COIBI!I!D STATe & LOCAL RETAIL SA.t.U TAX RAt!. 

3. Calculate t:ll'Cll!ASE.D SALES TAX llEVENtl'ES. (1) X (2) 

4. Ent.r TOTAL SALIS fl!- A.6 above. 

5. !near the "tAL\BIJt nlcou I!.AT!O (i.e., tu&bl• portion 

of «ala~:iea & buaiaeea profit&: ranee ia 0.2 • 0.6; ava ... 0.3) 

~74V9.3 

.0775" 

4;oB~flf7 

.51,?1qt9~ 

7 . Calculate 1l'lCI.!A.IIID UKXlttl TAX liVEIIUt. ( 4) lt <') X ( 6) 48 114 7/.2 

B. TAX UVEliUI l£RlnTS fl!cm eour1t11. Add (3) + (1) >S;93tf8S:9 

C. JOB IIENUXTI RQII 'tOQIIl!Jl 

1. Entn 'J.'O'fAL IALU fr• A.IS, axprenad in llillicma of 

4cllart. ($5,600,000 of eotal ••1•• • $S.6) 

2. Eat:ilu.ta -lt:lpliu fer JOIS cttUTIID PD. IIILI'.Itlll' DOLLAI!.S 

of total ••1••· <a.nce !t 10 - 50; ave. • 30) 

3. Caleulate new JOIS CIIAlBO by toul'1 ... (1) x (2) 

14 

.;i!Q 
125 

WOFIISHEET •2 ECOt!OMIC I!~EFITS RESULTING FROK FEQERAL GOVEBNMfNT 

EXf£NOITUBES FQR PARK RELATED ACTIVITIES 

A. SAtES BF.NEFITS fROM [!D Goyi !XPENPITURES: Dollar valua of aood• & 

1ervico1 purchased in loeaL a~ea by Fed. Govt. spending. 

DIRJCT SAL!S equal to total amount of park-related Fad. Cove. 

expendi turu that an apone in the local ana. if -2, 1?.£;?. 0~ 

2. !a tim& tad INDIIU!cr & INDUCED SALES MULTIPLIER. (Kay l:>o 

hiaher than nual:>er uaad in Step A.S in the touriaa 

llorkahee t 1111. llanse is 1 . 2 • 2 . 8; av1. • 2. 0) ). • 0 

3. Calculate TOTAL SALlS I!NEF!IS fro11 federal sovernmant expenditure• . (1) x (2) 

! . TAX RE'i!Hl!E BENEFITS f'R.OH DD GQYT EJ(PEN!liTUR!S; 

The following ataps are diseu.sed in text Section I. I . 

l . Entu TOTAL SAW IIEIIErtTS (Fad. Govt) fro11 A.3 abova.#-'(;33t:zt;(, 

2. 

3 0 

4 , 

Enter COMBINED STATE & LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX RATE . 

(S&IIe.ao 11.2 !or Tourl.s• fro11 ll'orkthaat n) 

Calculate INCREASED SALIS TAX REVENUES. (1) X (2) 

.o77S 

#,$.~4.48 

Enter TOTAL SALES BENEFITS (Fad . Govt) £~011 A.3 above.~!/3!!J~g/)/,. 

5. Enter the TAXAI!L! lNCOH! RATIO (i.e. , taxable portion 

of salaries & buainesa profits: range ia 0. 2·0.6; 

6 . 

7. 

a. 

avg . • 17. 3). 

!ntar the COMBINED STATE & LOCAL INCOME TAX RATE . 

(S&IIe •• 1 .6 fro• llorklheet al) 

Calculate l!ICR!AS!II lKCOH! TAX UVENUE. (lo) X (5) X 

TAX llEVENU! !EIIIFITS tro• Fad , Covt. 

expenditure&, Add (3) + (7) 

,;f 

(6t/.:v Sf~ 

-'m.z~ 

C. JOD DEHEFIIS RQM F!D CQYT W!NDII!/B.ZS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Enter t:ha TOTAL SALlS (Fed . Cove . ) fr011 A.3, above , expraaaed in 111llion1 ($5,600 ,000 • $5.6). 

Ettillate the 11Ultipliar tor nav JOBS CUATED Pia KIU.IOH --<..., DOLIA!tS OF total aalu . (5&118 11 C. 2 tr- Vorkaheat 1111)--:_.t.V=:;.......-

Calc11late the IIIV JOBS CR!AT!D by Fad. (ioyt, axpandh..r••·:=/: 

(1) X (2) . -s;~~•t,et::.,__ 

15 
126 

WORKSHEET •3 ICOHOKIC BF.NEFITS RESVLJING fROM fARK·RELAJE~ 

EXPEMDIMES ey OTHER NON· LQCAL PARII!S N /A. A. SALES .BENEFITS FR.OK 'OTHER' EXPENDITUR!S 

1. Enter DIRBCT SALES which are expenditures by non-lec&l partiu to 

purchau seedS lo services connected with parlc related activith•, such as 

con•truction of State ac:ceu. road• to the parlc, oootel chain c:on1tructl.on 

project•, coneeuiour capital i.mprove11ents, etc.; doee ~ include to~o~rhm 

expenditure• or Fed. Govt. expenditure•. 

2. Ente~ the eetiaated INDIRECT t. INDUCED SALES MULTIPLIER. 

(Same aa A.5 froa Touri•• Work1heet •1> 

3. Calculate the TOTAL SALES BENEFITS froa expenditure• by 

•other• noa-loeal partiu. (1) x (2) 

S. TAX R!VEH!l! !!IRWIS fRQtf 'QTHER' EXPJm~ll'!IRES 

The follovin1 step• are diseusoed in text Section I. !!. 

1. Enter TOTAL SALES ('Other• non-local) fros A.3 above. 

2. Enter COK!!liiED STArK lo LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX RATE. 

(Same as 1.2 fro• Touris11 Worksheet el) 

3. Calculate the INCREASED SALES TAX REVENUES. (1) x (2) 

4. Enter I~ SALES BENEFITS ('other') froa A.3 above. 

5. Enter the TAXABLE INCOME RATIO. (Salle as 1.5 froa 

Worksheet el) 

6. Enter the COKIINED STATE t. LOCAL lNCOIIE TAX RATI. 

(Same •• 1!.6 froa Work1heet el) 

7. Calculate IIICRWED INCOME TAX ltEVEIIUE. (4) X (5) X (6) ----

!. TAX REVIKU! I!KIFITS fro11 expenditure• by •other• non-local partiu. Add (3) + (7) 

G. JO! BENEFlTI QQII "I!THII, • JXPEI(DIT!!R.!S 

1. Enter TOTAL SALES ("Other• non-local) fro• A.3 above 

expre1sed ln 11illiona ($5,600,000- $~.6), 

2. Estimate the aultiplier for new JOIS CREATED P!ll HtU.IOII 

DOLLARS of total .. lu. (S .. e •• C. 2 fr011 Worlcaheiat •t) ____ _ 

3. Calculate the aew JOBS ClEATED by ezpenditure of 'Other• 

non-local partl••· (1) x (2) 

16 
127 

IIQBXSHEET !1!1t SJI!I!W,Y OF !CONO!flC DMFXTS AtlJ.IBIITA!ILI 10 THE P.WC fRO.M IHE 

QO!IDIIfEil IFliCTS OF VIUIOi. I.Xl!NQXMIII DDQAL COl1JB!!MEl!I 

!!:WHI)tl'IJRES Aim OTHER NQN ·LOCAL rwns · WJ!I!Hl't!RE$ 

". coKl! tm:o s.u.!S amnus 

Vo~kabeee •1. teem A.6, plu. $S2,16l,193 Vo~ktheet ~. Ieea A. 3, plu. 4,331,206 

Vo:t"'lulheet •3, I- A.3 eq,..la: o 

I . COKIINZD DICUASO TAlt UVbi1JE lllU:ntS 

c. 

. Vorktheet •t, Itea I . 8, plwo $5,~35,859 

Vo:t'~heet •2, Itea I. I, plua 487,260 

Vorkaheet •3, te .. 1. a equal•: o 

COKBIN'El> NEW JO&S CUATEO 

Worksheet •l. Item C. 

Vo:t'kaheet •2, ltea C. 

llo:t"ksheee •3 , It•• C. 

3, plu• 

3, plua 

3 •'lu.ah :' 

17 

1054 

86 

0 

$5? ,0!14,3~9 

$ 6,4~3,119 

1140 
128 

ECONOMIC PROFILE 

1

DEATH VALLEY: 

National Monument ~ 

And Relationship with the 

Eastern California 

and 

Western Nevada Communities 
129 

ECONOMIC PROFILE OF DEATII VALLEY NATIONAL MONUMENf 

This economic profile was developed to assess the impact of Death 

Valley National Monument on the local economy of eastern California 

and western Nevada. The following narrative provides background 

and descriptive information on the Death Valley area. It also 

expands on the attached economic model used to develop the 

contribution of Death Valley National Monument to the local 

economy. While National Parks are not established with a profit 

motive in mind, they do contribute considerably to the income of 

their surrounding neighbors. It is also recognized that properties 

within close proximity to park boundaries enjoy the maintained 

values equivalent to a well placed neighborhood, and often the 

upgraded values associated with scenic vistas and recreational 

opportunities. 

The regional setting for Death Valley National Monument is the 

interface of the Mojave and Great Basin deserts. The area is a vast arid land of parallel structural valleys and mountain ranges 

trending northwest/southeast. All drainages are into Death Valley 

terminating in barren below sea level salt flats while the higher 

elevations, to 11,049 feet, are forested with pinyon pine, juniper, 

and bristlecone pine. Death Valley is a dynamic geological museum containing diverse and fragile ecosystems of plant, animal, and 

cultural dimensions. 

Although about 91 percent of the monument's 2,067,793 million acres lie in Inyo county of California, Death Valley also includes lands 

in San Bernardino County of California and Nye and Esmeralda 

counties of Nevada. 

Inyo County is the second largest county in California with 10,140 

square miles, yet has an estimated population of only 18, 160 

(1990). This sparse population combined with the unique features, 

natural and cultural resources, and recreational opportunities 

provided on its extensive Federal, State, and County reservations 

have created a long standing economic foundation and tax base of revenues related to the tourism industry rather than a metropolitan/urban economy. 

Inyo County is heavily dependent upon the travel industry and 

visitors drawn to the recreational opportunities of the eastern 

slope of the Sierra Mountains and the more arid deserts stretching 

out to the California/Nevada border. 

Visitation in Death Valley has been increasing for the past ten 

years. With the mild winter climate and the extreme temperatures 

of summer, Death Valley has a long winter visitation season that 

compliments the summer visitation of the high Sierra of western 

Inyo County. The biggest recent change is a marked increase in 

visitation during the summer and "shoulder" seasons. We expect to 

reach one million visitors in 1993 or the following year. 

- 1 -
130 

California Highway 190, entirely in Inyo County, bisects Death 

Valley east to west. It begins near the Nevada state line in the 

east and its western terminus is at California Highway 395, a heavily traveled route along the Eastern Sierra where the Inyo 

National Forest affords excellent hiking, camping and skiing, and 

is a year-round visitor destination. The eastern terminus for 

Yosemite's Tioga Pass is also Highway 395, just north of Inyo 

County. 

Visitors from Southern California may travel to Death Valley from 

the southeast via Baker or from the southwest via Mojave. Death 

Valley visitation is a major contributor to the local economy of 

Shoshone, California in Inyo County, and certainly benefits the 

economies of both Ridgecrest and Trona in Kern and San Bernardino 

Counties. 

Another major travel route is Nevada Highway 95 from Las Vegas and 

Reno, Nevada through Death Valley to the Eastern Sierra and the 

balance of California. Although there is little economic value to 

the immediately adjacent California towns, the gateway communities 

of Tonopah and Beatty, Nevada do derive benefit from travel along 

these routes. 

Without Death Valley National Monument as a destination from 

Southern California and those choosing to travel through Death 

Valley between Nevada and California, Highway 190 would not be a major travel artery with the associated high traffic volume or the 

high level of construction/maintenance it currently receives. Most 

traffic would remain on the northern routes past Tonopah/Reno or the southern route of Interstate 15. We may easily infer that the 

monument's presence significantly affects the level of travel 

through the Death Valley area and likewise the economic benefit of 

tourism to local communities. 

In addition to National Park Service campgrounds and other visitor 

facilities and resources, Death Valley National Monument also 

provides lodging accommodations and related services. The private 

inholding of the Furnace creek Ranch and Inn complex includes 

lodging, dining and beverage facilities, general store, gift shops, 

service station, stables, golf course, tennis courts, and swimming 

pool. The contract concession operation at Stove Pipe Wells Resort 

has smaller but similar facilities (sans stables, golf course, and 

tennis courts). Another concession operation at Scotty's Castle 

includes a snack bar and gift shop. 

Our fall and winter visitors are generally us citizens, primarily 

older persons camping with recreational vehicles, and their stay is 

longer. In the spring, this older group is augmented significantly 

by families and college age visitors during holidays, spring 

vacations, or weekend visits from those within a day's drive of the 

monument. In addition to the high camper population, lodging 

accommodations are frequently fully booked well in advance, 

particularly for holiday periods and during the pleasant desert 

spring weather. 

- 2 -
131 

Summer visitors to Death Valley are primarily foreign citizens, 

mainly from Europe and Japan. These visitors travel through Death 

Valley from Yosemite to Grand canyon on the "National Park 

Circuit." Inyo County benefits greatly as the route is south along Highway 395 from Tioga Pass, which generally opens around Memorial 

Day weekend, to Highway 190 and through Death Valley National 

Monument. Some are driving self-contained recreational vehicles, 

many travel on organized bus tours. However, some are unprepared for the heat and arrive without basic survival supplies or even room reservations. Furnace Creek Ranch, a private inholding within 

Death Valley, frequently opens rooms at their winter-season hotel, 

Furnace Creek Inn, to accommodate the overflow. The park 

concession operations at Stove Pipe Wells Resort and Scotty's 

Castle have experienced a like increase in trade during the summer season. 

To provide for the protection of Death Valley's resources, 

maintenance of physical facilities, and visitor accommodations and 

services, the following employment levels reflect the resident 

population of Death Valley National Monument: 

100 

40 

10 

400. 

5 

6 

17 

4 

582 

National Park Service 

Park Concessioners: stove Pipe Wells 

Scotty's Castle 

Private Inholding Furnace creek Ranch lie Inn 

Inyo county {School lie Sheriff) 

state of California {CALTRANS lie CHP) 

Death Valley Natural History Association us Postal Service 

The employees in Death Valley also contribute to the economy of the 

surrounding communities. They do their primary shopping in Las 

Vegas, Nevada, or Bishop, California (Inyo County) or Ridgecrest, 

California (Kern county) depending upon their inclination or other 

obligations outside the valley. All are about the same distance 

{100-160 miles) from the main headquarters area where the majority 

of employees live. Tonopah, Nevada is the closest community {85 

miles) for employees living at Scotty's Castle, although many of 

those employees also shop in Bishop, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. 

With the current concern and attention given to the economy and the 

national deficit, it is of interest to note how the public's tax 

dollars spent to protect, preserve, maintain and manage a park or monument as well as the provision of accommodations and services 

for visitors to a park area, provide a significant financial return 

to the economic strength and stability of the local area. The 

following section of this report and the attached worksheets 

present a statistical model of how those tax dollars benefit the 

local economy. 

- 3 -
132 

WORKSHEETS FROM DENVER MODEL 

DEATH VALLEY 

National Monument 
133 

MONEY GENERATION MODEL 

DEATII VALLEY NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Method of Procedures Used In This Report 

For this report we have selected a model, developed by Dr. Ken 

Hornback of the National Park Service Center statistical Office, to 

estimate economic benefits, in the form of profits, taxes and jobs 

of parks, to local communities. In this model we include the 

visitation statistics reported for Death Valley National Monument 

covering the year 1992. We have also incorporated visitor survey 

information as developed by the Cooperative Park Studies Unit of 

the University of Idaho in their Visitor Services Project Report 

#34 based on a Visitor Survey conducted in July 1990; and a subsequent Visitor Survey conducted in February 1991 sponsored by 

the Death Valley Natural History Association in cooperation with 

the University of Idaho. 

Expenditures by tourists, Federal Government, and outside parties 

all benefit the local areas. These include sales benefits measured 

by increased purchases of goods and services; increased sales tax 

and income tax revenues; and jobs created at the park. 

In addition to the economic benefits calculated on the attached 

Economic Profile worksheets, Death Valley National Monument also 

pays various fees to California and Inyo County for such operations as a landfill. Although our economic profile figures reflect 

benefits generated within the Economic Study Model's one-hundred 

mile radius "local community," the isolation of the Death Valley area requires traveling beyond the one-hundred mile radius to 

obtain support materials and contractors. An additional one million+ dollars of actual Federal expenditures for park related 

activities beyond what is reflected in Worksheet #2 benefits the 

economies of such urban areas of Las Vegas, Nevada and other cities 

in southern California or other states. 

The methodology and procedures of this model produce a very 

conservative estimate of the contribution of Death Valley National 

Monument to California and Nevada communities. The variables we used in the following model worksheets are noted below: 

WORltSHBBT #1 

A. Sales Benefits From Tourism. Worksheet #1 

A.2 Recreation Visitor-Day 

Although the monument recorded annual visitation in excess of 

900,000 in 1992, for the purpose of this report, the total 

number of recreational visitor hours divided by 12 was used to. 

arrive at the recreation visitor day figure. These statistics are compiled from the monthly use report. 

- 1 -
184 

A.3 Expenditures per Person: 

We have reduced the daily American Automobile Association cost 

estimate for California of $74.70 to $65. Our two visitor 

surveys tell us that most winter visitors are American, have 

been here before and tend to stay several days in recreational 

vehicles. The majority of summer visitors are foreign, are visiting for the first time, and tend to stay one day in 

motels (with air conditioning). 

A.5 Estimated Indirect and Induced Sales Multiplier: 

Smaller and more isolated areas, generally, have lower 

multipliers because support spending for goods and services 

usually will be made outside the local trading area, e.g., vendors and suppliers will be non-locals. The more diverse 

the activities for visitors and the greater their volume, 

generally, the higher the multiplier since more people and 

businesses will be involved. The multiplier range is 1.2 to 

2.8 and averages 2.0. 

We used 1.2 because it is over 100 miles to supply points and our recreational activities are not diverse. 

B. Tax Revenue Benefits From Tourism. Worksheet #1 

Tax benefits refer to the additional local tax revenues that 

result from dollars that flow into the local economy from 

outside sources because of the park, i.e., taxes that are attributable to expenditures by non-local park visitors. This 

model considers only two of a variety of tax benefits of 

parks: increased sales tax revenues and increased income tax revenues. 

B.5 Taxable Income Ratio 

The taxable income ratio is the taxable portion of salaries 

and business profits. Studies indicate this multiplier has a range of 0.2 to 0.6, and averages 0.3. We used 0.2. 

c. Job Benefits From Tourism 

C.l Jobs Created Per Million Dollars 

studies indicate jobs vary with the volume of sales. For the 

tourism industry, the number of jobs created per million 

dollars in total sales has been found to range from 10 to 50 

with an average of 30. Rural towns tend to have a larger 

number of jobs created per million dollars of sales than do 

larger cities where sales per employee tend to be higher. 

Due to our distances from local communities and development 

restrictions within the monument, a lower figure of 15 was selected rather than the average. 

- 2 -
135 

The Economic Benefits of Park-Related Federal Government 

Expenditures 

Direct Federal Government spending on salaries, equipment, 

utilities, supplies, and contracts by the park also creates local 

community benefits in the form of additional sales, tax revenues, 

and jobs. Moreover, the tangible benefits of park spending occur 

year-round and, therefore, make a steady contribution compared to 

seasonal tourism. Park spending also involves people and 

businesses that otherwise might not benefit from tourism, e.g., 

office product sales and services, landscaping, construction, etc. 

Although direct park purchases for supplies and equipment, for 

example, often are exempt from most sales taxes, parks may make a 

variety of indirect contributions to local governments. Death 

Valley National Monument makes direct contributions to the State of 

California an~ Inyo county in the form of payments in lieu of taxes 

which are intended to offset the effects of services needed by the 

traveling public or by park employees and provided by local 

government, but which are difficult to support from the existing 

tax base. Year-round National Park Service employees residing in 

Death Valley National Monument are subject to a special "possessory 

use tax" in lieu of property taxes, which is reimbursed by the 

National Park service. 

Death Valley National Monument also engages in cooperative 

agreements with local communities to provide mutual support that 

includes public protection and emergency medical assistance, fire 

fighting, road patrol, shared use of facilities, etc. 

WORKSHEET #2 

A. Federal Government Spending. Worksheet #2 

A.l Direct Sales equal to total amount of park-related Federal 

Government expenditures that are spent in the local area. 

This figure includes salaries paid to employees and local 

spending to such vendors as utility companies. An additional 

$1.2 million of actual Federal expenditures for park related 

activities benefits the economies of Las Vegas, Nevada and 

other cities in Southern California or other states for 

materials, contractors and support services. 

A.2 Estimated Direct and Induced Sales Multiplier 

The range is 1.2 to 2.8 and averages 2.0. We have used the 

average. 

- 3 -
136 

B. Tax Revenue Benefits From Federal Government Expenditures, #2 

B.5 Taxable Income Ratio 

The range of the taxable portion of salaries and business 

profits is 0.2 to 0.6 and averages 0.3. We used 0.2. 

WOIUCSHBBT #3 

This worksheet refers to the economic benefits resulting from parkrelated expenditures by other non-local parties. 

Capital investment in concessioner operated buildings and privately 

owned buildings would be included on this worksheet. The private inholding, Furnace Creek Ranch and Inn, makes substantial capital 

investment in their property each year, however, these figures are not available to us, as it is not public information. 

Data is available for the concession operation through the Building 

Improvement Fund records, however, we felt that listing this 

without the private inholding information would not be useful. 

Summary 

During 1992 over 900,000 people visited Death Valley National 

Monument. This model indicates $57,969,180 in generated sales is 

attributable to the combined effects of direct visitor spending and 

Federal Government expenditures. The combined increased tax revenue benefits are $4,933,176 and 870 jobs created. 

If the additional $1.2 million in Federal Government expenditures 

directed beyond a 100 mile radius were included, combined generated sales would be $60,369,170; increased tax revenue benefits would be 

$5,137,416; and the number of jobs created increased to 885. 

Capital improvement expenditures were not available and have not 

been included. 

The variables used in this model has produced a conservative 

estimate of the contribution of Death Valley National Monument to 

California and Nevada communities. 

- 4 -
137 

~ORKSHEET •1 ECONQMIC BENEFITS RESYLTING fROM PARK VISITOR £XPENQIIl~ES 

A. SALES BEHEFIIS FRQM TOURISM • Dollar value of &oods and services purchased 

in the local area. 

l. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Enter the estimated NON-LOCAL PERCENT of park use. 

Look up the annual RECREATION VIS!TOR·OAY volll!!le. 

(From Annual NPS Statistical Abstract) 

Enter the average daily EXPENDITURES PER PERSON. 

(Hay use AA.A dAta from App.,ndix A if other 

information is not available) 

Calculate DIRECT SALES. (1) x (2) x (3) 

Enter the estimated INDIRECT & INDUC£0 SALES MULTIPLIER. 

(Range is 1.2 • 2.8; av& • 2.0) 

6. Calculate TOTAL SALES BENEFITS FROM IOtlRISI!. (4) x (5) Slj /h'f, /7t:> 

I. TAX REYENUE IIEHEFITS FROM TO!lRISM 

1. Enter TOTAL SALES froa A.6 above. 5~ /b1, /7~ 

2. Enter COMIIINED STATE & LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX ItA. IE. • () 71 S 

3. Calculate INCREASED SALES TAX REVENUES. (1) x (2) i!l, 'f'IPS1 6/c 

4. Enter TOTAL SALES froa A.6 above. 51,/6'f',l7tf) 

5. Enter the TAXAILE INCO!IE ltA.TIO (i.e., taxable poreion 

of salaries & business profits: ran&• is 0.2 - 0.6; 

av&. •0.3) t:J,::Z. 

6. Enter the COMliiN£0 STATE & LOCAL INCOME TAX ltA.TE. 

7. Calculate INCREASED INCOME TAX REVENUE. ( 4) X ( 5) X ( 6) 3 i 8', g I'/:> 

8. TAX REVENUE IIEIIEFITS froll touris•. Add ( 3) + (7) 

C. JOB BENEFITS FRQK TOURISM 

1. Enter TOTAL SALES fro• A.6. expressed in •illion$ of 

dollars. ($5,600,000 of total sales - $5.6) 

2. Estimate multiplier for JOIS CREATED PER KILLION DOLLARS 

of toeal sales. (R<Ing• is 10 - 50; avg. - 30) 

3. Calculate nev JOI!S CREATED by tour is•. (1) x (2} 

- s -

S/.2 

15 

76J> 
138 

IIORJ<SHEU 102 ECONOMIC BENEFITS RESUl.III!G fROM FEDE!lAL GOVERI!l1Eift 

EXPENPIJURES fOR PARK RE1AIEP ACTIVITIES 

A. SALES BENEFITS fROM FED GOVT. EXPENPIIURES · Dollar value of goods & 

services purchased in local area by Fed. cove. spendin~. 

1. DIRECT SALES equ.al to total amount of park·relaeed Fed. Covt. 

expenditures that are spent in the local area. 3. 4/f!JtJ, f!'()(J 

2. Estimated INDIRECT & INDUCED SALES MULTIPLIER. (Hay be 

higher than number used in Step A. 5 in the tourisll 

llorksheet •1. RAnge is 1.2 . 2.8; avg. - 2.0) :il ,Q 

3. Calculate TOTAL SALES BENEFITS fro• federal 

government expenditures. (1) x (2) 6,i'd(), ()(JtJ 

II. TAX REVENUE BENEFITS fROM FEP COVI EXPENDIJURES · 

The following steps are discussed in text Section I. B. 

l. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Enter TOTAL SALES BENEFITS (Fed. Covt) from A.3 above. 

Enter CO!Il!INED STATE & LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX RATE. 

(Same as 1.2 for Tourism from llorksheet 101) 

Calculate INCREASED SALES TAX REVENUES. (1) X (2) 

Enter TOTAL SALES BENEFITS (Fed. Cove) from A.3 above, 

Enter the TAXA! I.£ INCOME RATIO (i.e. , taxable portion 

of salaries & business profits: range is 0.2·0.6; 

avg. - 0.3). 

Enter the COMIINED STATE & LOCAL INCOME TAX RATE. 

(S&IIe u 1.6 fr011 llorksheet 101) 

Calculate INCREASED INCQKE TAX ll.EVENUE. (4) X (5) X (6) 

TAX REVENUE &EN!11TS from Fed. Govt. 

expenditure•. Add (3) + (7) 

6,J>Ot:J, (JOe 

.0775 

.S2 7,-'"0 

,, fdO_,OOeJ 

. .z.. 

.()41 

Sl, bl'tJ 

C. JOI! !lE!!EFITS FROM FED COVT EXPEI!DII11B.ES 

1. Enter the TOTAL SALES (Fed. Covt.) fro11 A.3, above. 

expressed in 11illions ($5,600,000- $5.6). ~.G> 

2. Estimate the multiplier for new JOIIS CREATED PER MILLION 

DOLLARS OF total sales. (Same as C. 2 from llorksheet 101) /.5' 

3. Calculate the new JOBS CREATED by Fed. Covt. expenditures. 

(l) X (2) /().2.. 

- 6 -
139 

WO&KSHEEI a) EcoNOMIC BENEFITS RESULTING FROM PABX·RE1AI£P 

£XP£NDITURES IY OTHER NQN·LQCAL PARTIES 

A. SALES DENEFlTS FROM 'OTHER' EXPENDIWRES 

"Et1 (; r ma/t';J 

no.f <Zvt:ttlt7.0it: 

1. Enter DIRECT !Ml.ES which are expenditures bv non-local partiu to 

purchase 'oods &: services connected with park related activities, such as 

construction of State access ro•d.s to the park, 11otel ett.in construction 

projects, concessioner eapltal improvements, etc.; does .Q2.t include tour1sra 

expenditures or Fed. Govt. expenditures. 

2. Enter t:he estiaated INDIRECT 6 INDUCED SALES MULTIPLIER. 

(Same as A.S froa Tourisa Worksheet •1) 

3. Calculate the TOTAL SALES BENEFITS froa expendit:ures by 

•ocher• non-local parties. (l) x (2) 

I. TAX RE'IENIJE DENEDTS FROM 'OTHER' £XP£NDIDIRES 

The following steps are discussed in text Section I. I. 

l. Enter TOTAL SALES ("Other• non-local) froa A.3 above. 

2. Enter COKIINED STATE & LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX RATE. 

(S- " 1.2 fr- Tourisa Vorkaheet &l) 

3. Cdeulate the INCREASED SALES TAX REVENUES. (1) x (2) 

4. Enter TOTAL SALES IENEFITS ( 'ocher') froa A. 3 above. 

5. Enter t:he TAXA!lLE INCOME RATIO. (Same as 8.5 froa 

Worksheet llll) · 

6. Enter the COKilll£1) STATE & I..OCAL INCOME TAX RATE. 

(Same as 11.6 fra llorkaheet llll) 

7. Calculat:a INCREASED INCOME TAX REVENilE. (4) X (S} X (6) 

8. TAX REVENUE BENEFITS fr- expenditures by 

"oCher• non-local parties. Add (3) + (7) 

C • JQII At:!!VIIS FI!Qil "ot!!E!t • [XPENDIT!JRES 

l. Enter TOTAL SALES ("Other• non-local) froa A.3 above 

expressed in Millions ($5,600,000 • $5.6). 

2. Estimate the .ultiplier for nev JOBS CREATED PER KILLION 

OOLLARS of total sales. (Same as C. 2 from Worksheet: llll) ________ _ 

3. Caleulat:e the nev JOIS CREATED by expenditure of "Other• 

non-local parties. (1) x (2) 

• 7 . 
140 

IJQRKSHEEI •4 SUMMARY Of ECONOMIC IIENEFIIS ATIR!BUIABLE TO DiE Pill FROM DiE 

CQK!INED EFFECTS Of VISITOR (XPENDIIURES. FEQERAL GOVERNMENT 

£XPENPIIURES. ANll QDjER NON·!.OCAL PARTIES' £XP£NQilVRES 

A. COH!!NED SAllS IIENEFIIS 

Worksheet •1. !tea A.6, plus 

Worksheet •2. Ite• A.J, plus 

Worksheet •3, Item A.3 equals: 

8. COM! I NED INCREASED TAX REVENUE IIENEFITS 

Wor<sheet •1. It•• r.. 8, plus 

Worksheet •2. lte• r.. 8, plwo 

Worksheet •3, Ite• r.. 8 equals: 

C • COM! INED !lEI/ JOBS CREATED 

Worksheet lH, Ite• C. 3, plwo 

Worksheet •2. Item C. 3, plu• 

Worksheet •3, Item C. 3 equals: 

- 8 -

S7, 96"!, /7t:> 
141 

Mr. VENTO. We will be in recess and return after this vote, at 

which time we will recognize the members of the committee and 

then the nonmembers of the committee after all members have 

been recognized. 

We will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. 

I would just direct the Members to pages 42 and 43 of the bill 

as introduced by Mr. Lehman and others. It relates to the issue of 

the validity of unpatented mining claims and mill sites and procedures to make a validity determination. Obviously, it does not require evaluation of such claims unless they are at that point of 

seeking approval of a plan of operation. 

I think this whole issue, incidentally, of claims and how we treat 

them might be a matter in terms of public land management that 

should and could be resolved-if I could get the attention of the 

gentleman from California, whom I hadn't talked to about this-in 

terms of how we resolve some of these claim issues as we change the general policy, so we don't face the types of problems and the 

potential open-ended problem that we have as an example in lands 

that have subsequently been designated as National Parks. 

I guess some of these issues, in some sense, are better left alone, 

but I think unless we l{et some sort of a policy or if there is an easy 

read on that, I would like to work with the gentleman from California, Mr. Lehman, and the Secretary in terms of resolving that generally, on the whole issue of the mining law, and especially as they 

affect lands that are set aside for conservation purposes, such as 

wilderness areas and/or national recreation areas in the Department of Agriculture. 

All members of the committee have been recognized. I will recog- nize the gentleman from California, Mr. McCandless, for five minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALFRED McCANDLESS 

Mr. McCANDLESS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for the courtesy of letting us participate. 

Mr. Secretary, I was born with sand in my shoes and I will prob- ably die with sand in my shoes, and between those two dates I 

have learned to respect where the sand came from. 

Secretary BABBITI'. Well, all I can say is, it is not a bad way to 

live, and it is probably not a bad way to go either. 

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Thank you. 

One of the things that concerns me and my colleague, and I have 

a lot of respect for Mr. Lehman, is his use of the word "compromise." Certainly, politics is the art of compromise. The problem 

I have is with what we have in H.R. 518, in the way of proposed wilderness areas, be they pristine or otherwise. When you travel 

these areas, it is clear that many do not represent the definitions 

of wilderness under current law, namely the wilderness act of 1964, 

or that reality on the ground. 

For example, in the Oronocos, the well-established routes there 

have been traveled by four-wheel drive, by two-wheeled vehicles, 

and so forth, for over 60 years, 70 years, even more. Now you have 

a well-established desert road, not a trail but a road, and that par-
142 

ticular area is indicative of a lot of what is referred to as wilderness areas as proposed in the bill before us. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as follows: a place 

"untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain." 

The point here is that this bill has taken various elements of the 

desert area and have decided, for whatever reason, that these shall 

represent wilderness when, in fact, they really do not. So, that arbitrarily elevates the total number of acres involved well beyond 

that of the desert bills which I have cosponsored; or those which 

we currently have on the books. 

That is a statement. Now, I have a question for you. When you 

talked about land. use, I was interested in your comment relevant 

to a valley in San Bernadino County where you said, if we could 

arrive at some kind of a land use plan here that would be acceptable by the County of Riverside, then we would have a possibility 

of designating it as something other than wilderness. 

In your mind, under the California Environmental Quality Act, 

could this same thing be done for the balance of the areas which 

are addressed by the California Environmental Quality Act and the 

counties involved by designating certain areas under that California Environmental Quality Act, wilderness, et cetera, et cetera, 

which may or may not be in the plan? 

Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I think that any designation, 

virtually any designation, of land by this Congress involves sorting 

out a whole bundle of possible economic uses. The Wilderness Act, 

for example, allows grazing to continue, and therefore it isn't a 

total withdrawal. Essentially, in my judgment, in an area like this, 

wilderness is a mining withdrawal as a practical matter, because 

if a rancher has his water improvements in, in a way wilderness, 

I would argue, works to the advantage of a lot of livestock operators because it protects their use in the process of excluding other 

uses. 

There are, I think, if you look through Federal land use designation, an enormous variety of possible kinds of designation. It is, in 

fact, what we tried with the efforts of Secretary Andrus in this 

area in the late 1970s. 

So I suppose theoretically you could draft or fit this land into any 

one of many kinds of categories, but I think whatever category you 

are moving to because of the unique nature of this land, you have 

to address head on these issues, all the multiple-use issues, whether it is mining, off-road vehicles, hunting, grazing, whatever. The 

one thing that National Park status does is preempt virtually all 

of those uses in favor of a Park use. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. We have such a vast area that obviously to 

manage it properly and oversee and to enforce whatever comes 

down the pike in the way of a law is going to take considerably 

more resources, if it is going to be productive, than we currently 

have available. 

When you take areas which are of questionable wilderness quality and place them in a category that is going to require an intense 

policing effort, you are going to require also additional resources in 

order to do that. My concern is, as you had pointed out in your 

comments, when we talk about 15 million people on the coastal 
143 

plain, mostly workin~ people, who use these areas as a recreational 

outlet with their families, and by and large they are all responsible 

people who enjoy and utilize the desert in the manner in which it 

was intended, and we reduce the availability of the area, not because it is actually pristine, but because it is designated as such 

on a map, how do we handle this recreational aspect, which the 

people are entitled to, of public lands? 

Secretary BABBITI'. Well, sir, during my time out there, I stopped 

at Kelso Dunes and did a fairly unscientific user survey. I actually 

started in the parking lot and walked to each group that I could 

find who were parking cars who were on the trail up at Kelso 

Dunes and introduced myself. Many of them seemed skeptical as 

to whether or not I was really the Secretary of the Interior, but 

nonetheless I did question them all quite closely as to what it is 

they were doing there, where they were from, and what their expectations were. 

One of them actually was there for the sole purpose of watching 

the fringe-toed lizard. I just want to report that to you, because I 

had never discovered anyone actually in pursuit of the fringe-toed lizard. Others were out there picnicking, taking pictures. I would 

say that 90 percent of the people I talked to were there for what 

I would call park uses-not all of them, and not all of them were 

in agreement, but I think that the vast majority of the users right 

now seem to be saying to me, "We view this as something like a 

park, and that's why we are here." 

Mr. McCANDLESS. Very quickly-and the chairman is being very 

patient with me-we have the area of the South Algodones Dunes 

in Imperial County, a very heavily used off-road vehicle area with 

little or no wilderness value to it at all, yet this is proposed as a 

part of the wilderness area. It is a principal recreational area for 

virtually thousands of people during the year who like the dune 

buggy, like to hear that engine scream, because they are screamed 

at all week by somebody and now they can let off some steam on 

the weekend, and then the next week they are ready to go back to 

their jobs. What value is there in having that put in a wilderness 

area? 

Secretary BABBITI'. Well, sir, if I may, I guess I would tum the 

question around. First of all, I believe we ought to have designated 

areas of sand dunes for ORV users. Not for consumption outside 

this room, I will tell you that I have spent a not inconsiderable 

amount of time driving on sand dunes in dune buggies. It is a terrific high; it really is; it is great fun. 

I have spent a fair amount of time with Ed Hastey and the others saying, "Do we have adequate areas marked off in the BLM 

plan?" and I think we do down in that area. I haven't spent any 

specific time on Algodones, but I don't think we are taking away the last area, and I would oppose that. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. There needs to be a review of that. 

Secretary BABBITI'. Okay. That is fair enough. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. My last question-thank you, Mr. Chairmanmy good colleague, Mr. Lehman, whom I have respect for, talked 

earlier about compromise, and I opened my comments with that. I 

was very close to the 1976 advisory group. In fact, I would have 

been a member, except as a member of the board of supervisors I 
144 

had other requirements in Riverside County, and so Clayton Record, who is a four-wheel drive enthusiast, represented the county and later became chairman of that group. 

There was a tremendous amount of work done, which you have 

heard about, by this advisory group, and one of the things that I 

found interesting and was presented to me today is one of the old 

documents that was sent out by the Bureau of Land Management 

to a number of people who were interested in the desert, and it outlined two plans; it had the California Desert Plan for multiple use 

by the National Outdoor Coalition, which was considered to be 

somewhat opposite from the plan presented by the Sierra Club. 

So the Bureau of Land Management sent these out for purposes 

of review for those who wished and any comments they might wish 

to make in the form of maps, and I would like to just show you, 

if I may, and Mr. Lehman, this is the document that was sent out, 

and on your right is the one plan entitled "Sierra Club," and the 

other is the Coalition plan. What we have in the way of a desert 

plan as it now exists and was implemented is virtually smack in 

the middls between these two, brought about by a coalition of people appointed by Secretary Andrus. So I would submit that this is 

certainly a compromise of genuine validity between, one would say, 

two opposite ends, or near opposite ends, of land use. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. That is submitted in the bill introduced by Mr. Lewis 

and yourself. Is that correct? 

Mr. McCANDLESS. This is a BLM document. 

[The documents follows:] 
c CONT R0.. \.1:0 ..... 

CLASS L 

CLASS ' M 

CLASS 

111- l liTi rll lSI UUt: 

': ~~ ~r.r~~o ·~; ;j 

~~~~~bPUBL IC IIIIIIJ 

145 

NOC 

11111 111 1111111 UUtiiU 

CALIFORNIA DESERT PLAN 

A PLAN FOR 

MULTIPLE- USE 

TI Me Nuonbeh ._., "'~ r o: prot$<!nl N0C ACEC rc-.:..,n-

•IX'od,.llll<"' con torosent upun r«X: ·•IOdi •t~. 

ICCI"ICfJollyr..,d!.x:~~~~"·) 
146 

SIERRA CLUB PLAN 

··~ .• - .... "ll. NON-- MULTIPLE-USE 

legend - MULTIPL E · USE CL_ASSES 

CLASS c CONTROLLED .-...:.. .. 111 

CLASS L LIMITED 

CLASS M MODERATE 

CLASS . INTENSIVE 

AND 

PRIVATE

OTHER 

, STATE

FEDERALLY 

ST:~~~~~~~

, 

M ANAGED 

:SARK. 

LANDS 

~ -~ 

FEDERAL MlLITA.RY LANDS [JJl] 

SIERRA C LUB PRO POSED ADOITK>NS tim 

~~~O~~~ p';!~POSED NEW -

The map and comments are the 

National Outdoor Coalition's 

OF OUR 

PUBLIC LANDS 

interpretation of the Sierr~ Club -

Audobon Society proposals 
147 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lewis. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY LEWIS 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too would echo my 

colleague's comments about your courtesy by allowing us to sit in 

with your committee. 

Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to see you. I am sure you are enjoying somewhat being back at your real job. 

Early in your testimony, you indicated, Mr. Secretary, that you 

were willing to consider Monument status versus Park status. I 

wasn't surprised at that testimony since the bill introduced by Mr. 

Lehman is different from past legislation in that he does use Monument designation, and I wouldn't expect the Secretary to come and 

rub his nose in that position. I don't gather from your testimony, 

however, that you are advocating that East Mojave be other than 

a Park. 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Mr. Congressman, that is correct. 

Mr. LEWIS. I want to make sure for the record it is understood 

that through this process it is likely that you will be advocating 

that position, for indeed if legislation passes from this committee 

and off the Floor, in conferences real decisions will be made, and 

that is where-it is a poor phrase but the only thing I can think 

of-the blood will be let regarding this measure, and my understanding is that even in the House a cynic would suggest that most 

conferees would do whatever the Senator wanted them to do for 

there is a political commitment there that is very real, and I would 

guess that your advocacy of a Park would lead to a Park. 

I would like to spend whatever time I have, Mr. Secretary, exploring the Catellus matter further, for I consider this to be a 

major problem that indicates levels of compromise to try to get legislation through the process that should be unacceptable to the 

process, certainly should be unacceptable to the taxpayer. Catellus, for the record, is the land company of the Santa Fe 

Railroad. They have approximately 355,000 acres in the East Mojave, maybe as many as 410,000 acres; we haven't been able to get 

quite a handle on where those numbers are. But internal estimates 

of value of those acres coming from your Department are that the 

land ranges between $750 to $1,500 an acre. The estimates would 

suggest that there is approximately a $1,000 value per acre. So the 

dollar amount, if it is just 355,000 acres, in terms of presumed 

marketplace value is approximately $355 million. 

What the Senators were unhappy with on the other side relative 

to the Catellus language that came out of the House last year and 

is in the Senator's bill, is that that language essentially would give 

Catellus a basket of chits and their land could be traded for land 

not just in the State where they hold the land but anywhere in the 

country. Now that is unprecedented and, indeed, would put great 

pressure on all the small States that might have some problem or 

priority. 

I heard from your testimony that you suggested, "Well, if you 

give me a little flexibility here, I can actually establish my own priorities as to what should be tradeable and what not tradeable." 

Would that suggest that there are sizable portions of the Catellus 
148 

land that in some way would be put on the shelf and not traded 

out for a long period of time? 

Secretary BABBITT. Here is the approach that I would take if I 

had the authority to do so. My opening position would be, we ought 

to get all the in-holdings out, the sooner the better, but that we 

ought not to be payin~ a premium directly or indirectly to do that, 

because the Catellus m-holdings do not pose a development problem in the short to middle term. There isn't anything going to be 

going on. They look like the school sections that you see in most 

western States, they are evenly scattered across the land, and 

nothing is going to happen. So my take would be let's get on with 

it, but if we can't strike a reasonable bargain, we don't need to up 

the ante. 

Mr. LEWIS. If you would, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the 

school lands, and that is really why I came to this point. The 

Catellus land holdings, while it is the land company of the Santa 

Fe Railroad, are to a very significant percentage school lands--

Secretary BABBITT. I understand. 

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Where the California Teachers Association solved their problem with this measure by buying Catellus 

stock1 and basically they anticipate that they will be able to trade 

out tnat value and thereby sustain their pension fund, and it was 

the way the House got over the opposition of CTA. Now are you 

suggesting that CTA, you are going to put them on a shelf and wait 

a long time-you know, just put them in a map and let them sit 

there? 

Secretary BABBITT. I don't work for CTA, I work for the United 

States. 

Mr. LEWIS. I am glad to hear that. I am not sure about the 

House always, butSecretary BABBITT. Well, I can tell you my approach to this. 

Number one, try to do it. Earlier is better than later. It don't pay 

a premium for these things. 

Number two, my approach to trading is that you get around 

these valuation problems by offering the same kind of land, because then you are not sort of whipsawed between two different 

sets of appraisals. 

Is this land worth a thousand dollars an acre? No way. Not a 

chance. That is an absurd figure. 

Now, you are not particularly interested in my opinion on that, 

and you shouldn't be. The way you get around it is by taking the 

adjacent public land base and saying to Catellus let's block up. 

That is a traditional way of solving these kinds of things, and there 

is plenty of off-boundary BLM base. That means Catellus would 

wind up with a contiguous, blocked up desert tract, which presumably has more inherent value to them than all these scattered inholdings, and, as I indicated, it pretty much solves the appraisal 

problem, because whether the appraisal comes in at $10,000 an 

acre or $10 an acre, you are trading like for like and you can ride 

the same appraisal on both sides. 

Now that, to me, is the by-the-book, correct way to go about this. 

That, for what is worth, is how I intend to do it. 

Now we do, and I think should, have authority to do noncontiguous exchanges. I just want to tell you I would be approaching that 
149 

very conservatively because we have lots of other in-holding issues 

in National Parks throughout the country and this one would be 

on the list just like all the rest of them. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Secretary, following up on that, there are two 

items relative to Catellus that are important here. One is-1 mentioned it-that the language in the bill allows them to have a trade 

of value of land in other States. I would like to ask you if you 

would advocate eliminating that language. But there is a second 

piece that involves the same thing, that Catellus, by the language, 

is authorized to transfer or sell their monetary credit to third parties rather than just wait for a Federal cash buy-out. Now it seems 

to me that puts them in a very interesting bargaining position and 

it is unprecedented, but would you advocate changing that language? 

Secretary BABBITT. Let me address both of those. I don't think 

the language, as drafted, gives Catellus an absolute right to anything in other States. The language, as I explained in my opening 

testimony, ought to be sharpened up, because what I would like is 

authority to negotiate trades. I believe that an interstate trade 

should come back for approval by this Congress. That is the general rule now, and I think that there shouldn't be an exception in 

this case. 

With respect to the credit to third parties, I think there is a more 

important issue on the credit side, and that is that the granting of 

the credit ought not to be automatic, that it may turn out that it 

is in the national interest to give them a credit, but if they have 

an automatic entitlement it undermines my ability to bargain and 

exchange in the public interest, so I don't think it should be automatic. 

Mr. LEWIS. So you would make sure that language was changed? 

Secretary BABBITT. I would propose to change that, yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one more item to 

this, for there really is a kind of unprecedented public policy here 

as it relates to a private corporation. 

We have taken care of Viceroy, we have taken care of Catellus, 

there are lots of small in-holders. Would you advocate that language be developed that would give priority to the small, 

noncorporate in-holder before we give taxpayer largesse to these 

big corporations? 

Secretary BABBITT. Sure. I think there is something to that effect 

in the bill I think that is important. If there is a willing seller who 

is a small in-holder who, as a result of this, says, "My future 

doesn't lie here, I'd like to get out," I think they should have a priority, yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Secretary, in closing, let me take you back to this 

$350 million value and the excess, outrageous prices. Unfortunately, we are dealing with Southern California. If you drew a triangle between Barstow-! know you have been to Barstow- and 

Las Vegas-1 doubt that you have ever been there-and Needles, 

in the center of that triangle, I think you understand, there's a lot 

of boondocks. I mean it is really out in the countryside, and there 

are endless evidences of land sales there between $750 and $1,000 

an acre. 
150 

So we are talking about real money here in terms of the lands 

held by this corporation, and I would hope that the committee 

would understand how important it is that we massage this language, becauSe hopefully all of us work for the U.S. Government 

and the taxpayers, not for some private interests. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. Would the chairman yield for just a minute? 

I would like to correct a piece of my statement. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. The handout that I presented is accurate as 

far as the content is concerned. However, it was mailed to the 

BLM. The findings were mailed to the BLM. The origin of the document is announced, "National Outdoor Coalition." 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mrs. Shepherd. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. I would only like to welcome Secretary Babbitt 

and say how happy I am he is with us and nowhere else. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a unanimous consent request that the Secretary's dune buggey activities 

be kept a secret within this room and that his resulting high from 

those activities not go outside this room. 

Thank you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. Unanimous consent is granted. 

The issue, Mr. Secretary, over land management--you talk about 

more intensive management--all of this, even if we didn't change 

the designations here in the Mojave Scenic Area, which I note is 

now recognized administratively by the BLM, would indeed result 

in considerably more administrative expenses. Is that correct? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Sure. No matter which way we go, this land 

is going to involve more expense in order to protect the base. It is 

the first thing you see when you go there. This is a big magnet out 

there, and it is drawing a lot of people who ought to have a quality experience, and it is just going to take a little bit of management. 

Mr. VENTO. This overall desert area's total is about 25 million 

acres, including the private lands and the military withdrawals, 

just for the California Desert area, and about a third of it is being 

proposed for wilderness in this particular instance, so it does mean 

that over two-thirds of it remains with a different type of use, some 

of it being private land, some of it being public land. So in my 

mind's eye, it is obviously important. 

We are going to hear more testimony. My colleague from California, Mr. Lehman, was concerned about my comments about grazing. Obviously, I don't want to make this more of an issue than it 

is, but in fact, the testimony that I had for the six allotments that 

are present there and that we will hear later from one of our witnesses who has actually been at a field hearing, who said that the 

smallest allotment is 300 acres and the largest is close to 3,000 

acres of land to support the cattle. 

I had proposed to Mr. Lehman that perhaps we could have this 

hunting issue combined and eliminate the grazing problem by some 

creative methodology in which people would eat beef, but he de-
151 

clined my offer. It would be a lot better eating and a lot more successful hunts. In any case, we will keep that idea. 

Mr. Lehman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, yes, we will discuss that further. 

I just want to make a cou.Ple of comments at this point with respect to Mr. Lewis' questionmg on Catellus and just make sure for 

the record that the public understands that no interstate transfer 

of land could take place under this bill without congressional approval. It must come back to here; that no transfer, even within the 

State of California, of more than 5,000 acres could take place without approval here; nor could any transfer worth more than $5 million even if it were under 5,000 acres take place without approval here. So there is certainly no blanket authority tossed out here. 

I do think the Secretary's concerns here, though, are valid if the 

language is construed to give them an ironclad right not respective 

of his authority in this re~ard. Certainly we can clarify that and 

would be happy to work With Mr. Lewis on this issue as well if he 

so desires to go forward. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course we will hear from the Catellus Development Corporation later today. A great deal has been done on this 

language. I would certainly echo Mr. Lehman's comments about the 

congressional approval for the interstate activities and authority 

that is granted. It is a creative way to try and bring this to conclusion. I think that, at the very least, additional time, given the fact 

of where we are at this point, should be considered in terms of 

bringing that to resolution so that we are not forced where we 

could actually have an executed agreement rather than this negotiable instrument that is contemplated in the legislation. But we 

will hear from Catellus. 

Does Mr. Hansen or other Members have additional questions for 

the Secretary? 

We appreciate very much, Mr. Secretary, your presence this 

morning, and I appreciate the cooperation of the committee members and other interested Members and their participation this 

morning so that we could facilitate your testimony. 

We have got a good amount of work to do to successfully deal 

with the issue and bring this to fruition in this session, and we ap- preciate your continued participation and that of your staff. I think 

a couple are about ready to be confirmed. It has been a tough duty for you trying to carry this on without their assistance, but we very much welcome their help and participation with the staff and with 

ourselves. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank 

you. 

Mr. VENTO. We next will hear from Sherri Wasserman Goodman, 

the deputy under secretary for environmental security, Department 

of Defense. I am especially pleased to welcome her in this new post. 

I think it signals an awareness by the Department and the administration of the importance of land use and other related issues. 

I had a chance to visit briefly with Ms. Goodman yesterday and 

to discuss matters and what her role is. I think that, candidly, in 

visiting some of the sites-for instance, with my colleague from 

Idaho, who has now left, at the Orchard Training Area-we wit-
152 

nessed, first-hand, some of the restoration efforts of the Department of Defense in the past. I was pleased to be at an awards ceremony where that particular installation received an award for their 

work as well as one in my own district for work on remediation of 

aquifer damage due to various types of contamination. 

So I do think that this recognition and role that Ms. Goodman 

has is an important one and I think will help us and be a constant 

source of support and response from the Department of Defense 

concerning matters before the subcommittee. 

Ms. Goodman, your statement has been made part of the record. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SHERRI WASSERMAN GOODMAN, DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. I am honored to be here today. The Secretary of the 

Interior is a hard act to follow. 

Since you all may not know me, I would like to say a little bit 

about the position I have in at the Department of Defense and 

thank the chairman for his warm words of recognition. This is a 

new position at the Department of Defense. I am the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security; and by creating this position the President, the Vice President, and Secretary Aspin 

are signaling the importance they attach to environmental matters 

at the Department of Defense. We intend to make this a very important part of our business, and we look forward to working with 

this committee on those matters. I appreciate the opportunity to 

test=..fy today on this important bill, the California Military Lands 

Withdrawal and Overflights Act. 

We think this Act represents a major step forward, protecting the 

environment of our California Desert, and will go a long way to ensure that this valued national treasure is preserved for future generations. The Department of Defense is the steward for 25 million 

acres of Federal land, as much land as the California Desert we are 

considering here today. As Secretary Babbitt and I were discussing, this makes the Department of Defense now the third largest land 

holder in the United States. Our lands holdings represent all our 

country's major land types and contain many fragile ecosystems. 

More than 10 percent of this land is located in the California 

Desert, and millions of other acres of DOD lands are in similar arid 

western settings. These are truly unique places. 

The Department of Defense has five major installations that are 

affected by this proposed legislation, and the importance of these 

installations cannot be underestimated. The first battles of Desert 

Storm were fought at these important California Desert installations. On these remote locations, our Nation's finest men and 

women trained for the Iraqi desert. These locations are the Naval 

Air Weapons Station, China Lake; the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range; Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground 

Combat Center; the Fort Irwin National Training Center; and the 

Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base; and I am pleased to 

have representatives from each of these installations and our mill-
153 

tary departments here with me. I commend their commitment, and 

I am pleased to have them here with me. 

We would like to work closely with this committee as we have 

been working with your Senate counterparts on S. 21 to ensure 

that essential military needs are accommodated in this legislation. 

Let me briefly address the issues that are of particular concern to 

the military. 

First, military overflight. To ensure that our military remains 

the best in the world, we believe the legislation should expressly 

permit low-level military overflight of wilderness and park areas 

both now and in the future. In modem air warfare, high-speed, 

low-level flight is essential for survival, as shown in Operation 

Desert Storm. For example, we need low-level routes to test today's 

cruise missiles. 

Second, access corridors. We are working with you to ensure that 

the Act reflects map boundaries showing a tank track between Fort 

Irwin and Twentynine Palms. In addition, the access corridor provided for Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness Area requires power lines to 

support our training. 

Third, we would like these maps not to preclude the future expansion of the Army's premier training base at Fort Irwin. 

Finally, we believe that land exchanges should not include the 

five affected Department of Defense facilities. 

The Department would like to cooperate with Congress, and we 

are already working closely with the Department of the Interior 

and other Federal agencies, State and local governments, affected 

Indian Tribes, and the general public to address the broader issue 

of land use and conservation as it applies to military training. We 

believe that such a dialogue would be consistent with our evolving 

views towards protection of integrated ecosystems rather than simply individual species. Together, we can build a conservation ethic 

that will be sustainable beyond many generations. In the Department of Defense, we are building a new conservation strategy as part of our larger environmental security strategy 

to conserve our natural and cultural resources so they will be available for present and future generations. As 1,1art of this conservation strategy, we are committed to comply Wlth all applicable laws 

for natural and cultural resources, to identify all significant resources; to manage them in consonance with our military mission, 

and to ~rovide training and education to build a strong conservation ethic. In addition, we will involve and are involving the public 

in our many conservation :programs. 

I would like to emphas1ze that the Department of Defense and 

its new leadership strongly believes that national security includes 

environmental security, and we are committed to working with you 

in that way. We support this legislation. The Department will not 

be content merely to be a good steward of its lands but will be a 

leader in safegua.rdina" the environment for future generations. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Goodman follows:] 
1M 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

STATEMENT OF 

SHERR! WASSERMAN GOODMAN 

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

(ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY) 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ON 

THE CALIFORNIA MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL AND OVERFLIGHTS ACT 1993 

H.R.BBO 

AND THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1993, H.R. 518 

JUNE 15, 1993 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
155 

Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 

California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act, H.R. 

880 and the California Desert Protection Act of 1993, H.R. 518. 

The Department of Defense is steward for 25 million acres of 

federal land representing all of our country's major land types 

and containing endangered ecosystems and species, irreplaceable 

historic and archeological sites, and many other important 

natural and cultural resources. More than 10% of that land is 

located in the California desert, and millions of other acres of 

DoD lands are in similar arid Western settings. These are truly 

unique places. The last writing of Wallace Stegner perhaps put 

it best: 

"Aridity, more than anything else, gives the western 

landscape its character. It is aridity that gives the air 

its special dry clarity; aridity that puts brilliance in the 

light, and polishes and enlarges the stars ... " ("Thoughts on 

a dry land," from "Where the Bluebird Sings to the Lemonade 

Springs." April 1992) 

Our national security interests can be protected without 

jeopardizing our environmental heritage. Previously, the 

Department opposed similar bills on the grounds that the emphasis 

on protecting the desert could not be reconciled with our 

military activity there. However, as we change our paradigm to 

meet new threats, I am here today to support legislation that 

protects the California Desert and to tell you that the 

President, Vice President and Secretary Aspin believe that 

environmental security is vital to national security. 

The Department of Defense has five major installations that 

are affected by proposed legislation. The first battles of 

Desert Storm were fought at these important California desert 

installations. They are the: 

Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

Fort Irwin National Training Center 

Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 6 
156 

Why does DoD train and test its weapons on and above the majestic 

landscape of the California desert? We have steadily moved our 

training and weapons testing away from more populated areas into less 

populated areas, like the southern California desert, to provide the 

means for realistic testing and training. We have no place else to 

go where we can prepare our young men and women for the next time 

they must go in harm's way. The deployment and success of U.S. 

Forces in the Persian Gulf underscores the need for large-scale 

desert training areas affording the greatest degree of reality if we 

are to continue to be an effective fighting force in challenging 

terrain and climatic conditions. 

This essential preparation requires a significant amount of land 

and air space. The Department's objective is to ensure that we 

maintain sufficient room for our weapons testing, gunnery ranges, 

flight operations, and combat maneuver exercises. We believe that 

legislation can ensure that the California desert will continue to be 

both a prized and protected natural resource and the premier location 

for vital military weapons testing and combat readiness training. 

To ensure that our military remains the best in the world, we 

believe that legislation protecting the California desert should 

expressly permit low-level military overflight of wilderness and park 

areas both now and in the future. In modern air warfare, high-speed, 

low-level flight is essential for survival as evidenced in Operation 

Desert Storm. 

Low level flight is used by tactical aircraft to avoid radar 

detection, protect ground troops, and deliver ordnance. Low level 

routes are also used to test cruise missiles. 

Skills required to conduct low altitude flight are perishable 

and must he practiced on a regular basis. Unlike medium or high 

altitude flight, low altitude flight requires precise piloting skills 

throughout the mission because of the proximity of the terrain. 

These skills can only be gained and maintained by training in this 

regime of flight. 

California desert legislation should recognize the compatibility 

between land use designations and essential low-level military 

overflight. 

2 
157 

We also need the flexibility to'&xpand, not only to meet current 

requirements, but also to keep pace as the technical comple'Xity of our units, weapons, and tactics improve. We will always need large 

open spaces in which to train. However, because we recognize that 

these lands have multiple values, and are a shrinking resource, we 

are undertaking a number of measures to integrate our training needs 

and reduce our impacts. These measures include: 

Consolidation and sharing of training and test ranges 

through greater use of shared facilities. 

Use of electronic connections between remote areas to 

reduce the need for expansion of existing ranges. Through 

this technology, scattered smaller ranges can be used to 

simulate extended larger ranges. 

Greater use of computer modeling technology to provide 

realistic substitutes for field tests. This will not 

eliminate, but could greatly reduce the need and cost for 

actual field operations. 

Use of so-called "smart" or guided bombs that allow more precise targeting. 

The current House version of this legislation, H.R. 518 and H.R. 

BBO offers a good approach to protecting the pristine environment of 

our California deserts and will go a long way to ensure that this 

valued national treasure is preserved for future generations. While 

H.R. 880 does addresses the military's previous concerns regarding 

issues such as military overflights and access corridors, we do have 

remaining concerns over continued monitoring by the Secretary of 

Interior of the effects of aircraft overflights. We agree with the 

Department of Interior that 25 years is necessary for military 

withdrawals to allow for a more efficient long-range planning and 

implementation process. We urge that the bill be amended to provide 

for the longer term. The 12-year period for the publication of a draft Environmental Impact Statement should likewise be modified. In 

addition, we hope to be able to work with your staff in the 

development of the maps referred to in these bills to determine if 

modifications or refinements are needed. By working closely with the 

Committee and the Department of Interior, we are confident that 

essential military needs will be accommodated. Let me briefly 

explain the four specific issues that concern us. 

3 
158 

(1) Military Oyerflight: The language in section 12 assuages 

our concerns by clearly stating that these bills will not 

restrict low-level overflights. Such language is important to 

avoid future disagreements between overflights and wilderness and 

park uses. 

(2) Access Corridors: We are working to ensure that this 

legislation reflects map boundaries delineating an unpaved 

movement corridor from Fort Irwin to Marine Corps Base Twentynine 

Palms through the Cady Mountains. Also, we are working to assure 

that the access corridor provided fo~ in the Cleghorn Lakes. 

Wilderness areas allows utility lines to support training. 

(3) Fort Irwin Expansion: We believe it is important that the 

legislation does not preclude future expansion of the Army's 

premier training base. We understand the maps address this 

issue. 

(4) Land Exchanaes: Federal land at the five affected DoD 

facilities (Fort Irwin, Twentynine Palms, China Lake, Edwards Air 

Force Base and Chocolate Mountains) should be excluded from 

participation in land or mineral rights exchanges to support the 

establishment of wilderness or park areas. So long as these 

lands are withdrawn for military purposes, we understand that 

they cannot be exchanged. 

The question is not whether training and test ranges are 

necessary, but "how can we minimize their impact on the environment?" 

This is a question that the Department of Defense cannot answer 

alone. We have a number of large land holdings throughout the West. 

We would like to cooperate with the Congress, the Department of the 

Interior and other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 

affected Indian tribes, and the general public to address the broader 

issue of land use and conservation as it applies to military 

training. 

We believe that such a dialogue would be consistent with our 

evolving views toward protection of integrated ecosystems rather than 

simply individual species. In this manner, we may conserve intact 

the greatest amount of land possible that makes sense from a holistic 

environmental viewpoint. Moreover, this type of process will allow 

us to consider in context the many competing pressures on the desert 

and other fragile ecosystems. Together, we can integrate our 

planning with other land use considerations. Together, we can build 

a conservation ethic that will be sustainable beyond seven 

generations. 

4 
159 

We in the Department of Defense are building a new conservation 

strategy, as part of a larger environmental strategy, to conserve our natural and cultural resources so they will be available for present 

and future generations. As part of this conservation strategy, we are committed to: 

COmply with all applicable laws and standards for natural 

and cultural resources. 

Identify all significant natural and cultural resources. 

Manage natural and cultural resources in consonance with 

the military mission. 

Plan, program, and budget to comply with all applicable 

laws and regulations. 

Provide training, education, and staffing to build a 

strong conservation ethic. 

Involve the public in all conservation programs. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that the current DoD 

leadership strongly believes that national security includes 

environmental security. We are committed to protecting the . environment. In this instance, that means supporting the protection 

of the California desert area. The basic compatibility between 

Defense and environmental concerns is demonstrated at numerous military bases which provide sanctuaries for wildlife threatened by 

encroaching civilization. The Department intends to be a leader in 

safeguarding the environment for future generations. 

This will not be an easy task, and may be especially difficult as we jointly address the competing pressures on fragile Western lands. 

We look forward to working with the Committee on this most 

important legislation. 

5 
160 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your opening statement and your work on this issue. 

I think that there is a lot of work that had been done on the bill 

in the past, and we had generally good cooperation from DOD finally, if not absolute, but I hope that any misunderstandings that 

existed now can be concluded. We started to work on a couple of 

those yesterday. 

As an example though, let me just point out a sort of two-track 

issue here between your testimony, Secretary Goodman, and that 

of Secretary Babbitt. In your statement you say, "We do have remaining concerns over continued monitoring by the Secretary of 

the Interior of the effects of aircraft overflights." 

Secretary Babbitt's testimony said with regard to H.R. 880 that 

he recognized ·the importance of military overflights: "The National 

Park Service will continue to monitor the effects of aircraft 

overflights on Park resources and values." 

Is there the same tension or disagreement here between the Department of Defense and the Interior Department on this matter? 

Are we actually saying the same thing in a different way? Do you disagree with what the Secretary has said? 

Ms. GoODMAN. I don't disagree with the Secretary. We would like 

to work with you on the language of that provision, Mr. Chairman, 

because the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense agree, I believe, that it should be refined. We have no problem with working with the Department of the Interior in reporting 

our military overflights. We would like to refine the language to 

make sure it allows the military to continue to conduct its necessary training missions. 

Mr. VENTO. Similarly, I notice that in your testimony you had a 

couple of criteria on land exchanges. But if the withdrawal goes forward with regard to the language of the legislation that I have 

introduced, H.R. 880, then these areas would be withdrawn and 

they would not be subject to land exchange. That is my understanding. Isn't it your understanding? That is the effect of it, that 

it would not be. They would be withdrawn and therefore would not 

be subject to land exchange. 

Ms. GOODMAN. We agree with that. 

Mr. VENTO. But I mean it is a fundamental tenet of the action 

in terms of either legislatively doing it or administratively doing it. 

Once it is withdrawn, it is withdrawn from any other use for the 

15-year period. Admittedly, you have sought more time here, which 

has been a constant position of the Administration, asking for more 

time. 

In my mind, there isn't a question, and I want to make certain 

that there is some other basis for your testifying to that issue. I 

would like to know it at this time or in the future if I have stated 

it incorrectly. 

Ms. GoODMAN. Okay. That may be only a matter concerning the 

Senate bill. 

But with respect to the time for withdrawal, we do believe that 

it is important to allow a 25-year period for the land withdrawal. 

The land withdrawal for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range has already been pending now for 20 years. The planning 

on these military ranges is extremely important. For example, we 
161 

have geothermal energy projects at several of these bases, and the 

planning for those projects involves at least a 30-year time frame. 

This is important energy conservation work that helps the military 

be self-sufficient and also provides considerable economic benefits 

beyond the military. To plan against a 15-year time frame is very 

difficult for the Department. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand your concern along those lines as well 

as with the access corridors. AB far as the expansion of Fort Irwin, 

I don't believe that the legislation, if we look at the wilderness legislation in conjunction with your proposal, at least the current version, would either eliminate or prevent the expansion of Fort Irwin 

in a modest way. Obviously, these are all very tentative plans. 

They have not been announced. Is that correct? The expansion of 

Fort Irwin, is that in a draft form or plan at this time? 

Ms. GOODMAN. It has not been announced, Mr. Chairman, in a 

formal fashion, and I don't think your legislation at this point precludes it. I want to note that it is important that this continue to 

be permitted and to note what the Army has done to protect the 

desert tortoise at Fort Irwin, for example, they have modified their 

plans to provide for such protection. 

Mr. VENTO. I was going to lead to a question on that in a general 

sense, but just to conclude the Fort Irwin issue, it hasn't been announced. It sort of reminds me of one of the expressions we used, 

about someone that wanted only the land adjacent to their own, 

but the problem is that that particular supposition would lead you 

all the way to the coast of California. But I am pleased that your 

testimony does point out that the California legislation that is before us on land issues here does not affect that. 

Similarly, the point that you were making in terms of cooperation on the desert tortoise and in terms of working with Fish and 

Wildlife and I expect the State Department of Natural Resources 

in California, that on almost all the military installations where 

there are public or State lands and/or authorities, you have begun 

a dialogue or set up advisory groups with them in terms of what 

the impact or the footprint is on the land and I guess beyond. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. GoODMAN. Yes, that is correct. In fact, the Army has worked 

very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the desert tortoise recovery plan and has provided areas for the desert tortoise 

on its lands. The military and the Department of Defense are working very closely in all of these areas. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just comment to my colleagues, and they are 

aware of the Birds of Prey legislation, that in the Orchard Training 

Area is one of the roosting and nesting areas for raptors, and the 

other one is Fort Pendleton in California, and so here we have two 

of the principal raptor nesting areas and areas where we have significant concentrations of raptors both on military lands or on 

areas that have been withdrawn for this particular purpose. 

I expect that it is no accident, in fact, because here we cut off 

access for various types of activities. I think it may be a little unusual in terms of the Idaho area with the Thompson ground squir- rel. The other principal factor is just the interference of people with 

these raptors in terms of their nesting habitat. But the military use 
162 

is not something that bothers them as much as it may clash or be 

dissonant with regard to other views of natural areas. 

Mr. Hansen is a member of the Armed Services Committee as 

well as serving as ranking member of my subcommittee, so I know 

he is interested in this issue. 

Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Secretary, I appreciate your comments. 

Last year, Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Stone was testifying in front of the Senate Energy Committee, and he made this 

statement. He said, "By designating millions of acres as wilderness 

and National Parks, we believe these bills will inevitably lead to 

growing demands to curtail noisy airplanes and dusty tanks, demands that the Department and the Congress will eventually be 

unable to resist." Do you want to comment on that statement? Is 

that where we are going now? 

Ms. GooDMAN. The new Administration has taken a different approach. Of course our military missions are very important. We believe that those have to be preserved. We must continue to allow 

for noisy airplanes and dirty tanks to train, and in the California 

Desert is our premier training area in the country. That is why we 

have spent the last several years working with you and the sponsors of this legislation to ensure that it will allow the military to 

continue its most important missions. We think we are in a position to do that. Working together with the sponsors of this legislation, the military can continue its important training needs in the 

California Desert. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you this. What are you giving up? What 

does the military give up in these bills? Simply stated, what would 

you say you are giving up? 

Ms. GOODMAN. I would say we have agreed to work cooperatively 

with other Federal agencies in a way that I believe is unprecedented. We are working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, by 

forming, a new Federal partnership which I believe allows us to 

work together to meet our needs. 

We have also found that by working on the maps to defm.:J the 

wilderness areas for this bill that, in properly drawing the boundaries, we can preserve our training needs and, therefore, not lose 

what the military needs to continue its missions. 

Mr. HANsEN. Don't you feel, though, that Secretary Stone in his 

statement, that if you start restricting or giving up acreage, that 

that will just continue? I have sat for 13 years on this committee 

and over the Grand Canyon, and don't get me wrong, I think the 

Grand Canyon and other areas should be protected, and I compliment you for your conscience and sensitivity, your nature, as far 

as protecting some of these areas, but you folks are going to get 

pushed out of business before long if you don't watch yourselves. 

I also in my district have an area. It is called the Test and Bombing Range. It is just west of Hill Air Force Base. Tying that to 

Dugway Proving Ground, tying that to Tooele Army Depot, you 

have got just about as big or bigger than you have got here, and 

I am getting a little tired of all the letters I am getting from what 

I call extreme environmental groups who don't want anything to 
163 

happen over there. They don't want a helicopter to go over it because they can't enjoy a solitude experience. 

If you read the 1964 wilderness bill, it is very clear on what you 

can and can't do. The definition of wilderness is given in there and 

then all of the things that flowed out of that: ''no roads" -well, you 

have got roads all through this area-"as if man was never there." 

The first guy God put on the Earth is standing there, and he can't 

see anything. There are no cattle ponds; there is no sign of man, 

as if man did not exist. 

Well, now, you take that definition, and then we went on, and 

if you read all you can out of the committees and you read what 

hapf.ened, you don't want to be disturbed by having man around. 

Wei , I think that with an Apache or a Huey or an A10 or an F16 

or an F15 or whatever you are going to fly over there, if it is pretty 

evident that man is around somewhere. 

I appreciate your cooperative spirit; don't get me wrong; I just 

think you had better be very careful and realize what you are giving up, because you may be giving up a lot more than you think, 

and I could give you illustrations of things, just a little encroachment, like a cancer, inch by inch, and we keep losing a little bit 

here and a little bit there. No disrespect to the new Administration. I think what you are assigned to do is probably admirable, but 

I would be very careful as you look at this piece of legislation. You 

may have to find some place in Siberia to do your testing from here 

on because I think you are on the way out, if I may respectfully 

say so. 

When you say low-level flying, you are just talking aircraft, military aircraft? Is that right? 

Ms. GooDMAN. That is right; we conduct low-level overflights in 

the California Desert, because it is very important that the military continue to be able to conduct its low-level military overflights. 

Mr. HANSEN. Nothing to do with any low-level missiles flying 

over? 

Ms. GoODMAN. I'm sorry. Yes, as I mentioned, we also test cruise 

missiles. So it is missiles and planes, and it is important that the 

military continue to be able to do this work. 

I expressed a concern that the legislation explicitly allow for the 

military to continue this work, and I agree with you that low-level 

overflights are not consistent with a wilderness experience that one 

might typically consider. Therefore, it is very important that we 

carefully draw the boundaries in this legislation to permit the military to continue its training needs. 

With respect to the provision concerning monitoring, I think we 

do need to consider, as the chairman mentioned earlier in his first 

question to me, the consistency of the reference to the term ''visitor 

enjoyment" with the military overflights. It is absolutely essential 

that we continue to conduct our military overflights. We need to do 

that, and this bill needs to recognize that. Therefore, we would like 

to work with you to define that language, and I appreciate your 

words to help us do that as well. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think everything we do in Congress is the word 

''prioritize." We prioritize the taxpayers' money. We prioritize what 

is the greatest need of America: Somebody having a solitude experience going into an area, or is it because we want to train a guy 
164 

that he can defend this country? And you will come down to that, 

very candidly, in a big hurry, and you will hear a hue and cry 

when you start buzzing a few guys over their heads. That always happens. I get letters every week to that effect. As one of the ranking members on the Armed Services Committee, I get that constantly from that particular group. 

How many acres do you agree not to fly over that you were flying 

over before? Do you know that figure by any chance? 

Ms. GoODMAN. I don't believe there is any change. We still plan 

to conduct the military overflights that we have been conducting. 

Mr. HANsEN. You feel under this bill there is no restriction to 

what you did before. Is that right? 

Ms. GooDMAN. That is my understanding, and I will report to 

you further if my inquiries after this hearing find any other information. But that is my understanding. 

Mr. HANSEN. What are you giving up of things on the ground that you haven't given up before? Anything that would be on the 

ground? Do you put any Bradleys, any Mls, A1s, any trucks, anything on the ground? 

Ms. GoODMAN. As I said, we would like to see the maps properly 

reflect the boundaries. For example, I mentioned a tank track that 

connects Fort Irwin and Twentynine Palms. We want to ensure 

that the track between those two training areas is reflected so we 

can continue to used it as we do today. My staff has been working with the Senate staff to reflect the proper boundaries on the maps, 

and we would like to work with the House staff when you get to 

the map phase to ensure that the boundaries of our training areas 

are properly reflected. 

Mr. HANSEN. I can deduce from your statement then, what is 

going in the record here, is that the military comes to this committee and is making the statement that nothing changes as a result 

of this legislation. Is that correct? 

Ms. GooDMAN. Provided that the maps that accompany the legis- lation reflect the existing boundaries. 

Mr. HANSEN. To the best of your knowledge. I didn't mean to pin 

you down that ~t. To the best of your knowled~e, the military is happy with this, they don't see any. problem W1th it, they can 

still fly over, they can still put everything on the ground, nothing changes, and you will be careful not to run over desert tortoises. 

Is that right? 

Ms. GoODMAN. That certainly is correct, yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. l would JUSt point out, except for the possible expansion of Fort Irwin, which, of course, would be subject to Engle Act 

approval in addition, so Congress would have to act on it in any 

case, which is not even being proposed but which is being contemplated, I guess, there has never been any suggestion that any 

of the lands dealt with in H.R. 518, the California Desert bill, were 

needed for military uses, and overflights are protected. 

I would just further point to the section on page 20 of H.R. 880 

on military overflights that Congressman Blaz and I agreed to last 

year with the cooperation of Secretary Stone. This was language that they requested. The disclaimer says, "Nothing in the Act or 

the California Desert Protection Act of 1993 shall preclude low-
165 

level overfli~hts for military aircraft, the designation of new units 

of special atr space, or the use or establishment of military flight training routes over new units of the National Park or National 

Wilderness Preservation Systems (or any additions to existing units of such systems) designated by this Act or the California 

Desert Protection Act of 1993," and of course, this will be attached 

to it. So it is a pretty sound assurance. 

Now, if the military chooses to work with the Secretary and work 

with other agencies to come up with further refinements and agreements concerning this, which is what has been the practice in the 

past, and we assume that that good faith effort will go forth, it isn't 

being done by this legislation. That is the concern, that we are not 

doing it legislatively, and I think they will make a good faith effort 

to work out whatever problems are consistent with the national security and training needs that they have. 

Incidentally, Secretary Goodman, how low is a low-level flight? I 

know some of the information concerning, for instance, the cruise 

missiles is classified in terms of what you do. But I think it would 

be helpful for the members of the committee to understand how 

low a low-level flight we are talking about. 

I see that you haven't been doing it. Now if we had Mr. 

Cunningham here, we would get that answer just like that. 

Ms. GooDMAN. I want to confirm both that the numbers we give 

you are accurate and that they are unclassified. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, nothing that we are referring to; we just 

use the phrase. 

Ms. GoODMAN. A low-level flight may be as low as 100 to 200 

feet. 

Mr. VENTO. It is really low. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. No questions at this time. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. What else flies over these areas? I guess you said cruise missiles and airplanes. What else flies out there? 

Ms. GoODMAN. We fly a wide variety of aircraft-F14s, F15s, 

F16s and F18s; B52, B1 and B2 bombers; C130 and C17 cargo aircraft; helicopters; a variety of wea:pons systems including the 

Tomahawk and cruise missiles; and mission support aircraft. 

Along those lines, I think it is important that when we refer to 

low-level military overflights in the legislation that we not qua.J.if.y 

it afterwards with the word "aircraft," because that would exclude 

missiles. If we use the term "unqualified low-level military overflight," we believe it would include all types of activity, weapons as 

well as aircraft, that are involved in these overflights. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Does the military presently have overflights 

over, say, the Death Valley National Monument1 

Ms. GooDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Does existing law make specific provision for 

such overflights? 

Ms. GoODMAN. Existing law does not P.reclude such overflights. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Then why do you feel1t necessary to afford this 

express statutory protection in this I · lation for these new areas 

to be designated when you do not, in , have it presently for existing national monuments? 
166 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield to me, in defense of this 

legislation which I have introduced and worked on with Congressman Blaz and former Congresswoman Byron, this particular language, this disclaimer, was put in by us at the request of the Department of Defense. 

In other words, we made exactly the point that the gentleman from California is making at this point, but in order to make the 

issue clear. So if the issue of military aircraft isn't sufficient and/ 

or military flight training routes is not sufficient, tell me what is 

and we will try and work with you to accommodate that. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Couldn't the inclusion, for the first time in statute, of this type of language be cited by those opposed to such 

overflights over areas which have not been expressly provided for 

in statute as a precedent or a failure-in other words, to include 

them expressly, as these have been included, would perhaps be indicative of the intent that such overflights not be allowed in, say, the Death Valley National Monument? Has the Department considered the possibility of such effects of having this language expressly referencing certain areas but not other areas that are, in 

fact, presently used today? 

Ms. GoODMAN. I think one can always find such arguments that 

an express inclusion therefore implies an omission with respect to 

earlier statutes, but I don't believe that would be consistent with 

past and current practices. I would be interested in any evidence 

that you might have that there are those who would attempt to 

constrain military overflights elsewhere as a result of the affirmative inclusion of language permitting it in this bill. I don't believe 

that is problematic. I am certainly willing to consider that, and I certainly would be 

interested in any evidence that you might have that it is a problem, but we think that the affirmative inclusion here helps and 

does not adversely affect other overflights that are conducted by the military outside of the California Desert. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Well, of course, this is the first time such language has ever been used, so there is no evidence, but an analogous area is, look at the wetlands policy and how that has developed. I would suggest that there are some disturbing developments 

in that area in terms of boot-strapping. Look at what has happened 

with various interpretations of the Endangered Species Act, the 

Forest Lands Management Practices Act, et cetera. What is going 

on in the Pacific Northwest is the latest result we see from that, 

from those Acts. 

I think the gentleman from Utah, when he says to you, boy, 

watch out, you are setting some precedents here. Certainly in other 

areas of the law, such as the ones I have mentioned, why, there 

has been some very creative lawyering that has gone on; they have 

grabbed at straws, and sometimes those have produced tangible results. 

You know, I made Mr. Babbitt's Dirty Dozen List. If I had had 

time, I would have asked him further details about that. But as 

one who ~enerally opposes further Federal land acquisitions, further restrictions, I might actually like the concept you are putting 

in here. In fact, I think this could become a wonderful vanguard 
167 

to reestablish the concept of multiple use. We will have wilderness 

areas or parks, and we can have cruise missiles and Tomahawk 

missiles and F15s, et cetera, flying around, and we will just drive 

that wedge in and create some other exclusions and expansions. It 

might be a very novel approach, a good hallmark for the Clinton 

Administration. 

Ms. GooDMAN. We think this legislation is evidence of the fact 

that the environment and military operations can be compatible. 

We need to continue, obviously, our military operations. We also 

need to protect the environment; and that is why we believe this 

legislation is able to do just that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Calvert, do you have any questions at this time? 

Mr. CALVERT. Not at this time. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lewis, did you have a question of the witness? 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Goodman, would you help me just a little with the discussion that the chairman was beginning to have with you relative 

to the time frame question, the 15 years, versus wanting additional 

time, and tell me what the significance of that is? 

Ms. GoODMAN. The significance is the amount of time for which 

the land is withdrawn, and the land wit~drawal requires an affirmative action by Congress, which has typically taken as many as 10 

years. I believe the Chocolate Mountain Area Gunnery Range land 

withdrawal, which has expired, has now been pending for almost 

20 years, and so it has been operating on a temporary or interim 

withdrawal. It makes it difficult for the military department to 

plan. 

For example, at several of our training areas in the California 

Desert we have geothermal energy projects underway, and the investments required in those are done on a 30-year basis. 

Mr. LEWIS. So you feel there is a need for more, not less, time. 

Ms. GoODMAN. Yes, that is right. The Department and the Executive Branch have consistently supported a 25-year withdrawal pe- riod since it takes considerable time for the withdrawals to work 

their way through Congress. Even though all parties may be well 

intentioned, it is difficult to get these bills passed. We think the 25-

year time frame provides a better planning basis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Goodman, let me tell you why I was pursuing that line. I missed a couple of votes yesterday because I spent the 

day in beautiful downtown Twentynine Palms at the Marine Corps 

Combat Center, where we had a demonstration for a broad cross 

section of private citizen interests of live-fire war games out there, 

and it was very interesting for me to see a demonstration of why 

we need training. 

A young commander who had never really been out in the field 

before was told to take out three targets that were approximately 

3,000-plus meters away. You watch the stumbling that goes on 

when you don't have that experience, and you get a clear understanding of the need for real practice. 

Interestingly enough, they had three targets they were going after. Two of those targets were taken out by aircraft, not by the 

Marines on the ground, and following breaking an initial barrier 

the track vehicles ended up going towards the wrong mountain. It 
168 

is not a criticism at all but the reality that this is a different world 

and you need open spaces. 

Let me suggest that those airplanes that took out those targets clearly were flying at low levels. I believe the FAA rule presently, by the way, over Death Valley National Monument is 2,500 feet, 

not what would be considered to be low-level flying. But in the 

meantime, those planes were flying at low level, and I have no 

doubt that their entry point was over a big hunk of what would be 

wilderness in the new National Park that is Joshua Tree. 

Please do not take lightly what this committee or this House 

might seek as a priority in the future as these time frames expire. 

I admire your effort to work between agencies here, but Congress 

often has demonstrated different priorities than our military interests would dictate, and I have watched with interest the shaking 

of heads on the part of people who have uniforms on just in back 

of you-obviously a good deal of concern about where we are going 

in terms of future policy here impac · our ability to train people. 

General Schwarzkopf has said that e most important thing we 

have ever done in terms of spending money in his career is the 

money at the National Training Center of the Army. It made the 

difference in the Persian Gulf War. There is no question that those 

Marines trained at this combat center made a big, big difference 

in our success there. 

There is not any doubt that Mr. Hansen is making an important point. The policy development and direction here would tend to 

close down rather than expand that opportunity, and I don't think 

you and I can project just in the short time what kind of space is 

going to be needed for that training. The increasing length of lethal 

weaponry, the need to be able to train with that weaponry in live 

fire circumstances, has changed radically in the last 15 years. If 

policies designed 25 years ago were applied to weaponry of 25 years 

ago, the needs for expansion would be considerably less than we 

are talking about here. 

So I would urge you to be very cautious about signing off on 

agreements with those who are essentially using this legislation in 

part to drive no-growth attitudes that are much different than military training interests. 

Any comment? I would be interested. 

Ms. GoODMAN. It is because I agree with much of what you have 

said that we have worked very carefully with the staff in drafting 

this legislation and will continue to do so. 

I couldn't agree more that our training areas in the California 

Desert are essential to our military mission. It is where Desert 

Storm started. We need to have those areas, we need to continue 

the work there, and we need to not preclude through this legislation any expansion of these areas that might be necessary, such as 

the one concerning Fort Irwin. 

I do believe, however, that it is possible for our military missions 

and protection of important national areas to be compatible for environmental purposes. 

Mr. VENTO. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Certainly I would urge the gentleman to read the 

legislation, H.R. 880. I don't know that he has looked at the find-
169 

ings and so forth. So I think that you will realize that Ms. Goodman is not basing her positive endorsement of this legislation on 

a high-risk option in terms of designation of lands but on the legis- lation as was drafted and passed the House and was supported by the Department of Defense personnel and individuals in the past. 

So it is really a very sound policy path for the Secretary to endorse. 

I would further say that with regard to the 15-year issue, I didn't 

know whether there was an argument for less than 15 years or 

more than 15 years. A lot changes in 15 years, but unfortunately 

at some particular point we have to get the Senate to act on legislation, and that indeed has been the case here. We have acted repeatedly on these particular withdrawals, for which there were answers and questions, the environmental impact statements had 

been completed, and the review obviously is very key to multiple 

use and to the people of Southern California, if not the Nation, 

with regard to this resource certainly, and at any time we are 

going to have this sort of gap if the Senate fails to act. 

Bills under the Engle Act, first passed in 1958, generally have 

set up a pattern of 15 years, which is thought to have been appropriate to readdress and to evaluate what the impacts are, and we 

have adopted that. We have repeatedly adopted it in Colorado and 

many other States. 

Along these lines, I might just wind up the testimony from this 

witness by saying that you referred to the Department of Defense's 

new emphasis on the environment, on land use management, 

which is not entirely new but certainly new in the sense that it is 

manifest in the fact that they have appointed an under secretary of your qualifications and mission at this particular point. 

But I think it would probably be a good time in the next year 

and a half or so to review existing laws and consider a new general 

statute for management of Defense Department land because it is 

so key. The Department of Defense, as was indicated here, manages a considerable public area, much of which has been withdrawn, some of which is owned outright, and so I think having an 

overall policy with regard to how we approach that perhaps would 

be something that we could all work together on and eliminate the 

sort of ad hoc basis in terms of how we treat lands in California 

or other areas, quite apart, I might say, from the entire issue dealing with the California Desert, but to try and put in substantively 

some of the issues that are referenced. If the agreements exist and 

if there are patterns that have developed, perhaps it is time to get down to writing a more generic law on the subject matter. 

Are there any further questions of the witness? 

If not, thank you, Ms. Goodman, for your testimony. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DEBBIE SEASE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA 

DESERT PROTECTION LEAGUE; AND GERALD E. HILLIER, 

CALIFORNIA DESERT COALITION 

Mr. VENTO. I would like to ask Debbie Sease, who is with the 

California Desert Protection League, and Mr. Gerry Hillier, with 

the California Desert Coalition, to come forth at this time. 

Our schedule is to hear from our colleagues at about 1 p.m., and 

I would like to keep to that schedule, and so ask you to try to sum-
170 

marize your statements. With the few Members present, I think we 

could probably conclude the questioning of these witnesses by one 

o'clock and keep my commitment to the other Members that might 

be reporting at about then for their testimony. 

Ms. Sease, Mr. Hillier, your statements have been made part of 

the record, and at this time, Ms. Sease, we would like to have your 

presentation. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE SEASE 

Ms. SEASE. Chairman Vento, members of the committee, I thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on the California Desert Protection Act on behalf of the Sierra Club and the California Desert Protection League, a coalition of more than 100 conservation, civic, 

and educational organizations. 

The California Desert has been well served by this committee. 

Thanks to your leadership and that of Representative Lehman and 

Chairman Miller, the House last year enacted a bill very similar 

to what is before the committee, only to have it die in the Senate. 

Now, with the bill fully supported by both of California's Senators 

and the administration, there is every reason to believe that this 

will be the year that the California Desert Protection Act is signed 

into law. 

I am pleased to offer our unequivocal support for this legislation. 

I urge you to move this bill forward expeditiously. It is time and 

beyond for Congress to provide a statutory framework for the protection and management of the California Desert. It is time for 

Congress to choose a future for this area. 

My testimony will be brief. There is little I can add to the already extensive record that has been established regarding this legislation. Nonetheless, you will hear today from witnesses that there 

need to be more hearings before you act. There have been enough hearings. 

The printed record from the dozen hearings that have been held 

here and in the field make a stack more than one foot tall and contains almost 10,000 pages of testimony. By the end of today, close 

to a thousand witnesses will have testified or offered statements either for or against this measure. This is enough; it is time to act. 

Your choices in determining a future for the California Desert 

are clear. Scientists have told you of the biological wealth of the 

California Desert and have provided ample evidence to support 

their warnings that desert flora and fauna are in jeopardy. Historians and archeologists have spoken of the threads of a 10,000-

year-long tapestry of human history that are tantalizingly exposed 

in the desert but which are being snatched from our public trust 

by looting and by thoughtless acts of vandalism. Educators have 

pled that this, one of nature's greatest classrooms, be preserved. 

Young and old alike have urged you to safeguard this land for future generations. 

However, not everyone has called for protecting this great resource. Some would have you radically scale back this far-sighted 

protection plan rather than see their activities in the desert limited. Miners have urged that much less land be designated as Park 

and wilderness. Ranchers have decried the loss of grazing privileges in the 1.5 million-acre Mojave. Dirt bikers have protested 
171 

putting any of the desert's primitive trails off limits to their vehicles. 

It is time for Congress to choose how it will balance these demands, and one or a dozen more hearings are neither necessary 

nor would they make this choice any easier. 

You will hear from witnesses today that this legislation needs to 

be modified to provide relief for miners, ranchers, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts who are adversely affected. The bill before you is, 

in fact, a product of just such compromises. More than 200 modifications have been made in the legislation since it was introduced 

in 1986, wilderness and Park boundaries altered in entire areas deleted to accommodate the concerns of miners, utilities, the military, 

and off-road vehicle users. 

You will also hear that this legislation is unnecessary, that the 

desert plan prepared by the Bureau of Land Management is sufficient to provide for the long-term protection of the desert's resources. That plan is not sufficient. During the decade it has been 

in place, the desert's resources have continued to be diminished. 

Moreover, the California Desert Protection Act is not an abandonment of the process begun by Congress in 1976 with the establishment of the California Desert Conservation Area. It is the fulfillment of the promise by Congress in that Act to provide for the immediate and future protection of the lands of the California Desert. 

Finally, this legislation has been chosen by the National Rifle Association for a showdown over hunting in National Parks. It is hard 

to imagine an area of comparable size in the West where there is 

as little hunting activity as the Mojave, and yet last year the NRA 

mounted a successful campaign to amend the bill to allow hunting 

in the Mojave National Monument. 

Our National Park System is for the preservation of America's 

finest natural areas and for the education and enjoyment of visitors. Hunting and the use of firearms are not appropriate in such 

areas. A new Mojave National Park is strongly supported with 

three out of four Californians supporting establishment of the 

Park. A Field Institute poll of Californians showed that 84 percent 

of those surveyed opposed hunting in any newly created Parkland. 

I urge you to put this debate behind you and choose. As vast as 

the desert resource is, it is not vast enough to withstand indefinitely the kind of rough, uncontrolled use it has seen over the past 

several decades, for it is a finite resource and, if unchecked, the demands upon it are infinite. It is my hope that you will choose as 

you have in the past for our children and for their children and 

adopt this visionary protection plan for the California Desert. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Sease follows:] 
172 

SIERRA (.~\l_Cf: 

CLUB ~-J-,~ 408CScreet,N.E. Washington,D.C.20002 202·547·1141 

Testimony of 

Debbie Sease, Legislative Director 

for the 

Sierra Club 

on behalf of the 

California Desert Protection League 

Before the House Committee on Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands 

Regarding 

"The California Desert Protection Act" 

H.R. 518 

June 14, 1993 

Chairman Vento, Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to 

testify on the California Desert Protection Act. My name is Debbie Sease, and 

I am the Legislative Director for the Sierra Club. My testimony today represents 

the views of the California Desert Protection League, a coalition of more than 

100 conservation, civic and educational organizations. 

The California Desert bas been well served in the past by this Committee. 

Thanks to the leadership of Representative Lehman, Chairman Vento, and 

Chairman Miller the House last year enacted a bill very similar to what is before 

the Committee, only to have it die in the Semite. Now with the bill fully 

supported by both of Califorrua' s Senators arid by the Administration, there is 

every reason to believe that this will be the year that the California Desert 

Protection Act is signed into law. 

It is with great pleasure that I offer our unequivocal support for this legislation. 

I urge this Committee to move this bill forward expeditiously. It is time -- and 

beyond for Congress to provide a statutory framework for the protection and 

management of the California Desert. It is time for Congress to choose a future 

for this area. 

"When we try to pick out anything by itself. we ftnd it hitched to everrthing else in the univern:." john Murr 

N>rional Headqu=ers: 730 Polk Scree<, San francisco, California 94109 (4!5) 776-2211 

Pf.llNTEQ ON UNOLE/>CHED H)C"iO POST-CONSUMER WASif: 
173 

My testimony today will be brief. There is little that I can add to the already 

extensive record that has been established regarding this legislation. None-theless, you will hear today from witnesses that there need to be more hearings 

before you act. There have been enough hearings. The printed record from the 

dozen hearings that have been held, both here and in the field, makes a stack 

more than one foot tall, and contains almost 10,000 pages of testimony. By the 

end of today, close to a thousand witnesSes will have testified either for or ;lgllinst 

this measure. This is enough. It is time to act. 

Your choices in determining a future for the California Desert are clt;:ar. 

Scientists have told you of the biological wealth of the California Desert, and 

have provided ample evidence to support their warnings that this resoun:e is in 

jeopardy unless steps are taken to halt the insatiable demands of an expanding, 

and increasingly mobile population in the region. They have told you that the 

fragile soils of tbe Desert and its flora and fauna cam10t withstand the continued 

assault of unrestricted off road vehicle use. 

Historians and an:haeoloiists have spsken of the threads of a 10,000 year long 

tapestry of human histoty that are tantalizingly exposed in the Desert, but which 

are being snatched from our pubnC trust by looting, and by thoughtless acts of 

vandalism. · 

Educators have plead that this, One of nature's greatest class rooms, be preserved. 

Mothers with young families and elderly desert visitors alike have urged you to 

safeguard· this land for future generations. · 

Not evetyoDC has called for protecting this great resource. Many would have the 

Congress abandon or radically scale back this far-sighted protection plan rather 

than see their activities in the desert limited or Curtalled. Miners have urged that 

much less land be included in park and wilderness designations. Ranchers have 

decried the loss grazing privileges in the 1.5 million acre Mojave. Dirt bikers 

and done buggy riders have protested putting any of the desert's primitive trails 

off limits to their vehicles. · 

It is time for Congress to choose how it .will balance these demands, and one or 

a dozen more hearings are ~ necessary, nor will they make this choice any 

easier. 

You will hear from witnes,scs today that this legislation needs to be modified to 

provide relief for miners, · ranchers and off road vehicle enthusiasts whO are 

adversely affected. The bill that is before you today is, in fact, the product of 

just such compromises. . More than 200 modifications -have been made in the 

legislation since it was introduced. in 1986. Wilderness and park boundaries have 

been c:hanged, and in soinc cases entire areas bave been deleted from the propusai 

to accommodate the concerns of miners, utilities, the militaty and off road vehicle 

users. 
174 

Y au will also hear that this legislation is unnecessary -- that the Desert Plan 

prepared by the Bureau of Land Management is sufficient to provide for the long 

term protection of the Desert's resources. That plan is not sufficient. It has been 

in place since 1980, and in that time the Desert's resources have continued to be 

depleted, and the plan, through the amendment process, to be weakened. 

Moreover, the California Desert Protection Act is not an abandonment of the 

process begun by Congress in 1976 with the establishment of the California 

Desert Conservation Area -- it is the fulfillment of the promise by Congress in 

that Act to "provide for the immediate and furure protection" of the lands in the 

California Desert. 

Finally, this legislation has been chosen by the National Rifle Association for a 

showdown over hunting in National Parks. It is hard to imagine an area of 

comparable size in the west with as little bunting activity, as the Mojave, and yet 

last year the NRA mounted a successful campaign to amend the bill to allow 

hunting in the Mojave National Monument. Our national park system is for the 

preservation of America's fmest natural areas, and for the education and 

enjoyment of visitors. Hunting and the use of fire arms are not appropriate in 

such areas. 

A new Mojave National Park is strongly supported, with three out of four 

Californians supporting establishment of the park. A Field Institute poll of 

Californians showed that 84 percent of those surveyed opposed hunting on any 

newly created park iand. 

I urge you to put this debate behind you and choose. As vast as the desert 

resource is it is not vast enough to withstand, indefinitely, the kind of rough, 

uncontrolled use it has seen over the past several decades - for it is a fmite 

resource, and if unchecked, the demands upon it are infinite. It is my hope that 

you will choose, as you have in the past, for our children and for their children, 

and adopt this visionary protection plan for the California Desert. 
175 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Mr. Hillier, we would like you to take five minutes or so, maybe 

a little longer. You have got a long statement. It will all be in the 

record, I assure you. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD E. Hfl,IJER 

Mr. HILLIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear today. I have submitted a longer statement, as 

you know, for the record and will summarize here. 

Planning and dialogue have gone on about the California Desert 

and its management for over 25 years. Forward looking action in 

1976 created the California Desert Conservation Area and resulted 

in the creation of a comprehensive plan for management of the 

public lands. I was personally involved in 16 years of that process, 

including a Federal court challenge to the plan and its process in 

which the work and its open public processes were sustained by the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Today, we seem on the brink of undoing the plan and the process 

and substituting, through H.R. 518, an ill-conceived, unbalanced, 

unwarranted, and uneconomic proposal for managing the region. 

H.R. 2379, which has just been introduced, in contrast, considers 

the issues and public interest associated with the desert, its people, 

resources, and heritage. This body should not dismantle the functioning system of natural resource conservation established by Congress in 1976. 

H.R. 518 implements an extremist agenda at the expense of legitimate needs of users now and in the future whose activities are 

and can be managed while natural resources are conserved, managed, and carefully utilized. Those resources are used and needed 

by all Americans. 

The des~Ji~vides a diverse and multifaceted recreation oppor- tunity for · · ons. All agree that appropriate regulation of the 

desert is proper, but let us proceed in a reasoned manner considering economics, costs, and the value of goods and services foregone. 

Let us balance, as did the plan approved by Secretary Andrus, and 

not enact extremist and unwarranted measures which will foreclose 

management options forever. 

The illusion has been created by proponents of H.R. 518 that 

without the bill the desert will not be protected. This is absolutely false. The desert is protected now by rangers with law enforcement 

authority in a working system of State and regulatory authorities. 

My full statement lists 13 fundamental flaws with H.R. 518. 

These cannot be fixed by mere tinkering. The foundation is wrong, 

using only wilderness and exclusion as prime management tools. I 

focus on five today. The CDCA plan and H.R. 2379 reflect a consideration of land patterns and carefully weighed this factor in making wilderness recommendations. As a result, only four areas have 

significant private and State lands which would become in-holdings. 

By contrast, in H.R. 518 there are 25 areas in wilderness and 

new areas to be administered by the National Park Service which 

have significant private and State in-holdings. These extend far beyond the Catellus and State lands and involve thousands of individual landowners and transactions. I estimate the cost for acquisi-
176 

tion would be about $400 million for H.R. 2379 and over $1 billion 

for H.R. 518. 

H.R. 518 is touted as a recreation bill, yet it does not add a single acre to California's recreation land base. Rather, it restricts activities, and, with Park expansions and the establishment of a Mojave National Monument, it would actually foreclose recreation opportunity and diversity. As the State's population grows, this seems 

the wrong thing to do. 

Two items come to mind. The first is the Joshua Tree bolt issue 

described in the Los Angeles Times on May 26 in which rock bolting is to be prohibited in Joshua Tree. In that article, the National 

Park Service says how this is inconsistent with Park and wilderness management. While this level of management may be appropriate in some settings, do we want and can we afford this kind 

of regulation on six million more acres of the California Desert? 

The second regards hunting, a point that has been made often 

and the point, there will still be 9.5 million acres in the desert open 

after the East Mojave is closed. What we have here are quality and 

access issues. If the East Mojave is removed, the prime deer hunting area of the desert is removed, also the special bighorn sheep 

hunts, also the source for bighorn sheep transplants to other mountains in the desert. 

The East Mojave also furnishes quality upland game bird hunting because of its elevation and waters, and parenthetically I add 

that these waters are mainly installed and maintained by the 

ranchers, not the Government, and if they are to be maintained the 

Government will have to assume the responsibility. 

Many of the areas found not suitable to recommend for wilderness in the original desert plan and H.R. 2379 were done so because of known mineral values within them. My long statement 

lists specific areas which are included in H.R. 518 without any documentation from the U.S. Bureau of Mines or U.S. Geological Survey about what is being foregone. Of equal importance is the loss of potential sand and gravel reserves needed to maintain the interstate highways and other parts 

of the desert transportation network. Many potential reserves that 

lie within wilderness study areas are in wilderness if H.R. 518 is 

enacted. We are considering an area the size of the State of Virginia. Hauling costs from alternate sources raises the cost of expansion and maintenance forever. 

Much is made of the threats of urbanization upon the desert. Examples such as Lancaster, Victorville, and even Laughlin, Nevada, 

are used. Urbanization has occurred on private lands which are 

part of local government regulation. While there may be increased 

recreational use on nearby public lands, they do not have to be 

placed in the totally restrictive National Wilderness Preservation 

System to assure their retention in public ownership and their remaining open space and wild land, no more so than the National 

Forests which surround the Los Angeles Basin. 

A word about the East Mojave Scenic Area proposed for National 

Monument status. Its heritage values, including ranching, mining, 

and transportation, cannot be protected by this legislation. The 

area can be managed, is regulated now, and increased visitation 
177 

will surely leave the region developed, not at all what the sponsors 

of H.R. 518 envision. 

Listen closely to Rob Blair as he follows me and consider his 

theme that, "My roots are buried here." Consider that the 25·year phase·out of grazing renders equities valueless and negates the application of modern range management. Data exist that Southwest 

deserts are already over·represented in the National Park System. 

Do not make a mistake and add this. It is not appropriate for Park 

or Monument status. 

Look closely also at the ill-conceived expansions of Death Valley 

and the Saline, Eureka, Green Water, and Panamint Valleys, and 

consider the costs of Park Service administration and infrastructure expansion. Also look at the ill-conceived expansions of Joshua 

Tree, particularly on the southwest flank, into the checkerboard 

land pattern. Surely there must be less expensive ways to control 

access than to expand the Monument into the Coachella Valley and 

provide additional facilities there. 

H.R. 2379 represents the balanced and public interest approach 

to managing the California Desert. The future of California must 

be considered, its expanding population, its demographics. Now is 

not the time to limit opportunities, it is the time to maintain and 

enhance them. Wild lands and open space can be retained in the 

desert at much less cost to citizens and the. infrastructure if H.R. 

518 is not passed and H.R. 2379 is adopted. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hillier and attachments follow:] 
178 

TESTIMONY OF GERALD E. HILLIER 

IN OPPOSITION TO 

H.R. 518 1 PROPOSED DESERT PROTECTION ACT, AND 

IN PAVOR OF H.R. 2379, 

PROPOSED CALIFORNIA DESERT AND EMPLOYMENT PRESERVATION ACT 

BEFORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

JUNE 15, 1993 

H.R. 518 is a bad bill. When bad bills are enacted they make bad 

laws. H.R. 518 in its current form must never be enacted. H.R. 

2379, on the other hand, offers the balanced alternative to 

managing the California Desert Conservation Area, an alternative 

which not only manages the desert, protecting the public lands to 

the extent that they require it, but provides for continued 

regulated and managed natural resource utilization and access in 

the Desert. The H.R. 2379 outcome will not only protect resources, 

it will protect jobs, the economy of the desert and nearby 

industries and communities which are dependent upon its resources, 

and it will protect the rights of people who use the desert for a 

variety of outdoor recreational pursuits. 

H.R. 518 purports to "protect" the Federal public lands of the 

California Desert Conservation Area, yet it dismantles a 

functioning system of natural resource conservation, management, 

protection, and provision of jobs, raw materials and infrastructure 

enhancement to the all the citizens of all of the United States. 

H.R. 518 cynically substitutes a massive Federally mandated natural 

resource preservation program which will do little except cost 

millions of scarce taxpayer dollars, and expands wildland "parks" 

which will actually result in the very "development" that its 

proponents decry while supplying fewer outdoor recreation 

opportunities. The people of the United States and California do 

not need H.R. 518. The natural resources of the California Desert 

Conservation Area do not need H.R. 518. The massive shifts in land 

use to wilderness preservation and parks proposed in H.R. 518 is 

unneeded, unwarranted and uneconomic. 

The Bureau of Land Management is charged by the Congress to carry 

out the management goal of resource conservation. In 1976, after 

over 8 years of debate and dialogue, Congress established the 

California Desert Conservation Area to give attention and 

l 
179 

management direction to the resources on public lands in this 

region. This hearing, today, should be directed to affirming and 

implementing the resource conservation management goal. 

H.R. 518 does not. H.R. 2379, in contrast, affirms the goals of 

the plan, the goals of balancing the legitimate resource management 

goals of the desert with the private property infrastructure in the 

desert, and considering the needs and desires of the people of 

California who use the desert and know it best. 

It is unfortunate that there remains a lack of public consensus 

surrounding managing the desert. The bills currently pending here 

and before the other house, despite what you may have heard about 

"compromises," do not represent consensus, and in fact represent a cynical attempt to portray themselves and representing 

concessions and compromise. H.R. 2379 represents the true 

compromises which have been made regarding management of the 

California Desert Conservation Area, and the balancing process was 

affirmed in Federal Court actions which reviewed both the process 

and its Environmental Impact Statement. 

In the current debate over the management of the California Desert 

Conservation Area, "conservation," "protection" and "preservation" are being used synonymously. This is inaccurate and misrepresents 

the true aim, or the likely outcome of HR. 518, which will 

Congressionally limit access by most of the public within virtually 

every mountain range in the California Desert conservation Area. 

H.R. is definitely not conservation legislation within the long 

history of enactment of such pieces. 

While consensus may be impossible to reach, given the emotion and 

length of the debate, the issues, and the importance of all of the 

resources, it is certainly possible to come closer than H.R. 518. 

H.R. 518 represents on extremist view, and has not been 

fundamentally altered in scope or philosophy since original 

introduction in the US Senate 1986 as S. 2061, nor since proposed 

to the Bureau of Land Management as a Desert Plan alternative in 

March of 1980 by the Sierra Club. Its lifetime should not, and 

must not, be given credence to make it seem like the right thing to 

do. It has been "amended" somewhat in seeming compromises to 

assure the Desert Plan right-of-way corridors can be implemented, 

but the basic differences of over the potential of over 130 

Congressionally designated Wilderness areas has not changed. This 

is the rub--"compromise" has not led to trade-off, "compromise" has 

not recognized areas are now managed and protected, "compromise" 

has been largely cosmetic. H.R. 2929, passed by the House in the 

last Congress, perpetuated the elitist view of desert management, 

that only massive establishment of wilderness and units of National 

Park Service administration could "save" the desert. From what? 

The people who use the desert, who are employed in the desert, who 

recognize the need for balanced and regulated use of the desert's 

resources? 

2 
180 

H.R. 51.8 has been promoted with passion and virtual religious 

zealotry that preservation-oriented special interest groups have 

expounded: "You are for us and support desert "protection" and 

"conservation," or you are against us and support desecration and 

despoliation of the desert." This absolutely and completely 

misrepresents the facts and values of the people who oppose the 

bill for sound and objective reasons. The people who oppose this 

bill are not despoilers of the desert, have agreed to regulation, 

and believe in wisely using and caring for the desert•s resources. The outcome, this bill, totally ignores the views of any public who 

disagree with them. 

Proponents of H. R. 518 would have you believe that by entering 

endorsements from various groups from places with large populations 

that the majority of Californians support the bill and its goals. 

(E.g. San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo Counties.) I believe, and 

you should, too, this "support" is born of ignorance. Who would 

not respond favorably to a question, "Do you favor protection of 

the desert?" The fact is, however too few people know of the 

efforts of the past decade, know of the establishment of the 

California Desert Conservation Area, and know there is already in 

place a management system, zoning and a trained professional law 

enforcement force on the ground, enforcing rules and regulations 

which have been in effect for over 12 years, and in some cases 20 

years. The facts are that elected representatives who know the 

area first-hand and who represent the area on the County Boards of 

supervisors, in the State legislature, and in this House of 

congress, have consistently opposed these bills and this extremist 

management plan for the California Desert. H.R. 518, and its 

predecessors and companions, and the Sierra Club advocacy occurred 

at a time when COCA management was just beginning, and the dialogue 

advocating their own desert "plan" has simply ignored current 

management or related old war stories intended to discredit the 

agency. 

How much better if groups could come together and agree and truly 

compromise their differences. The H.R. 518 debate has not been 

about compromise. It has built walls, it has built distrust. Time 

does not permit my giving an example of a dialogue at Kelso Sand 

Dunes last year, but the gist was that even if "protected now" they 

needed to be in a Park so "people could enjoy them." Kelso Sand 

Dunes are safe, 1nanaged and cared for now, as is Saline Valley, 

Eureka Valley, the Santa Rosa Mountains and hundreds of other 

special locations throughout the California Desert Conservation 

Area. 

In the dialogue over desert management, which has really lasted 

over 25 years, not just the 7 during which this legislation has 

pended, both sides have presented extreme views and Doomsday 

scenarios. 

3 
181 

The Plan tor the California Desert conservation Area balanced these 

views already, basically saying all views have merit but should not 

be applied in totality. H.R. 2379, introduced by the Congressmen who actually know and represent this region covering an area the 

size of Virginia, reflects the balancing and consideration of All 

the resource inventories and decisions and considerations of 

private property. H.R. 518 lacks balance and ignores all the 

inventory data. Rather, it adopts a single view and 

Congressionally applies it to all of the public lands in the COCA. 

We are not talkinq here of a contrast between saving rainforests 

and allowing slash and burn to continue, thouqh proponents of R.R. 

518 would have you and the public believe that that was so. We are talking about fundamental, yet abstract, differences in management degree and intensity. The proponents of H.R. 518 want to manage by 

preservation, exclusion, prohibition of mining, limitation of access and intensive regulation such as would be applied in new and 

expanded parks. 

"Protection" gets mixed up in this vocabulary, and is too often 

used as the antithesis of management--that if use is allowed, even though regulated, somehow resources are not being protected, and is 

used in a concrete sense as in: "saving cactus, preventing destructive mining and stopping ORVs." As stated above, the COCA 

Plan, approved by the then Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus, 

balanced these views already. ORV use is already restricted to 

designated routes and a few open areas. Mining only takes place in a regulated and supervised environment. Removal of desert plants 

has been forbidden since the 1970s from all lands, and is sternly 

enforced now. Why is massive and ill-thought-out change now needed? 

Among other factors about which preservationists seem concerned is 

administration leadership and continuity of commitment. Users, 

however, are concerned about access. The 500,000 acres of open areas and the alleged 33,000 miles of access left does not begin to 

take into account needs of those, even the Sierra Club folks, who 

want to get off the beaten path. (Ask the Desert Peaks section how much~ need to arrive at a suitable base for their climbs.) The 

bottom line is that consensus about managing the desert does not 

exist, though law enforcement and regulation are now widely 

supported and clearly understood. Perhaps it never did, but if 

H.R. 518 is passed the opportunity to achieve it will be foreclosed 

forever, yet the costs will come due to this Congress every year 

for ever increasing administrative costs of enforcing a new plan that does not have the consent of the regulated. 

This hearing and work on H.R. 518, rather than be adversarial, 

should memorialize consensus, not pick one side or the other as being right and the other as wrong. The California Desert 

Conservation Area is the size of the state of Virginia--over 25 

million acres. You would not plan that State's fortunes on any one 

4 
182 

point of view. Do not plan the CDCA on a sinqle point of view, 

OVer half the desert is already unavailable--

3 million acres is already in Parks (Death Valley and Joshua 

Tree National Monuments, Anza-Borrego State Park, and 

several other units of the State Park system.) 

J million acres in military reservations (E.g. Edwards AFB, 

Naval Weapons Center Ft. Irwin, Chocolate Mtns Gunnery 

Range and others.) 

6 million acres of private and state lands, much of which is 

intermingled with Federal lands, complicating management 

and creating a massive problem with inholdings in many of 

the proposed wilderness and park units; and much of which 

is closed to the public since it is the rich agricultural 

lands of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. 

H.R. 518 applies to the remaining half of the desert lands, that 

12.5 million acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management. The bill's proponents talk of desert 

"conservation." But what in fact they have proposed is removal of 

uses, opportunities and access from well over one-half of the 

remaining public lands. The bill will "preserve" those lands like a museum specimen-"look but don't touch." 

Placing massive areas in wilderness will not further public use and 

appreciation of these lands, rather it will simply leave them as remote as the Himalayas. Many of these areas are not threatened 

now, are being cared for, and will not be threatened with either 

development or improper use in the future. 

It is fair to ask, "Then why not put them in Wilderness or otherwise "preserve" them? Let's just make sure harm does not come to them." The answer gets to the reason we have Wilderness, 

Congressionally enacted with a multitude of controls, and 

wilderness/wildlands wbich should and will remain committed to open 

space, and many of the areas found "not suitable" by the Bureau of 

Land Management do harbor resources which require access to manage 

the land--bighorn sheep which are dependent upon water developments 

which have been placed and cared for by thoughtful sportsmen- conservationists and which need periodic maintenance; minerals 

which may have strategic or economic utility in the future and for 

which there may never have been knowledge or even exploration; 

opportunities for recreation such as rockhounding and enjoying 

remote corners of the desert; and a really important resource--the 

rock sources which are needed to economically maintain the 4 

Interstate Highways which traverse the California Desert, but 

which, since they aren't developed yet, lie within Study Areas, and 

Wildernesses proposed by H.R. 518. 

All these activities require vehicular access and sometimes limited 

"development." such access is gained, contrary to myth, not by 

5 
183 

off-the-road cross country vehicle use, but by careful access on existing ways and trails or by regulated new construction, but 

which will be closed or prohibited by these massive inclusions in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. These are wildlands, 

they will remain wildlands, but they are not Wilderness! They 

need to be managed and conserved, not preserved and walked away 

from. 

They cannot be walked away from. Many of these lands in areas which BLM found "not suitable" are accessible. They will take 

vigilance and costly patrol and enforcement and expensive 

rehabilitation to blot out the access ways into them. Changing 

behavior and posting and enforcing are tasks that will require 

capital expense that this committee and the bill's sponsors have 

overlooked. 

I believe that H.R. 518 contains a number of fundamental flaws 

which I will discuss below, before proposing a comprehensive 

recommendation to you: 

1. There is a presumption that if land is not administered by 

the National Park Service or placed in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System it is "not protected." NOT TRUE. What do you 

think the Bureau of Land Management has been doing since even 

before the creation of the CDCA Plan in 1980? What do you want BLM 

to do? What is the Congressional charge and mandate? The only source is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 

passed in 1976, simultaneously with the creation of the Desert 

Conservation Area. The mandate there was to plan for "management, 

use, protection and development." In addition, BLM was to carry 

out all the other laws, such as the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. This mandate included, 

and continues to include, protection of resources. That is what 

the CDCA Plan was all about: what to protect and to what extent. 

I have already touched on the extreme views on both sides. The 

COCA Plan brought all these views together, and Secretary of the 

Interior Cecil Andrus approved the Plan. I was there. 

BLM has fundamentally altered desert management and protected 

resources-- ~t established a Ranger Force, and began law enforcement 

activity--the first anywhere in the United States! ~t proposed wilderness designations, and protected other areas of wilderness suitability. It prepared Wilderness 

Study Area report! on the 2 million acres of suitable, 

fully documenting mineral resources. Many of the areas found "not suitable" in the study and public hearing 

process were dropped because of already known high 

mineral values. H.R. 518 proposes to establish many of 

these as units of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System without the same rigor of documentation which it 

requires of the Executive Branch agencies. 

6 
184 

It developed individual manaqement plans for many critical areas of the desert and implemented them so as to prevent 

either future deterioration or correct past abuses. 

These have included such areas as Darwin Falls, Afton 

Canyon, the East Mojave National scenic Area, and 

hundreds of other areas. 

BOTTOM LINE: 

THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA DO NOT 

HAVE TO BE PLACED IN PARKS OR WILDERNESS '1'0 PROTECT THEM. THEY ARE 

PROTECTED NOW. THEY ARE MANAGED NOW. IF THERE ARE SOME THINGS 

THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE STILL AMISS, CORRECT THEM WITH ADDED RANGERS 

FOR ENFORCEMENT, BU'l' APPLYING H.R. 518 IS ANALOGOUS TO PERFORMING 

MAJOR SURGERY ON A PATIENT WITH A COLD. 

2. Many Wilderness Areas which would be established under 

H.R. 518 would be done so without regard to their manageability or practicality of management to maintain wilderness integrity. Many 

have access trails and ways, which may not have been "roads" under 

wilderness inventory definitions, but are access nonetheless. 

Others lie adjacent to open OHV play areas (specifically # 362) 

which will require major patrol to assure integrity at the 

boundary, if it can even be found in the shifting sands. The 

authors of H.R. 518 have not considered the costs of administration 

and future management of many of these areas. Before enactment, it 

is essential that the Congress assure itself that it is willing to 

make this commitment of financial resources to carry out the 

purposes of the act. Promises will not suffice! 

3. H.R. 518 establishes a new Mojave National Monument, in 

contract to the senate's idea of a National Park. Essentially I see no difference between these proposals in terms of management 

goals, and whether hunting is or is not permitted in a National 

Monument. "Parks" have a sense of greater prestige among tourists 

and would perhaps get greater visitation. The fact is that 

visitors may come the area now, get information, and enjoy solitude 

and desert vistas which probably will not be possible under either 

alternative. More visitation, more controls, more rangers, more internal infrastructure is exactly what desert management should 

not be about. I have said that the proponents of National Park 

service administration probably won't like the area very much if it 

should be so designated, and I continue to believe that. It will 

lose the very character they hope to "preserve." I have attached 

to this testimony a statement about the East Mojave National Scenic 

Area, .which would become a National Park under S. 21. It is not 

suitable for a park, despite a staff paper prepared in the 1970s by a team of low level BLM recreation staff. Later study deemed it more appropriate for managing its myriad of resources and human and 

heritage values in a new concept: a National Scenic Area. 

7 
185 

The Bill also designates Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 

Monuments as "Parks," and expands them. Expansion of Death Valley 

into Eureka and Saline Valleys will complicate administration with 

two agencies instead of one responsible for managing on opposite 

sides of the road, but will require that NPS establish an entirely new administrative unit to deal with these remote areas. Joshua 

Tree will be expanded into areas of checkerboard land pattern 

creating not only administration requirement well beyond their 

current boundary and valley but costly land acquisition needs to 

resolve the alternate section land patterns. While establishing more parks may sound good in principle, but the bottom lines are that: 

Not one acre will be added to California's outdoor 

recreation base. Yet the costs of administration and establishment 

of infrastructure will far outweigh any net benefit to provision of 

recreational opportunity. 

Establishment will actually detract from recreational 

activities and opportunities. Most of the desert's quality hunting 

opportunities exist in areas that will be in parks, and therefore 

banned. Activities such as even rockhounding will be prohibited. 

The spectrum of activities possible on public lands will simply be 

restricted. The recent flap over rock climbing in Joshua Tree 

National Monument (Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1993), should dispel 

any questions one might have regarding authoritarian management and 

control by NPS and what Wilderness and Parks really means to an area. With policies like this--refusal to let volunteer event 

sponsors defray costs by selling T-shirts, prohibiting ring bolts 

in favorite climb areas, and even so much as picking a dandelion-- can anyone yet not see that this is not the kind of management 

intensity the California Desert needs or that the public can afford? I would not suggest that such policies are necessarily 

wrong where appropriate, but do they need to be extended over another 8 million acres. can the us Treasury afford to extend that 

level of "protection" over 8 million acres. The metaphor of the 

bolts in Joshua Tree symbolize all that is wronq with H.R. 518! 

Would a Park Superintendent quickly eliminate the rinqs at Hole-inthe-Wall Campqround which are used daily and afford thousands a chance to see this canyon first hand? 

This Committee could tinker with K.R. 518 until doomsday, addinq 

provisions that say, "Nothing herein shall prohibit the public climbinq rocks in the Monument, with appropriate facilities, and 

the climbinq experience in Hole-in-the-Wall shall remain 

untouched •• ·" But the fundamental base is flawed. the area should 

not be a National Monument or Park, nor should Joshua Tree or Death Valley NMS be extended as proposed in H.B. 518. H.B. 2379 

will provide automatically for these kind of decisions to be made 

in a public interest context and get Congress out of micromanaging 

an area with bad legislation. 

8 
186 

• Ironically, establishment of a Mojave National Monument and 

expansion of existing parks may result in more, not less 

development. With parks, visitation is likely to increase, along 

with demands for services. It is easy to foresee paving more 

roads, expanding campgrounds because NPS limits primitive camping, 

and establishing services such as gas and restaurants where none currently exist. The potential of adverse development seems to be one of the scenarios that advocates of s. 21 raise as an argument, 

yet it is likely that its passage could stimulate more, not less 

development within the desert. 

Congress has given inadequate attention to the long term impacts of 

desert wildland National Parks and Monuments, and whether more are 

justified. Data exists that suggest that the Southwestern Deserts 

are already over-represented within the National Park System. The 

decisions about H.R. 518, because of its costs, as well as its 

impacts upon people, needs to be fully explored, without the 

current level of emotion. While there still is no consensus on 

this issue, I would offer that the concept of the National Scenic 

Area, already established, and since expanded by Congress to apply 

to other special areas in the West, such as the Columbia Gorge, is 

entirely appropriate, and will still permit the range of managed resource utilization to continue. 

Much has been made of the tourism opportunities presented by the 

this Bill, and the allegation that tourism will offer jobs which 

will replace losses from industry existing in the region. It is 

also suggested that with the Mojave (East Mojave National Scenic 

Area) infrastructure development will not occur within to 

accommodate the hundreds of thousands of tourist expected to 

descend on the area just because of its change in nomenclature. I 

believe this is a false premise from which to operate. First, new development opportunities will likely be precluded because of solid 

masses of public lands at Interstate exits which will not be 

disposable; and second, most of the lands at these exits, and 

within the crossroads portions of the region are on desert tortoise 

habitat, for which Fish and Wildlife Service will surely raise 

questions regarding propriety as well as long-term impact 

questions. They did with something as small as the well to service 

the Prima Donna and Whiskey Pete's Casinos at Stateline NV, 

adjacent to the area. Or will FWS simply defer to its sister 

agency, and acquiesce when these facilities are found to be needed 

to support this ill-conceived National Monument? 

4. Passage of H.R. 518 will likely affect employment in the 

desert in the future. An argument is made that no current 

operating mine will be affected by this legislation. While that 

may be true, from where will the next mines come? Since most of 

the mineralized areas will become part of National Parks.and units 

of the wilderness System, exploration will be limited to those 

areas with low potential or high cost of development, discouraging 

most industry. Jobs are more than mining. There are jobs and 

9 
187 

business ownership associated with the livestock industry. The key 

issue is less the loss of current employment, it is loss of 

opportunity and potential. Remember, California's population 

grows, and more employment, good jobs, not service, minimum wage 

and seasonal jobs are needed. Then, too, where the Park expansions 

and new Monument is proposed are not around existing 

infrastructure. Even if jobs are created, employment will have to 

be brought into the area, and providing for them, as seasonal 

employees, will be an added cost, not a benefit, since they will 

require minimum infrastructure, and will bring envir~nmental costs 

with them in the form of solid waste, needs for water, and 

development with the areas--something that H.R. 518 proponents seems to decry of everyone else. Establishing wilderness and parks 

will not create the skilled and professional types of jobs which 

will be needed in the 21st century. 

5. There is an element of hypocracy in the promotion of H.R. 

518. In Death Valley, and in many areas of the west, historic 

mining has been romanticized and made to look good. This, despite 

a total lack of controls and regulation. But for some reason, 

modern mining, with efficiency and steel buildings seems not to 

inspire such reverie. The hypocracy comes from allowing NPS and 

its concessionaires to tout early mining as part of their heritage 

promotion, yet to establish a system which will surely assure that 

mining as we have known it will never again occur within the 

desert. Minerals conferences and data exist which show that the 

desert of Southern California is a world class mineral area. Do 

not foreclose the recovery, or at least the exploration for these 

resources. 

Under the rules of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the agency must have 

minerals inventory performed on all its recommended suitable 

acreage, this to be done and reported by the u.s. Bureau of Mines 

and the U.S. Geological Survey. This has been done, and the formal 

reports were submitted to this Committee during the previous 

Congress. What H.R. 518 fails to provide is similar documentation on the additional 6 million acres it would place in Wilderness. 

What, in effect, this legislation does, is holds the agency to one standard, and holds the Congress to no standard other than to pick 

and choose which data it wants to consider. The fact is that many 

areas were dropped from Wilderness consideration during the study 

phase, precisely because enough was known even then about their 

mineralization. Among those areas which H.R. 518 includes as Wilderness, or Park, or both, and which the COCA Plan excluded 

because of minerals include: 

rmperial County: Picacho (356) and Coyote {373) 

Riverside county: Big Maria {321), major portions of 

Palen;McCoy {325), and major portions of Chuckwalla 

(448). 

10 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 7 
188 

san Bernardino county: New York Mountains (265), Old Woman 

Mtns. (299), Clark Mtns. (227), and major portions of Big 

Horn Mtns (217), among others. 

:rnyo county: Panimint Mtns (136, 137), Resting Springs (145}, 

Greenwater (147), Argus (132) (in which H.R. 518 even 

places a significant area which did not even qualify as 

a Wilderness Study Area}, among others. 

Kern County: part of Owens Peak (158). 

Parks and wilderness, as proposed in H.R. 518 will remove most of 

the potential mineral reserves from reach of either exploration or development. This is sad, given the Nation's state relative to 

balance of payments, as well as maintaining its industrial base. 

The facts are that new mining will largely be prohibited, yet it is 

in a state of total regulation at this time. 

The utilization of mineral resources would not be in every mountain 

range, or in every wash, nor is it something to automatically fear. 

Few acres would ever be devoted to the activity in terms of actual 

mine development. In current operations, miners don't even live on 

the property anymore, further reducing impacts. The authors of 

H.R. 518 either hate mining or do not trust it. Yet it is fully 

regulated since 1980. While there have been controversial 

proposals they are best handled on a case-by-case basis, and not by 

wholesale closure of 6 million acres to exploration and 

development. 

6. The proponents of H.R. 518 have not considered the 

infrastructure issues and impacts associated with the Bill. They 

lack, or have ignored input over the years from public agencies 

like the irrigation districts and CalTrans who need and use resources for the maintenance of their facilities. These 

facilities serve all of the people of Southern California, and the 

needs for ruture supplies or economically recoverable rock ror sand 

and gravel has been totally ignored. At the very least, 4 

Interstate highways cross the desert. In addition there are 3 

transcontinental railroads. Rock for maintenance is a need that 

extends for parpetuity. Hauling materials from Barstow or Needles, 

likely alternatives, will significantly raise costs, and those come back to motorists and everyone. 

Several of the areas listed above, under point #5, contain such 

resources, another reason why the reasoned approach is needed. 

7. The proponents of H.R. 518 have never put forth a budget 

showing the differences in costs of administration between the 

current system and the optimum level needed to implement their 

proposals. Passing H. R. 518, while perhaps the politically correct 

thing to do for the environment, will not necessarily enhance 

resource management, but will surely cost more. 

11 
189 

Parks will require more staff and administration, together with 

added signing and restrictive closures. The last time I visited 

Darwin Falls I wondered about what NPS might do. Whatever they do, 

my guess it will be more expensive than what is being done 

currently, which effectively manages the area, yet allows people to 

drive to close proximity. More will not necessarily be better. If 

the current management arrangement is OK, why transfer the area to 

NPS? ELM has successfully maintained the closure for over 15 

years. 

More people will visit these areas, not because they are "new" 

recreation lands, but because of the publicity and attraction. 

Why? American psyche, but paving highways, limiting camping, and 

building visitor centers will require much more investment and 

supervision. And none of it is necessary to carry out the basic resource management responsibilities done now by the ELM. It is 

foolish and unnecessary to transfer these areas to the National 

Park Service. Given state of the Federal budget, this appears to 

be an intolerable expense compared to simply funding ELM at an adequate level. 

8. Elsewhere I have referred to private lands within the 

California Desert conservation Area. Enactment of H.R. 518 will 

create a land acquisition need of inholdings of perhaps up to one million acres. Where will the funds come from to do this? 

certainly not the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is 

overburdened now. From funds needed to purchase real estate in the 

Santa Menace Mountains NRA? Someone needs to ask hard questions--

How much, and from what source? 

I have attached a comparison table to this testimony setting forth 

differences in land acquisition costs. Based on current estimates 

of land values within broad ranges, H.R. 2379 would cost 

approximately $382.5 million. H.R. 518 will cost 1.23 billion! 

And that is just for land acquisition. A significant fact about 

the two approaches is that H.R. 2379 considers these private land 

situations, and suggests only a reasoned and studied land need. 

Only 4 areas recommended for Wilderness in H.R. 2379 have large 

acreage of private inholdings. In contrast, H.R. 518 has 2~ areas within it with extensive private and State land inholdings, with 

thousands of landowners. 

It is suggested that exchanges could cover these expenses. There 

has already been tradeoffs made with the State and with Catellus to 

do that, or buy if it cannot be done. Remember, exchanges require 

agreement as the acceptability of the offered Federal lands to the 

private land owner, as well as balancing dollar values. And it 

also requires that disposal of the Federal lands be in the public 

interest. With the issues facing southern California regarding the 

desert tortoise habitats, the gnatcather, and other species, plus 

the desires to retain open space even in areas of limited public 

land ownership, I assure you that exchanges needed to satisfy 

12 
190 

inholding acquisition needs of S. 21 will be costly and impossible 

to make in a reasonable timeframe. And while exchanges may appear 

to cost the Treasury less, they take time, and there are administrative, negotiation, and clearance (archeological Section 

106 surveys, and threatened and endangered species surveys to 

satisfy US Fish and Wildlife Service) costs, which may be very 

high, and may result in no way to dispose of Federal lands. 

Interstate land exchanges have been suggested, too, those these are obviously fraught with conflict and disagreements. Should public 

lands in Nevada or Montana be used to satisfy land needs in 

California? Only Congress can answer that question, but I assure you that your constituents will not be silent. 

Much too little attention has been given this factor. 

9. There has been no apparent balancing of needs among 

competing desert interests. At this point, I think there is consensus that lands that really should be part of the National 

Wilderness System should be there--the Whipples, the Last Chance 

Range, Eureka, Saline, Providence Mountains, the North Algodonnes. 

Put these lands in Wilderness. That could have been done 10 years 

ago. What we are arguing here is the marginal areas, and the access needs for the huge wildernesses that will be unlike any 

other wilderness in the continental United States. An area's 

simply being "roadless" is not enough, now that a system of 

management is and has been in place. Access for vehicle travel, 

beyond the county road net, and places to car and RV camp must be 

made. The desert as it exists in the COCA is different than Parks. 

Some people prefer one, other another. Do not make all desert users conform to a pattern. Do not forget that vehicle access is a fundamental requirement, even for backpackers. 

An argument is made, too, that provision of the 500,000 acres of 

open play area will take care of off-road vehicle use. Absolutely 

not. Play on vehicles and access are two entirely different 

concepts. Were you to read the COCA Plan, you would find these 

issues split. ORV Play is an activity. It can and does take place 

in limited areas. But ~ desert users seek access in vehicles, 

and in that context they are a means to an end, whether that be 

rockhounding, bird watching, photography, hiking, mountain climbing or any of the myriad of other pursuits which are currently possible 

in the California Desert Conservation Area. 

10. There seems to have been little consideration of the 

planning effort and process which extended from 1977 to 1980. It was a valid process and considered the needs of all the people. It now appears that the Congress intends to micromanage the California 

Desert, substituting its Desert Plan for that developed and 

approved by the Advisory committee and Secretary Andrus. I have 

attached a copy of that approval sheet to this testimony because I 

13 
191 

believe that it reflects the efforts at consensus building and 

considering all management options, not just a single philosophic 

agenda. 

There is little need here to restate the history of how 

the creation of the California Desert Conservation Area. 

is validity in looking at the history since 1980, facts 

not often considered in the current debate. 

we got to 

But there 

which are 

The Proposed Plan for the COCA was released on schedule on 

September 30, 1980. Another round of public hearings ensued. In 

late November the Advisory Committee met at Zzyzx and ratified the 

final plan, but gave some additional recommendations. Final fine 

tuning was given in early December. Wilderness acreage 

recommendations were significantly increased on the basis of public 

input. The number of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern were, 

too. Over half the desert was placed in Class L, or Limited Use. 

During the third week of December, when the team was in Washington 

getting the Plan formally approved, opponents filed suit and 

attempted to enjoin the Secretary from signing the plan. That 

failed, but litigation continued for almost 4 years. 

Who opposed the Plan at its outset? The off road vehicle groups, 

the mining association, some local governments. These are now the 

plan's biggest supporters! They sought an overturning so as to 

seek a less restrictive plan from the new Administration. It is 

significant that the Administration fought the suits, defending the 

plan and the concept of the Desert Conservation Area. Ultimately 

the suit failed, after being carried to the 9th Circuit Court of 

Appeals. The Court ruled that BLM had followed the proper planning 

processes. 

Net long after settlement of the suit, the one group having sought 

Judicial Branch adjustment of the COCA Plan, s. 2061 was introduced 

which signaled an attack on the plan from the other side, this time 

through the Congressional Branch. We are here today, culminating 

that effort. I believe that this effort to undo the plan must be 

rebuffed by the Congress in the same manner as the Judiciary 

rebuffed the earlier attempt by the other side to undo the Plan. 

This is American Government in action, and all three Branches have 

been involved, and will probably remain so. While good civics, it 

is poor public policy. 

The current proponents of H.R. 518 speak of a need to protect and 

preserve open space and wildland values. But they point to urban 

expansion on private lands in the Lancaster, Victorville and 

Coachella Valley areas, as well as at Laughlin, Nevada. I do not 

believe any of us will argue with the intent of saving the open 

vistas of the public lands. But the Congress does not have to 

place lands in the most restrictive category known--the National 

Wilderness Preservation system--to accomplish this. H.R. 2379 

14 
192 

takes a balanced approach, places reasonable and responsible 

acreage in that system, and assures that the public lands in the 

balance of the desert will be retained in public ownership, and assures close cooperation and coordination with local government 

regarding development. Under current law, however, the public 

lands cannot, even now, be urbanized. That is a false threat. 

11. Off road vehicles, their utilization for both play and access have been a consideration, in fact the driving force, behind 

planning in the California Desert since its inception. 

Unfortunately their use, and the management of the use is not 

simple. Motorcycle racing on the desert has been highly visible 

and much is made of it in terms of damage and destruction. But 

really few users, given the total numbers of people who come to the 

desert, are racers, and most racing is limited to close-in areas. These were designated in 1973, and redesignated in 1980. Racing is 

under control. It is not a problem, and especially is it not a problem in any of the areas under consideration in H.R. 518. 

Many of the areas used for close-to-home OHV recreation in the 

desert are on private lands under absentee ownership. Often BLM 

gets blamed for its allowance, but it is a local law enforcement 

issue. 

As one traverses the desert from Eureka, through Saline, Panimint, across Kingston, across the East Mojave, Ward Valley, the 

Chuckwallas, and on into Imperial County, you look in vain for 

"destruction" from off road vehicles. It does not exist. 

Expanding units of the National Wilderness System on the sole 

basis of controlling OHVs is a strawman. The only vehicles which 

enter most mountain ranges are those which are equipped to do so, 

and which stay on roads and trails. The area is too remote to take a vehicle cross country and break down with it. Too, most people 

have far too much invested in vehicles to wantonly be destructive 

with them. The OHV use is a bogeyman, being used to scare people 

into supporting unneeded and unwarranted additional regulation and 

prohibitions. Too, it ignores the fundamental fact: the desert is di~ferent, and it is so huge that vehicle access is an absolute 

necessity i~ one is to enjoy it, explore it or work in it beyond 

the county road network. 

12. An argument is made that H.R. 518 is needed to save endangered and threatened species such as the desert tortoise. US 

Fish and Wildlife Service is issuing its recovery plan for that. 

Separate administrative planning and implementation will be 

required for that. Most of the desert tortoise habitat is beyond 

the boundaries of any of the wilderness and park areas in H.R. 518, 

thus it is really not required and cannot be justified on that 

basis. 

13. Much is made of the future needs of California. The 

specter is raised that with increased population growth, Wilderness 

15 
193 

and park "protection" will be needed so that the desert does not 

become like the Santa Menace Mountains. That argument is 

fallacious. The public lands in the COCA are committed to remain 

in public ownership, thus, repurchase potential is absolutely a strawman. But let's look at the growth patterns--more in urban 

areas, more minorities, more retirees as the baby boomers age. 

What kinds of recreation will they want? I believe that rather 

than restrict opportunities, the Congress would be well advised to 

expand them. The future is too important to allow options to 

become limited. I agree open space and wildland will be crucial, 

and the desert must remain a land of vistas and scenery. But it 

can also be a resource treasure trove to supply jobs and recreation 

to millions more. It can be both if the draconian provisions of 

E.R. 518 are not applied. 

Instead of a legacy of limiting opportunities, let us leave a 

legacy that memorializes the creation of the California Desert 

Conservation Area as the real forward-looking action. Let us not 

undo it for narrow goals, but reaffirm its broad goals of 

"management, use, protection and development" in a managed system, 

not a museum oriented system. 

As an attachment to this testimony I have attached inscriptions on two plaques which exist in the CDCA. One memorializes 

Congresswoman Shirley Pettis without who efforts in this building, 

the CDCA would never have been created. The other memorialized J. 

Russell Penny, a career BLM administrator, who conceived the CDCA. 

Both of these displays will lie within areas transferred to the 

National Park service should H.R. 518 be enacted. I respectfully 

request that language be inserted in the legislation, if it 

continues, that these plaques remain on the lands and at the sites 

where they currently exist. 

I believe that the House the Congress as a whole must not pass H.R. 

518 or its companion in the Senate, s. 21. It should pass h.R. 

2379, which truly represents the public interest and the true 

spirit of compromise to assure that the California Desert is 

managed and protected and conserved for California's future and for 

the economic well-being of America. 

If the House proceeds to work on and mark-up H. R. 518, then I 

suggest the following: 

Pass the wilderness recommendations proposed in the 1980 

conservation plan for the California Desert Conservation Area, upon 

which.there is firm documentation of the resources forgone. 

If the Congress wishes to make a statement for stronger 

preservation, do not "release" the other areas in Wilderness Study 

Area status. Rather, leave them in "further study," order that 

they be surveyed, too, by the US Geological Survey and Bureau of 

Mines, so that there will be an equal rigor of documentation on the 

16 
194 

other 6 million acres which H.R. 518 would place in Wilderness. In 

the interim these lands would continue to be managed and 

"protected" under the Interim Management Policy. With the order 

for survey, funds must be appropriated, too, for this work to 

commence, but it will be a small cost compared to the value of resources lost if they do become Wilderness while containing 

valuable resources, and it will defer the costly implementation of 

full wilderness preservation on lands which may not be suitable or proper for such preservation. 

Do not create the Mojave National Monument or Park. It is 

neither needed nor wanted, nor of a caliber that places it in such 

an exalted category. Leave it with the Bureau of Land Management so that resource utilization and management may continue as well as 

the variety of recreational pursuits. Too, not creating a new unit 

of the National Park System will save millions, as well as forestalling the development of park and parkland infrastructure 

which would surely follow designation. A vote against the park is 

in reality a vote against development! Ironic, isn't it? 

Congressionally enact and direct management goals for the 

National Scenic Areas already created in the COCA--East Mojave and 

Santa Rosa Mountains. This will firm up the boundaries and give 

permanent priority to these areas. 

Proceed to "upgrade" Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 

Monuments to National Park status. Based on visitation, at least 

Death Valley seems worthy of it. 

Do not expand the areas of Death Valley and Joshua Tree 

N.M.s. These have been studied for years, and the current 

boundaries with a few exceptions are practical and manageable. 

Expansion of Death Valley, particularly, into Saline and Eureka 

Valleys will be costly to the government, since NPS will have to 

establish additional management units to cover these areas which 

lie geographically remote from Death Valley itself. Be aware, too, 

that NPS will require extensive infrastructure development to 

expand their level of management to this region, assistance which 

will not likely be forthcoming from either State or local 

government. Too, "development" of these valleys will surely occur as they cease to be remote corners of the desert and visitors need 

to be supplied and assisted. 

Before any additional expansions to either wilderness or parks are completed, require completion of some form of CostEffectiveness analysis be objectively performed to answer the 

questions: What will be the increased cost of administering the 

CDCA and all the NPS units with H.R. 51B's Wilderness and park 

proposals, plus what is the value of the resource uses and 

resources foregone if the proposals are implemented? What is the 

marginal value of this increased level of protection over the 

current costs and values? I do not believe the Congress has this 

17 
195 

information, is preparing to make a decision based on emotion and a presumption of resource damage which is not occurring, and is 

preparing to commit millions of new dollars to administering a system of land management in Southern California for which it lacks 

fundamental data regarding its full impacts and what it will 

require to even partially implement. 

H.R. 518 is a bad bill. When bad bills are enacted, they make bad 

laws. H.R. 2379 is a good bill, and it will make good law. 

Attachments: 

Signature page from the COCA Plan 

Statement about the East Mojave National Scenic Area 

Plaque inscriptions--dedications to: Cong. Shirley Pettis 

Mr. J. Russell Penny 

statement comparing land acquisition costs between H.R. 518 

and H.R. 2379 

18 
196 

COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED LAND ACQUISITION COSTS BETWEEN THE "DESERT 

PLAN" (The Plan for Management of the California Desert 

Conservation Area, adopted in Dec. 1980) AND THE PROPOSALS 

CONTAINED IN S.2l AND H.R. 518, THE "DESERT PROTECTION ACT" 

Estimated Private and State inholdings 

needed to be acquired to accomodate 

enacted Wildnerness, new National 

Park, and National Monument/Park 

COCA 

Plan 

S.21/HR518 

Proposals 

expansions: 400,000 ac. 1,000,000 ac. 

Land Value ranges: (estimated, and broadly applied, without 

considering mineral values, use as base property for grazing, 

access, utilities, or other factors): 

Large tracts, remote 

Small tracts, remote 

(e.g. Lanfair Valley) 

Large tracts, close-in 

Small tracts, close-in 

Inholdings acquisition, by 

type, in the California 

Desert Conservation Area, 

and estimated land costs: 

Large tracts, remote 

small tracts, remote 

Large tracts, close-in 

small tracts, close-in 

$150/ac to 1,000 avg.= $700/ac 

$1,500/ac to 2,500 avg.=$1,800/ac $1, 000/ac to 2, ooo avg. =$1, 500/ac 

$2,500/ac to 5,000 avg.=$3,000 

Desert Plan: 

350,000 ac. $245,000,000 

50,000 ac. $90,000,000 

S.21/HR518: 

500,000 ac. $350,000,000 

150,000 ac. $270,000,000 

200,000 ac. $3()0 10001000 

50,000 ac. $150,0001 000 

Estimated transaction costs to the United States to acquire lands: 

Acquisition costs for staff work include: 

--Title searches (including finding owners) 

--Clearances--Hazard materials certification needed 

for lands which the government will acquire. For 

exchanges, government lands passing to private 

ownership must have archeologic (Sect 106) and threatened 

and endangered species surveys and clearances from State 

Historic Preservation Officer(s) (SHPO) and Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) before disposal 

--Appraisals (either in-house or contract) 

--Negotiation 

--Title recordation and other escrow closure costs 

1 
197 

Based on an extimate of 5 work months per transaction, and current 

costs of $5,000 per work month, estimate $25,000/transaction 

COCA Plan 

Transaction costs: 

(Catellus and state of California 

may be single actions, but hazard 

materials survey costs will be high 

because of acreage that needs survey. 

Negotiation costs will be high, and 

higher if exchanges are used because 

of the needed review of Federal lands 

being disposed. Each acquired tract 

will require individual survey and 

appraisal. The remaining number of 

tracts will be high cost because of the 

high number of pieces held in 5, 10 and 

40 acre ownerships, each of which must be 

separately assessed, appraised and 

negotiated.) 

catellus and state of Calif. lands: 200,000 ac. @$50jac 

$10,000,000 

Remaining lands in private 

ownership: 150,000 ac. 

Estimated number of transactions: 1500 

GRAND TOTAL ACQUISITION 

@$25,000 

$37.500.000 

S.21/HR518 

450,000 ac @50jac $22,500,000 

550,000 ac 

5500 

$25,000 

$137.500,000 

COSTS (estimated): $382,5oo,ooo $1,230,ooo,ooo 

Incl. in 

COCA Plan 

Areas with significant Private inholdings: 

Incl. in 

S.21/HR518 

A. Wilderness: (virtually all are checkerboard land pattern) Blackwater Well (WSA 173) SB County 

Black Mtn. (WSA 186) SB County 

Cady Mtns. (WSA 251) SB County 

West 2/3 Kelso Dunes (WSA 250) SB County 

West 1/2 Granite/Bristol (WSA 256) SB Co. 

Marble Mtns. (WSA 259) SB County 

Clipper Mtns. (WSA 260) SB County 

Piute (WSA 288) SB County 

Essex (WSA 288A) SB County 

Woods/Hackberry (WSA 271) 

(in prop. MNP) SB County 

Signal Hill (WSA 272) 

(in prop. MNP) SB County 

Dead Mtns. (WSA 276) SB County 

Sacramento Mtns. (WSA 290) SB County 

Newberry Mtns. {WSA 206) SB county 

Rodman Mtns. (WSA 207) SB County X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

2 
198 

Chemehuevi Mtns (WSA 310) SB county x No. 1/2 Stepladder Mtns. (WSA 294) 

San Bernardino County Old Woman Mtns. (WSA 299) SB County 

Sheephole (WSA 305) SB County 

Orocopia (WSA 344) Riverside County x cadiz Dunes SB County 

(not a BLM wilderness study area) 

Checkerboard land pattern block 

lying between Morongo and 

Whitewater WSAs (not a BLM 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Wilderness Study Area) x 

B. National Park/Monument establishment/expansion: 

-Private land block in Goffs and 

Fenner Valleys (not a wilderness 

study area, but lying within prop. Mojave NP.) (checkerboard land 

pattern) San Bernardino Co. x 

-Private land block in Lanfair 

Valley (not a wilderness study area, 

but lying within proposed Mojave NP.) (This 

is a mixtue of homestead properties and blocks 

of ranch lands) SB County x 

-Checkerboard land pattern block on southwest flank of JTNM, within 

proposed expansion of Joshua Tree NM Riv. Co. x 

(There are private and State holdings, in addition to mining claims 

and patented mining properties in virtually every WSA and 

wilderness proposal, but most of the CDCA Plan excluded those WSAs 

with significant private inholdings unless there were significant 

wilderness values. Since the COCA Plan did not recommend Parks or Park expansions, none are listed. Subsequent planning (East Mojave 

NSA Plan] has recommended some land acquistion, but it is not 

legally mandated as would be so in a Park establishment and does 

not include the Lanfair Valley block. The SW Joshua Tree block is 

not recommended in any planning document, unless NPS now endorses.) 

TOTAL NUMBER OF WILDERNESS AND NATIONAL 

PARK PROPOSALS WITH SIGNIFICANT 

PRIVATE INHOLDINGS: 4 25 

3 
199 

~EAST MOJAVE NATIONAl 

'W SCENIC AREA 

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of land Management 

The East Mojave Nauonal Scenic JVea ... a special comer within the California Desert Conservation /Vea, 

where traces of our heritage meet the technology of the present and future; where expanses of lonely 

wilderness meet the impn·nts of man~· where the freedom to explore offers the visitor challenges and delights. 

Why a National Scenic Area? During the development of the California Desert Conservation Area (COCA) management 

plan, a wide variety ol public opinions about the future ot the East Mojave surfaced: many people were concerned that 

the area's scenery needed to be preserved; others that its history and heritage not be lost; others that its mineral 

weatth should remain at least partially available for development; and still others that its diversity of recreational 

experiences - available here and not generally elsewhere in the COCA - be maintained. 

All agreed that the East Mojave is special and. since it Ues between two Interstate freeways, would be an increasingly 

popular destination. And all agreed that soma special designation was needed, but that nooe of the existing ones 

seemed to fit Out of this dilemma was forged a new concept- a National Scenic /Vea -that would allow BLM working 

with the public to develop management guidelines artd programs •so as to ensure continuation of the uses and 

occupation which give the region its character, and yet give special emphasis to retain the area's natural scenic 

qual~ies in evaluating and permitting changes and new uses.' 

The COCA Plan also included other management prescriptions for the East Mojave. It proposed seven units, comprised 

of 292.200 acres, be included in the National Wilderness Presetvation System to assure permanent presetvation of those 

ecosystems within the East Mojave that are truly unique and warran. ;"11 protection. It also created six Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), covering 86,600 acres, providing special management and protection as well as 

additional attention, from the increased number of BLM Rangers in the fieid. 

The Plan envisioned an East Mojave where people could use resources in historic and traditional ways (e.g., cattle 

ranching, hunting, and rockhounding), but In a controlled and managed setting, Access for vehicles was deemed a 

must for recreational experiences, but off·highway vehicle cross·country play was determined to be appropriate 

elsewhere in the COCA. For well over 100 years, the East Mojave also has been a transportation and utility corridor. 

The Plan allows continued use of these facilities, power lines, railroads, and other infrastructure, but recognizes and 

protects the distances between them, where thousands of acres are either untouched or have only been visited by man. 

In the decade since the COCA Plan Identified the East Mojave National Scenic Area, BLM has worked with many publics 

to complete a variety of specific management prescriptions for the East Mojave, Including an overall management plan 

and an interpretive plan lor the Scenic Area Detailed management plans for the ACECs, wildlife habitat management 

areas, ana grazing allolments also have been developed. As these plans are completed, BLM's focus moves toward 

implementing the management actions outr.ned. Increased funding and staffing have ----------

allowed the agency to expand ~s Ranger force In the area, providing lor increased patrol 

and compliance. . New visitor services are being provided, including an expanded 

campground, new hiking traits and Back Countty Byways, a visitor co·ntact station, and 

new interpretive signs and brochures. And soon the Kelso Depot - once the center of 

activtty in the East Mojave during the heydays of American ra~roads - will resume its 

place as a focal point of the region. 

The East Mojave National Scenic Area iS a concept that hes just begun to evolve. It is 

a partnership among the BLM and a wide array of publics, users, and past, present, and 

future vls~ors, preserving the old values that too ohen get lost in Southem CaiUomia. 

protecting tts wildland character forever, managing an uses with care and profes· 

sionalism, and assuring that the century .. old heritage and character oi the region remain 

intact 
Endorsed: 

Approved: 

Concurred: 

200 

DECXSIOlf SBEET 

FOR Al'l'llOV AL 01' 

tim FINAL PLAN FOR THE 

CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND DECISION DOC1lMENT 

DEC 1 71980 

Date 

bu. 17, ,,., 

Date 

1,:2 -If-e-" 

Date 
Vettis Uver-lf)

THIS OVERLOOK, WITH ITS PANORAMIC VIEW OF 

C IMA DOME AND TH E EAST MOJAVE NATIONAL 

SCENIC AREA, IS NAMED IN HON OR OF TilE LATE 

CONGRESSM AN JERR Y PETTIS AND HIS Wlf' E, 

CONGRESS WOMAN SHI RLEY I'ETTIS . LEGISLATION 

SPONSORE D BY THE M LED TO T il E ESTA BLISIIME NT 

OF THE C ALIFORNI A DESERT CONSERVAT ION AREA 

IN 1976 . THE CDCA , ADM INI STERED llY THE U .S. 

BU REAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, fEATURES 

MULTIPLE-USE LAND MANAGEMENT I' RO GRAM S 

DES IG NED TO PROTECT Til E fRAG ILE RESOUR CES 

OF D ESERT PUBLIC LANDS WIIIL E PROVIDING FOR 

THEIR PROrER US E BY A LL AMERICANS . 

',, ',)'',, 

~) Til lS SITE WAS DEDI CA

MANAGEMENT AND 

DISTRI CT A DVI SORY C

COMMEMO RATI NG H

T il E ESTABLISJIMLNT O
Venny {)verluuk. 

THIS OVERLOOK, WITH ITS PANORAMIC VIEW OF T

PANAMINT VALLEY AND SURRC! ' '<DING MOUNTAIN RANG

OF THE NORTHERN MOJAVE DESERT IS NAMED IN HON

OF J. RUSSELL PENNY, A CAREER EMPLOYEE OF T

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. HIS DEDICATION TO T

IDEALS OF MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF T

FRAGILE DESERT RESOURCES LED TO CREATION OF T

CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA (COCA ) IN 19

THE CONSERVATION AREA CONCEPT PROVIDES F

MULTIPLE USE AND SUSTAINED YIELD OF RESOURCES, A

PROTECTION OF NATURAL VALUES, WHILE PROVIDING F

PROPER USE BY ALL AMERICANS. 

~ 

w 

"~ 

THIS SITE WAS DEDICATED BY Ti

MANAGEMENT AND THE CA

DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL O

COMMEMORATING THE TENTH 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CD
203 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hillier, what is the basis for your estimate of acquisition costs associated with the two bills? You had said that it 

would be $400 million for the Lewis bill, which is really not part 

of the hearing today, but almost a billion for H.R. 518. 

Mr. HILLIER. They are based upon a range of current land values, and they assume not the exchange posture that was talked 

about earlier this morning but rather a range of values of what 

land is selling for in the desert. It is based on my personal experience in consultation with some appraisers as recently as last week 

of current sales. 

Basically, desert land in the remote areas is selling for about 

$700 an acre, and some of it as high as $1,000. Closer in, some of 

the tracts go for as much as $2,500 to $5,000. As you get closer in, 

you get more and more subdivision, and so you are dealing with 

10-acre tracts and many, many landowners. 

There is also an inherent transaction cost, and I have estimated 

about 12 percent, just to process and negotiate sales, and that has 

to be included as an integral cost because the staffs do not exist, 

whether it is the Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management, 

to do that, and that is a tremendous cost. 

If you get into exchanges, clearly you have got less capital cost 

in terms of paying landowners, but you then have a very, very 

much greater transaction cost because both the offered and selected 

lands have to be fully examined, and, like the budget, where every 

line item has a champion, in land exchanges every acre of public 

lands seems to also have a champion, and in many cases threatened and endangered species, and in many cases archeological resources which cannot be disposed of, and also exchanges take a 

willing acquirer there, the Government land that is to made available would have to be agreeable to that person, and I am not sure 

that-that is speculative whether that can be accomplished. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we at least know how you got the numbers 

now. 

I agree that, to some extent, where you have subdivision you do 

end up with smaller parcels and that could increase the numbers, 

within any type of area. 

One of the things that you should be aware of is that where we 

designate wilderness in non-Park land, we obviously preclude the 

eminent domain type of option. 

Mr. HILLIER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. But the Secretary, as you noticed, says he intends 

to look to exchanges as a means of trying to accomplish land consolidation, especially with the railroad lands there-now Catellus 

lands-in any case, that ought to be something we should do anyway. 

We just got through trying to do a little of that-I almost hesitate to mention it-in Montana in the Gallatin Range, which was 

a really important exchange. Everybody agreed, but it still ended 

up being, to some extent, the potential for some money being expended to make it work. Sometimes these exchanges are very difficult. Certainly our committee, which tries to struggle with them 

and superimpose them, in some cases, is trying to fit a square peg 

into a round hole sometimes. 
204 

Mr. HILLIER. Mr. Chairman, I might add to that, and this is a 

tremendously complicating feature of land exchanges in the California Desert, but right now there is proceeding through the public 

process a draft recovery plan for the desert tortoise, as you may 

well be aware, and specifically around the East Mojave most of the 

land that is designated as high priority and for withdrawal for 

desert tortoises butts up right against the East Mojave. 

Peyote Valley and around Essex and in Chemehuevi Valley that 

the Secretary was alluding to, where Government land could be 

disposed of, have been identified by the tortoise biologists as being 

high priority for retention and further acquisition programs. So 

finding appropriate public land within the California Desert that 

could be disposed of to meet this 350,000- to 360,000-acre Catellus 

and State land need may well be impossible. 

Mr. VENTO. In the legislation before us, we have of course set up 

a system for interstate exchange to be brought back to Congress for 

review. 

The other Members are coming here, they have questions, but I 

would note that in what we call the D17 area in terms of the harvest-! guess it must be mule deer in this particular area-East 

Mojave is just part of that, and the harvest last year was 40-some 

deer, which is much higher than what it had been in previous 

years. 

Mr. HILLIER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. You talked about that as being a high quality area 

for desert, I guess. 

Mr. HILLIER. It is a significant part of the deer hunting experience within San Bernardino County. It is one of the few areas in 

San Bernardino County where people can actually get out. Hunting 

has been pretty well precluded in the more urbanized areas of the 

San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests. 

But more important, that doesn't reflect the numbers of people 

who are involved in this pursuit, and, as you well know, hunting 

is much more than just the taking of game. Many people go out 

and hunt, and it is a father-son, and it is camaraderie around the 

campfire, and it is really a total recreation experience. 

Mr. VENTO. I do know. We just have to assign them cameras 

now, and we will be all set. 

But I just think in terms of experience, you know, we have got 

to try to keep it in some perspective. So there are other areas, I 

guess, where we want to look more closely at that because it has 

become an issue. 

Ai3 Ms. Sease knows, the House did vote to per·mit continued 

hunting in the East Mojave, and the amendment to that effect likely will be offered again. Mr. LaRocco is promising to do it. For anyone that missed that particular statement, I want to make certain 

that they are aware of it. 

I know you oppose such an amendment, but if it should be adopted, should we consider some other designations, such as a National 

Preserve or a ELM-managed National Conservation Area? 

Ms. SEASE. Mr. Chairman, just as I don't like to count my legislation before it is hatched, I hate to make contingency plans before 

one is defeated. The conservation community is very focused on 
205 

this issue this year, and we have no intention of losing that vote 

over hunting in the Mojave. Mr. VENTO. Well, the opposition is getting beat up quite regularly on other issuest and I guess they have sort of landed on this 

particular issue to cnallenge National Parks. I certainly am fully prepared to fight any type of amendment such as that. So I don't 

want my question to be interpreted incorrectly. I think this is a 

very important issue in terms of National Park policy. 

Ms. SEASE. If I could add to that, there are two precedents at 

risk here. If you should establish a National Park and allow sport hunting-and that would be a terrible precedent for the Park system-if in an area that has relatively little huntins{ use-and the 

Mojave, in comparison to the rest of the State of California and the 

rest of San Bernardino County, for that matter, has relatively little 

hunting-if, in order to create a National Park of that unit you 

have to bow to huntj.n; pressure and tum it into a Preserve, I believe that that would mgnal that the last public land National Park 

had been created, because I cannot imagine where else in the West 

on the public lands there would be the opportunity to create a Park 

without hunting. 

So it is important as a precedent whether you make it a Preserve 

or whether you make it a Park. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Doolittle, did you have any questions of 

these witnesses? 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. I know our time is running out. 

Mr. Hillier, I think you make a good point that you don't have 

to have it be in a Park or wilderness in order to afford some protection to these areas. I understand various roads are going to be 

closed. They will let the military fly cruise missiles over these 

areas and various types of airplanes and roam tanks around, but 

for the nonmilitary -they will be denied access into these areas by 

closing these roads. Would you tell us what you know about the 

types of roads that are to be closed under this Act? 

-Mr. HILLIER. Many of the roads that lie within the wilderness 

study areas are, in fact, historic roads and trails that have been 

used by vehicles for a number of years. The problem came when 

the Bureau of Land Management performed the wilderness inventory and the definition of a road excluded any road that had not 

been maintained regularly by mechanized equipment-in other 

words, a blade or a bulldozer.-:..and. it specifically excluded the passage of vehicles as being maintenance. 

So, as a result, many, many roads in the desert did not qualify 

as roads and, rather, were called ways, and therefore the size of 

the wilderness study areas and, in fact, the very placement of 

many of the wilderness study areas was allowable because there 

was 5,000 acres of so-called roadless because there was none of 

these trails that met the specific definition even though they had 

been well traveled. Huaracopia Mountains is a good example of one 

that is very heavily trailed and yet there are not any roads that 

meet the definition within them. 

So there are a number of these that will be closed, a number of 

historic access routes, a number of access routes into popular areas, 

not just for hunting but for rock hounding, exploring, treasure 

hunting, mining exploration, servicing of grazing facilities, salts, 
206 

waters; I can go on and on. We are not talking just about off-road 

vehicle use, but we are talking about a very important subset of 

the desert transportation network that would be basically foreclosed. 

I might also add that much is made of the off-road vehicle use 

throughout the California Desert, and yet concurrently with these 

accusations is the fact that within the Bureau of Land Management almost a third of the entire wilderness study area, so-called 

roadless, within the western United States lies within the California Desert. So it is a significant area that has been really properly used historically. 

I won't deny that there are problems on both public lands and 

private lands close into urban development, but there has been a 

significant area that is basically only reached by these primitive 

jeep/truck trails, and those would be foreclosed. 

Mr. VENTO. We have a vote on now, and I want to thank the two 

witnesses very much. They are excused, and we thank you for your patience. 

Mr. Cunningham I was commenting on your absence. Before we 

had the new under secretary of the Department of Defense and I 

asked him about low-level flights. I said the question could have 

been answered by our colleague if he had been present. 

STATEMENT OF BON. RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, A REP· 

RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank you for the opportunity. 

First of all, what I would like to state is that I don't represent 

any of the desert that is being looked at, but about five to ten times 

a year-not so much now that I am a Member of Congress-! take 

my family over to the Glamis area and some of the areas on vacation. We get five of our campers. We circle around. We take the 

kids and we camp. And right now the threat is to be shut out or 

locked out of those particular areas that my family uses as a vacation area. 

Looking at the different elements that you have been talking 

about, the wildlife, military training, I have real concern. I have 

been an off-roader most of my whole life. We have about 4.6 million 

people that use the Glamis area, just over by El Centro, that is 

being threatened to be shut out. If you do that and you restrict the 

area which those off-roaders can use, I think you have to take a 

look at some serious safety concerns. By putting 4.6 million in a 

little confined area, you are going to make it very hazardous. Plus 

you are going to cut off a lot of the recreational opportunities of 

those folks. 

Concerning H.R. 518, and military use of the desert, the bill 

doesn't address military overflights, whereas Congressman Lewis' 

and Senator Feinstein's bill include provisions in this area, and I 

would ask the chairman to make sure-! know in the side-by-side 

it says it will be addressed in a separate bill, but in the House bill, 

as I understand, it doesn't exist. Is that true? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Cunningham, we are hearing two bills 

today. H.R. 880 is the withdrawal bill that includes that DOD Ian-
207 

guage that they agreed to last year that you were a party to with 

Congressman Blaz. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. The intent is to bring these bills together, to move 

them together and/or even merge them as the Senate has indicated 

they want the issues addressed together in terms of withdrawals, 

the continued withdrawals. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the chairman. Because when the 

President says we are going to have a smaller force and a welltrained force, all of the East Coast and West Coast aviation students, the kids that strap a jet on for the first time use those areas 

to train, just as I did, and I think that is very important. 

I am also concerned on the negative effects on law enforcement, 

the lands covered by this bill next to the Mexico border. As you are 

aware, Duncan Hunter and I built a fence there to stop a lot of the 

drug ~afficking coming through the San Diego area. It has one of 

the highest rate of cocaine smuggling in the State, and we also feel 

that this would be ham~red by this particular bill. 

I would like to sub:out the rest of this for the record and for your review. But basically, this legislation is going to impact millions of 

recreational users, including myself. 

And the economic loss, let alone the recreation loss, would impact 

all of us. And I thank the chairman for the hearing. [Prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:] 

STATEMENT OF BON. RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman1 I want to thank you for the op- portunity to testify before the SubCommittee on National Parks, 

Forests, and Public Lands regarding H.R. 518, the California 

Desert Protection Act of 1993. 

I would like to express my concern over this legislation and how 

if enacted, it would affect Southern California. Historically, the 

desert in California has afforded us many different uses: wildlife 

habitat, military training, mining, ranching and farming, and 

many different kinds of recreational use. It should also be noted 

that Californians are not alone in using this precious resource; peo- ple from all over the world travel to see and use the California 

Desert. 

Today, I would like to focus on the recreation areas that will be 

affected if H.R. 518 is passed into law. In the San Diego area, 

many of my constituents look fOrward to leaving the congested 

cities, going inland, and enjoying the recreation that the desert offers us. Historically, one of the most widely enjoyed sports is the 

use of off-highway vehicles. "Off-roaders" enjoy roaming scenic 

country roads and trails exploring little known places. Each year, 

4.6 million California residents take part in off-highway vehicle 

recreation, and over a half a million rent or borrow them. Over two 

million people use o:ff:.highway parks or areas for non-off-highway recreation, creating a total of 7.2 million residents who use offhighway recreation areas. 

The areas that are critical to my constituents are the B.L.M. EL 

Centro Resource Area in Imperial County, from the Eastern border 

along the Colorado River to the Western border of Imperial County. 

These areas alone have provided a total of 2.5 million visitor use-
208 

days and pumped approximately 825.8 million dollars into the California economy of a yearly basis. 

I am greatly concerned over the failure of H.R. 518 to address 

military use of the desert, earticularly when both Congressman Lewis' and Senator Feinstein s bills include provisions in this area. 

It is imperative that we address the military issues of overflights and use of federal lands in the California Desert. The desert areas 

near El Centro and north toward China Lake are the primary 

training areas for Naval and Marine Corps aviation. The Army and 

Air Force also have a massive presence in the California Deserts. 

We know that these training areas played a critical role in our 

success in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. 

Without the use of the California Desert, our men and women 

would not have received crucial training that prepared them for 

desert warfare in the Middle East. If we restrict military access, we 

are in effect risking the lives of the men and women in this country 

who are willing to put their lives on the line for us. 

Specifically, any bill dealing with the California Desert must 

take into account the needs of installations such as the Naval 

Weapons Center at China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, the Chocolate Mountain Marine Gunnery Range, the National Training Center at Fort Erwin, and the Twentynine Palms Marine Base. All 

these areas are vital training areas. Again, I reiterate that H.R. 

2379 and S. 21 both take into consideration the importance of 

desert training. Neither of them interfere with military activities 

and overflight of military aircraft over designated wilderness areas. 

I am also concerned over this bill's negative effects on law enforcement. As you know, some of the lands covered by this bill are 

near the Mexican border. It is imperative that our Border Patrol 

and state and local law enforcement agencies be able to patrol without being restricted. H.R. 518 would restrict access to land on 

the Jacumba Wilderness (CDCA 368) on the border, which has historically been a high traffic area for illegal alien smuggling. Vehicular access is essential to controlling these illegal activities. 

I must also add that most of the areas being closed off in this 

legislation are also high drug traffic areas. Again, law enforcement 

access must be protected. 

I am also concerned over the economic impact of H.R. 518. This 

bill comes at a time when our state is in a deep recession. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that management costs for 

South Algodones for law enforcement equipment, materials and 

maintenance in the first year would be close to 1.2 million dollars. 

Thereafter, annual costs would be 604,800 dollars just for South 

Algodones. Without additional appropriations these funds will come 

from the existing BLM budget meaning that many other important 

programs will have to be cut or severely cut back in order to facilitate the cost of managing the desert. With the unemployment rate 

in Imperial County already over 22%, this legislation would certainly aggravate a serious economic condition. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that I support H.R. 2379, The 

California Desert and Employment Preservation Act. Many of the 

r

rovisions in H.R. 2379 were included in last year's bill, as well. 

would like to stress that H.R. 2379 has over 15 years of study 

behind it. It also states that 2.1 million acres of wilderness would 
209 

be protected as a result of the studies that included on-the-ground inventories, many public meetings, and completion of environmental impact statements and mineral reports on each of the areas 

recommended for wilderness. In contrast, I cannot help but stress 

that H.R. 518 seems to be riddled with special interest provisions that will negatively impact millions of Californians. 

Make no mistake, I am aware that we need to preserve and protect our desert in California. We must identify the need for the 

preservation of wilderness areas, but we must do so in a realistic 

way, a way in which the desert can be properly maintained and 

managed in order to assure various uses in the years to come. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you and the members of this committee take serious consideration of what has been stated by myself 

and my colleagues who have also testified. It bears repeating that 

the members who represent the California Desert do not support 

H.R. 518. I believe it is time to work together on this and enact 

a balanced, comprehensive bill to protect the California Deserts. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank you, and I apologize that you had to condense your statement. But we are trying to accommodate your 

schedule and make our vote on the floor. 

Let me sug11est to _you that as you know I have specifically, before your sel'Vlce in Congress even, visited this area and been over 

much of it, too much of it in a sense. 

The previous witness, Mr. Hi~l~er./ was in with the BLM and he 

was one of our guides who assistea us in gaining a better understanding of the area. I neglected to mention that, but I knew that 

he was familiar. So we have been over a lot of it, and trying to reconcile the different interests and values is not easy. Hopefully, 

whatever comes out of it certainly the intent is to try and amplify the utilization in terms of recreation and some uses. Admittedly, limiting others in terms of off-road vehicle use in some instances, 

and certainly mining and other types of activities that have been 

present. It is not an easy issue to reconcile, but it is one in which I think 

at least we have good intentions if not agreement. So I thank the 

gentleman. We will stand in recess subject to the vote, returning after the 

vote. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I invite the chairman that when you look 

where the 3-wheelers and the off-road vehicles, the first windstorm 

over there at Glamis you can't tell if there has ever been a 3-wheeler over there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. 

We have a number of distinguished Members that had joined us. 

Unfortunately, we had a vote exactly at about one. So we did hear 

from one Member. 

In the order of arrival, I guess it must be Mr. McCandlesst... Mr. 

Lewis and Mr. Thomas, unless Mr. Duncan has returned. Mr. uuncan is here. Why don't you just take a place at the table? 

Without objection, your statements liave been made a part of the 

record. So, my friends and colleagues, you can feel free to summarize and we will include your entire statements in the record. 
210 

Mr. McCandless, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BON. ALFRED McCANDLESS, A REPRESENTA· 

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. McCANDLESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to insert my statement into the record and comment very briefly, hopefully, on a number of issues that I feel strongly about, because I 

think we have all heard some of the stories once, twice or more 

times. 

I first got involved in the Desert Plan in 1976, as a member of 

the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. We had just completed 

the necessary requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act, which meant that the County of Riverside had to plan all 

of the land use within its bouudaries; cities doing the same within 

the incorporated areas. 

At that time the Federal Government did not recognize the land 

use planning proposal that we had because they said they were not 

subject to local zoning regulations. It became extremely important, then, when this program came along for the Desert Plan that Riverside County participate, and so another member of the Board 

was selected-not because I didn't want to serve, but because I was 

in the process of starting the South Coast Air Quality Management District and I was up to you know what in alligators. 

Clayton Record, an enthusiastic 4-wheel driver representing one 

of the districts, became a very integral part of that group, and on 

Monday mornings in Riverside prior to the Tuesday meetings of the 

Board of Supervisors we would sit down and talk about the weekend, where he spent it on the Desert Plan, what took place, what 

did they see, who did they talk to, what kind of people did they 

interview, and all of the events during those years that this Advisory Council functioned. So I got a month-by-month, week-by-week update on this. 

It was a great idea because, first, we got the input of all of the 

elements of the land-use family. Second, as we went along we had 

the flexibility of altering something with the exception of the last 

element of the plan, which only Congress can do, and that is designate wilderness, and it was about that time that we got involved 

then in the Desert bills such as we are reviewing here today. Since 

that time the wilderness areas have been recommended to the Secretary of Interior as the original 1976 bill that created the Desert 

Advisory Council had mandated. 

What appealelf to me about the 1976 bill is that it had flexibility. 

In other words, let's not paint the whole map one color and then 

feel sorry at some time in the future that we didn't address certain 

issues. Let's take what is necessary, what we have learned about 

what is a part of the environment and designate it for a certain 

land use and then finish with the wilderness. The council then 

would be maintained as an advisory group to the Secretary of Interior for purposes of continually reviewing the land use of the 

Desert Plan. 

And, if it is seen that additional wilderness, through these meetings that take place occasionally, is needed, we can recommend 

that to the Secretary, who in turn can recommend it to Congress, 

and the map can be modified. It is very difficult, once you have des-
211 

ignated something as wilderness, to bring it back to any other designation. It is less difficult to bring it from another designation to 

wilderness. 

And so the 1976 legislation, and what it created a~pealed to me 

for these reasons, Mr. Chairman. We had that fleXIbility, within 

the framework of an advisory group made up of people who used 

the desert, under the direction of the Secretary of Interior with the 

staff management of the Bureau of Land Management. I considered 

that almost the best of all worlds, and that is why I keep appearing 

before you asking you to take a look at our bill which has been reintroduced. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. McCandless. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. McCandless follows:] 

$TATEMENT OF HON. AL MCCANDLESS 

Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity 

to speak today on a subject which is of great concern to the State 

of California and its citizens. As one who was born and raised in 

the California Desert, I hope to bring a resident's voice and per- spective to the debate over 1ts future. Unfortunately, no such voice 

orperspective exists in H.R. 518. 

It is difficult to comprehend the cavalier manner in which this 

bill is being offered by its proponents. Little or no consideration has 

been given to the adverse effects this bill will have on the environment and economy of California. In the rush to appease the socalled "environmental community'', these tough questions have 

been ignored. The authors of H.R. 518 either do not know the answers, or do not wish to discuss them. Either way, this is no way 

to create sound land management policy. I'd like to call your attention to just a few of these unanswered <~,uestions. 

Where is the foundation of H.R. 518 m credible science and public input? This bill totally ignores the years of exhaustive study of 

the desert, which was mandated by Congress in the 1976 Federal 

Lands Policy and Management Act. The California Desert Plan of 

1980 was the result of work by a 15-member Desert Advisory Council, created by then-Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus at therequest of President Carter. This Plan was based on years of study 

by the Council, whose members included conservationists, ranchers, miners, off-roaders, Native Americans, scientists, hikers, and 

others. Dozens of public hearings were held, and tens of thousands 

of individual public comments were solicited and received on the 

proposed wilderness areas. The final product was a balanced plan, with which no single user group was entirely happy. That plan is 

the foundation of a bill which I have sponsored along with my three desert colleagues, which will create 2.3 million new acres of 

true wilderness in California. Conversely, H.R. 518 has no such 

background. It is clearly and painfully lacking the true elements of 

compromise which made the California Desert Plan unique, and 

which are reflected in our bill, H.R. 2379. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as follows: a 

place, quote "untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor 

who does not remain", end quote. H.R. 518 turns this simple concept on its herd by locating wilderness in places which feature 
212 

heavily used recreation sites, powers lines and access corridors, 

ranching and grazing activities, commonly used roads and trails, 

occupied homesteads, and defunct and active mining sites and pat- ented claims. Inclusion of such areas would make a complete mockery of the current high quality and standards of California's mag- nificent Wilderness System. 

How much is this afterthought of a bill going to cost the taxpayer, to whom we are ultimately accountable? The current estimate of land acquisition costs alone under H.R. 518 tops out at one 

billion, two hundred and thirty million dollars. Say that one slowly, 

and think about it. How many present and future jobs and resources will be lost in restricting access to known stratewc mineral 

deposits? What will be the economic impact on towns like Blythe, 

Glamis, and Victorville, which depend upon desert tourism for survival? Is the Administration seriously going to support a bill which 

can only hamstring California's economy? 

As Secretary Babbitt has noted on previous occasions in this 

room, the National Park Service is in major administrative and financial disarray at this time. How can our deserts be managed properly by an agency which, while well-intentioned, is struggling 

with its existing mission and responsibilities? National Park Service officials have indicated that it will not be able to effectively 

manage the National Park which H.R. 518 would create in the East 

Mojave. Is no one taking these warning signs seriously? If not, then 

H.R. 518 ought not to be taken seriously. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not reflect the best interests of the 

California Desert, or the people who live and work in it. I am an 

original desert rat, having been raised on a homestead in the AnzaBorrego Valley. I have lived in the desert for most of my adult life, 

and understand its unique qualities and needs better than most. 

H.R. 518 was conceived and written in cites far from the desert, by armchair environmentalists for political reasons, not by profes- sional land managers or biologists in pursuit of legitimate conservation goals. Mr. Chairman, it is essential to keep in mind that 

the issue here is not whether new wilderness areas should be established and preserved in the California Desert; let there be no 

confusion on that point. The issue is how to best achieve that end, 

and I am here to tell you today that H.R. 518 is woefully inadequate in that regard. There is no scientific rhyme or reason to 

H.R. 518, Mr. Chairman, but rather a deluded notion that bigger is somehow better. There is far too much at stake, for both California and the nation, to place the fate of our desert with H.R. 518 

and hope for the best. I would ask the Members of this Committee 

to demand hard answers to these and other questions raised here 

today, and to carefully examine the consequences and alternatives. 

The people and deserts of California deserve no less. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, was Mr. Hunter here before? 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hunter? Fine. If he had appeared early, fine. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hunter? 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you, Jerry. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lewis has been with us throughout the day, so 

I didn't know which appearance he was referring to. 
213 

Mr. HUNTER. If Mr. Lewis wants to go first, I am going to defer 

to him, because he is our leader here. 

Mr. VENTO. But he is deferring to you, Mr. Hunter. Please proceed. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you. Thank you, Jerry. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me speak very briefly about 

three things: people, wildlife and narcotics interdiction with respect 

to the Desert. 

First, I just want to say to you that the question was asked, I 

understand, of the DOD witness, Is everything fine with respect to 

overflights and withdrawal of training ranges? And, as I understand from staff, the answer generally was yes, everything is up to 

speed and taken care of. But it isn't really. 

And there is one thing we do need to apprise the committee of 

and that is this. The East Mesa and West Mesa Gunnery Ranges 

are scheduled to close under this bill in 1994. So, if you just read 

the bill, it appears that they are going to be closed fairly shortly. 

This is done with the expectation that the Navy is working out an 

arrangement with these other bureaus right now, with BuREC and 

with others, and they are going to put together a plan that will be 

put into place sometime before this expiration. 

I just wanted to give to you the proposed solution, and I don't 

see any reason why we couldn't put this solution in place-if you 

are going to have a vehicle here, to put it in place now rather than 

wait and bet on the come, so to speak, and hope that down the line 

we have an agreement. 

[The information follows:] 
Mission 

Two Ranges 

214 

R-251 0 1 05,600 acres 

R-2512 2,300 acres 

Early 19805 Study inadequate to safely operate ranges. 

1984- Proposed withdrawal of 315,164 acres. 

Outcry from Off-Road Vehicle Community 

Cooperative Agreement between BUREC, BLM, and 

Navy dated August 15, 1986. 

1. Navy withdraw 47,500 acres for target areas. 

Range Safety Zone "A" 

2. Navy Right-of-Way over 97,000 acres RSZ "B"> 

3. Restrictions on incompdble land uses 

149,000 acres RSZ "C". 

Amended withdrawal application August 1181. 

Federal Register September 27,1118 

Right of Way application November 1988. 

Withdrawal delayed by Historic81 8nd Cultural 

Resources Agreement and st...-... 

February 17, 1993 California Sta• Historic Preservation 

Officer concurs. 

Next step is for BLM to notify lnWior to submit 

legislative proposal. :9 ;.. · 

j ~oeptc f!~oL 

y A lt!:J~tr'S 
215 
< \...) 

216 

+ 

,, 

., 

' ! 1 - .! 
217 

RANGE SAFETX ZOIIJS 

R$Z "A" OPERATIONS 

1. surface impact target areas, extremely hazardous, possible 

impact from dropped ordnance. 

2. Potential threat to ground surface activities. 

3. Highly susceptible to aircraft crash. 

RSZ "A" RESTRICTIONS 

1. All land uses prohibited except off-road vehicle use is 

allowed in the PDT when coordinated and approved by co. 2. Height restriction is o (zero) feet. 

RSZ "B" OPEBATIONS 

1. Aircraft will fly as low as 500 1 • 

2. Speed in excess of 500 knots. 

3. Hazardous sound levels over 100db. 

4. Chance for aircraft mishaps or accidents due to aircraft 

weapons being armed. 

BSZ "B" RESTRICTIONS 

1. Prohibited lands uses: a. Heavy agriculture 

b. Residential (e.g. single faaily, one unit/40 acres) c. PUblic and QUasi-public faciliti .. (e.g., schools and churcbee) 

d. commercial-retail, whole&ale, professional. e. Utility corridors, overhead power or gas linea 

2. Height restriction varies froa 20' to 50'. 

- !IC" OPEBATIONS 

1. Provide adequate protected airspace in which ailitary 

training can be safely conducted without interference troa 

qeneral aviation traffic. 

2. Controlled height and population density. 

RISTRICTIQNS 

1. Prohibited land use: a. Public and quasi-public facilities 

(e.g. schools and church .. ) 

2. Height restrictions varies froa 100' to 200'. 
218 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield to me? 

Mr. HUNTER. Sure. 

Mr. VENTO. We will look that over. We are moving along those 

lines, and if there is agreement we will--

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Fine. 

Mr. VENTO. The bill that deals with these topics, as you know, 

is H.R. 880 that I have introduced, which I had worked on with 

former Congressman Blaz and Congresswoman Byron. 

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. I just wanted to make it clear that it is not 

a fait accompli that they have put this thing together yet. We hope 

that they do. 

Let me say very briefly, Mr. Chairman-! know you have got a 

lot of folks before you-but in three areas, people, wildlife and narcotics interdiction, I think the committee has a real responsibility 

to look very carefully at these proposed areas for closure. 

And let me go to the South Algodones Dunes, which is right at 

the Mexican border. I don't know if you have got a map in front 

of you, if you know where this particular plot is, but if you visualize where the Colorado River hits Mexico, the border of California, 

this big plot of land, about 150,000 acres, is a big set of sand 

dunes. It has been used by an enormous number of blue collar 

workers in California; 2.8 million visitor-use days last year. That 

is literally hundreds of thousands of blue collar folks who get away 

from the boss driving out on Highway 8 or coming down through 

the San Gorgonio Pass with their families, with a motor home, 

with a camper and an off-road vehicle. The point is they need some 

elbow room, something that is becoming very, very difficult to 

achieve in California. 

Let me tell you, I was out there the other day with a group of 

the off-roaders-Herman Schneider is here, and Bill Baker. They 

came all the way back to watch this hearing. And I talked to 

grandmothers who have been out there for the last 40 years at 

their designated camp spot, who brought back first their children 

and now are there with their grandchildren. You have these 4-

wheel drives and dunebuggies that accommodate kids. It is a family get-together. It is a family gathering. You have whole clans of 

people that show up and see each other for the first time in a year 

or so, and they do that at the dunes. And it is a wonderful recreational place for our people in California who can't afford to go 

to New Zealand to go fly-fishing when they get some time, as some 

Californians can. 

And to close that South Algodones Dunes off in an arbitrary 

manner without finding any species of animal that is absolutely endangered out there, without finding any foliage that absolutely 

needs to be protected because the Algodones Dunes is big sand 

dunes. It is like a big sandbox. That is why the off-road people love 

it. Because you can climb up those dunes and go down it, and the 

next day the sand blows away your tire tracks and you can go up 

again. 

To do that I think really accrues to the detriment of the people 

of California. That is a people place and it affords enormous recreation to blue collar families who love that place and don't want to 

be pushed in tighter and tighter confining areas. 
219 

And I might add one reason you have accidents when you are offroading is because of the fact that you have people scrunched together. You need to have spacing between people when they are 

off-roading and they are going over these dunes. If you put them 

all together in one very small place you have more chance for collisions. 

The second thing I wanted to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is the wildlife aspect of this. We have built in these desert 

areas that are in my congressional district some 300 wildlife guzzlers; that is, water sources we have built. And we were only able 

to build them and maintain them because we have vehicular access. You have got to get cars in to build these. And we have built 

the population of wildlife in these numerous areas by having a 

water supply, which is everything in the desert. If we cut this off, 

you have no way to maintain these guzzlers. 

I want to give you a report by our local fish and wildlife people 

that say that the drinking waters will become death traps for the 

animals or they will dry out and the animals will either die or 

move away. So you have 300 water sources that are developed. 

They are man-made and they are man-maintained, and you can't 

do it without a vehicle. 

Lastly, let me just tell you I have a letter here from the Border 

Patrol for you that says that this is a major narcotics and cocaine 

thoroughfare that a number of these proposed wilderness areas 

happen to enclose, and we caught in excess of $50 billion worth of 

cocaine coming across the border last year. We have massive 

amounts of narcotics coming through. You may have read about the 

narcotunnel that has been built in the San Diego region. These 

areas that are proposed to be closed up to vehicular access are 

places where the Border Patrol does enormous pursuit and interdiction of drug smugglers, and I have a letter here from the United 

States Border Patrol saying that they make massive interdictions 

of narcotics right in the middle of these proposed wilderness areas. 

[The document follows:] 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 8 
220 

I~II'UUAL UHINT\ t'ISH & GAMI~ <:OMMISSION 

STEPHEN ~EBIIII;, CMI 

VIC BENTON, Ytc. Ctwrl 

I.AHHY t.:A,._I"I;Y 

DAVID CROCKETT 

MARK MEUBER 

(.;AHOL YN HINt.ll Y 

!IOAMUAL KAKEA 

eLDON MOOfiiE 

KENNeTH VAN 0! GRAI'"I' 

JOHNWHIT\.OC.t< 

155 &o..llh lhh. S<.lll• c 1:1 c;..,,,,.,, CA 02Z·U · tl~l 

Tf.L. {OU~) ~39·•3a!i 

I'"AX; {01tl 33 .. .,,,.2 

(1_ Y(/J ... " 0~~\~· .,#',__~_,...._..,_,. .. __ ._...,..,...,....,...,_,.~- ....._,....._ .. _____ .., ___ ,._~#' .... _..., _________ ,..._.., ____ ,._,,....,.., .. __ ,....,..,..,.,.~•-.., .. ,. .... ,.. 

Duncar, Hunter, Congreaeme..n 

4til.h Dietrl.ct. Gal1forn1a 

133 Cannon Bu1ld1ng 

Washington D.C. 20515 

re: HR-518 & S-21 Intpacts on Wildlife Management in 

lmperiol County_ 

Dear C:ongrost'lman Hunt.~r, 

The Imperial Gounty Fieh & Game Conuni~etion appreciL\t.ee your AAR.1!='t.ance & 

support. jn adci!'AR~J.ng conr.ernE' raiaf!ld by thA proposed legislation. This 

legislation would l'Ovoz·oly impttct yetaz·e 1,.1[ Dletnugement.a & reBt.orat..lon ot· 

various wildl11'e populations in remote waterless desert o.rea8 of ln1per.\ tt) 

(;oun'ty, Eastern San l.>ieao County ... & Southern lHvereidc Go\mt.y. Sinc("' t.ht'l 

concrete Uning o:r the Ce>achella c.;anal in 1980, che Fish & Game 

Commi.,.,ion has epon~ored 79 bill game gu2zlers ~o prevenc furcher 

mortality loss due to drowning in tho stoep sided conc:~r·et.f' (:A.nale being 

1net.a1Je,1 ae, a mandated wa~er conservation program. A:s you km.,w. w~ lot~t. 

over ~.!25 dersert. mule deer t;hl"t tirf'\1'. ::.:: year-e ot that. project.. with over 

85% of chose losees being pregnant. doe" one mont-h ft•om gi v ins birth. Un 

going concrete canal l1ning projects impact furthet• range hebH«~ 1<11' 

populations of desert bighorn sheep, pro1.-t::!ct.ad IN'J l<J l'mrNH~. and other 

nat.ive wildlife ~peciee which fo:• over a half century have becomf'l 

dependent on utilizing earth lined canale o~ t.heH" pr·Jmary wat.et' aource. 

'l"o prevent. f'ut•ther mortality losses, the lmperi"-1 Cotmt.y }<'1Psh & Game 

Commieeion, plue voluntl"'er eroupa auch as Desert Wildlife Unlinti\..ed~ the 

Bi&horn Sheep Society, Quail llnl1mited, etc., have lit.ercdly sp<mt. 

hundrede ot· thoueande of dollars, tens of thou~a.nds ot vo.lunt.eE"!r man 

houre and driven over a quort.er of a million ot·t-hlj.hwo.y miloe in privBt.e 

vehlcJ.ea. rear~orina. maint.aining, & 1nst.all1ng d~pendable wat.er sourcco. 

In conjunction with develop1ns new proJects an eddi t.ioncd 615 "'"'"J J qutt.ll 

auzzlera which were installed by t.he C6l i !ornl~ J'Jetpt .• at· .ffi sh &. Game, i "• 

th~ late !Stl(i · f' & e:C\rly J960 · s have been rolocatod. w1 t.h AOillf'l rAf-~t'.Cil''ed. 

Additional t.o that.~ over 120 hiet.oric welle & ~prinaa which wore utilizt"'d 

aa Indian wat.er eources or developed in the lete lb60~~ tor ml.n1ng op~ratj ont.J hi'\Ve ft] l"''ie"» been rel ocat.eu.1 inventor led, some reot.ored wj "l·ll 

windmille, e50lftr operated pump!' & other water collect.1on & l'lt.orl\8f"! 

devices to benefit the wildlife'!. Current s"Cudiee 3how wo havo acc()mpl1ehed approximately l/3 of our tot;a] nel!'lded w~tt.er dovolopmont. to 

dut.e. 

lronicallY 9 many o!" t.t1~::te me.intalnect wat.er suuJ·c.:t:tl'4 etl'Ll lJJ t.JJt-: lu.•u,,l."lo.L-1<"~1"\ 

rJt the varit,\1!1 wildornOf'P'I o"\!'eas propo~e"d in HH blU & s ~1, hn·t.hermore, 

jn the opening dAclaration~ ot each bill. Atat.emout..~ t-tt·~ mt1de conccndng "tho '\.lni'i)t.10 wiJI'4J if'~ Vlllll11f'l!,.. JH'A~Ant. 1n t·,}1p areQ. & t..}a.~ III..!Od \,(t }.J!'..e<'~\.·rve 

na1~1ve wildlife & diverse C'IC<l6yetema ou a main ~uHl of t.hif'· l~tt1e:lAtiDrL 

lt remttill~=t ironic 'that the ve~:·y a~encit::~; & vvl~.u,t.., ... ,t!l~ ~roup;"!! t.ht~.t. hav(.' 

et.epp~d forward i.t.J meet. tht'l~l"! management. challcn~f'll'1 uvttr: l.htt r.m~t. fow 

dttt~ades~ are beinfiC shut out. ot t.he very area~ ne!ed.l.11~ L.)n., mo~t 

1 of 2 
221 

HR-518 & S-?1 Impacts on Wildlife Management 

in Imperial County 6/15/93 pg 2 of 2 

t.:utJf'Jervo.tion & prot.ec-tion cfforta. Of the ~l'i:l water· euurt:~ee inotallcd 

~Jnrt'!: 1RRl). ~T•rtroxima.t•lv 45 liLJ.'J:••t:·ently will b~ wj·Lh:ir• l.tJ'~ 1"ir 1.:...1 brJund(.).rv 

adjustmento t.Ji the 10 local wildel"ne.oo area.e. ~·or example, in u,.,. North. 

Al~udonee Dunes. 'I w1nrJnai 11 Wl'l1".~r ~01.1rcee w~re inat~alled i.n l~tiO wi·t;.h 

Federal t1l.t1gat.1on money attet' th'-> tir·e.t bO rrtiles of c.onoret·e linine, wc.s 

completed on the Coachella Canal. SubsequentJ.y, 4 windmillo ware rfllr.an·IT-Ftrl 1.(• b4!'1 I'~moved in ordlitr to m.;a.ko th& North Algodon&.g Dunc;.Q 

suitable tor wilderness coneiderat.ion, & the current means ot' twr·ae pa~•king or hand ca.rryinjl in gene:ra.t.ors, purr(~•s, j/.ar>, fue.l, wenches, tools, 

at.c. has Proven impractical as a "ml.nitnum re~;~uired tool". J.'urt.her 

boundary alignment. :pro:poalitd in thie legie:l&tion will im:pact ;,m "dri)·Lloii~J 

3 euch windmill wat.er eoul"cee in t.he North Algodones Vunee. 

Additionally, the Juli"'n Waeh Road, in the lndian Pass Wi!der·ne»a, ;., l.he 

only vehicle aoceee t.o maintain 9 currently knowrt nB1>ural r-r,r,k tank., 

which through erosion become deat.h tr·ap wat.er holco. 

As early as the l.960"a the Flroh & Gam" Cc>nunl.ssion & the• California DE'I•t. 

of Fiah & GarM: have jointly maintained steps or r·am:p access on 

ap0•roxilll&tely b year intervals t.o prevent bi.ghorn Bheep trtrJr·vd it.y FJur,h "" 

34 be1.r1g found druwned j_n 1969 it1 one tt.tTlk 1.1lonc. Lo.st eurnmer·, 4 dr·owned 

she&p were removed from these var·ious tanka" & &g;,.in. wildlife agencies & 

voluntE:ere work.,d many houre to clean out the tt~.nke & ina·~all eafe "'nt.r·y 

steps. Much has been learnlitd in recent years concerning deer & flh.,.e.]:• 

populat.ions usine radio telemetry on selected herds which ho.o ~·l"Om~•terJ 

the sucoeee:rul wildlife po;puJ.ation·e reest-ablishment. to thel.r native 

ranges. This has only been successful through the. develo~>lflent. of thE'. 

major· limiting r-esource which hae been reliable water eourceo. Theee 

atudiea have aleo shown 215 SJ'&cies of re·pt.il~t'l & arnpt•ihiana,. 100 species 

of birde, & 19 epeciee ot mMtlllale have beccmlif dependent on t.h~ 

utilization of theee wat.e:r eourcetJ &. sut•r·oundin~ habitat. Thoof!.~ J.•ro.l=•r.Jf.Oed 

wilderness areas when managed under the 1964 Wi lderr.ess Act. & u,., 19715 

J.<'ed.,r·aJ. Land l'<.>J.icy t1anagemlifnt Act. will have irrtpt:•eed r&g:ulatione which de. 

not allow the uee of mechan.ical e<;~uipment for m&intent..nce <•r· uto't.orized 

vehi<:•le for access as a "minimum t.OC•l" necessar·y t.c bring ru<>npuw"" & 

equipment i.nto these remote &r·eaa for ma1ntenance & rest.or·td .. lou J.H'u,itu~l.~. 

The very wildl1fe: we have wor·ked so hard to r·ear.c,r-e. to their nativ.., 

ranges will once ago.in be left "on t.heir own" in remrJt . .., waterless 

remaining fragments of their once vast. na1:.1ve habitat. 

Once &.,l&in. Congr~eenl&n Hurl't:.er·,. we lJ.ppr-eciate your undr.tr·~t.andlriW cJf t.hi~ 

uu~tter & willingneetJ t.C> ear.ry our concerns befor·e t.he ConiO<re.,,.iou ... l 

Sub-Committee on National .Parks, !''crests, & Public Lands & eeek 1:.heir 

aeeiet&nce in J'roviding sound Jegi.slation to allow tt. me.ans cJf Rer1eible 

maintenance & management. of our v&.luable wildlife re.,ou''"""'· 

Reep&ct.fully youre, 

C:OHHISSION 
222 

Mr. HUNTER. It is not enough to give them a little strip of land 

along the border, because if you give them a little-bitty strip of 

land along the border these people penetrate into the bulk of these 

wilderness areas and it is basically going to become a safe haven 

for them. 

So for those three reasons-people, wildlife and narcotics interdiction-we would ask this committee to take a very careful look 

at this plan. And please take a look at the alternate plan that Mr. 

Lewis has headed up and the rest of us support. 

And I might say to finish off even the plan that we have devised 

has, I think, too many areas, in light of this Border Patrol analysis, 

on the border that can be penetrated by narcotics smugglers, and 

my recommendation would be that you eliminate anything that is 

close to the border. 

Mr. VENTO. So your point is that both the bill that you have 

sponsored and the bill that we are talking about has this area in 

the Yuma Desert. It is the only area that touches on the border, 

so it is Jacumba. 

Mr. LEWIS. Jacumba. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, the Jacumba area. 

Mr. VENTO. But that is in both bills apparently. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. And I am just quoting the border patrolman's letter to you. It says, "We in the Jacumba and Fish Creek areas 

almost daily with 4-by-4 vehicles or aircraft are detecting the illegal entry of aliens and drug smugglers." 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that is two ways to look at it. But I just wanted 

to add that point of clarification at this point. I don't know if you 

have to leave, Mr. McCandless, or Mr. Hunter. But if not, let me 

invite your colleagues to conclude their testimony and then we will 

ask you questions. Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Hunter and attachments follow:] 
223 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE 

DUNCAN HUNTER 

REPUBLICAN OF CALIFORNIA 

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

June 15, 1993 

Mr. Chainnan, I appreciate this opportunity to address the committee. 

In our continual pursuit to detennine what is fair and just for the American people, 

Members of Congress often lose sight of the views of the common man. Whether we 

address the federal deficit or reconfigure public access to health care, our purpose here is 

to represent the average American family who elected us as their voice on Capitol Hill. 

The measures we have before us today, Mr. Chairman, ignore this fundamental 

principle and threaten to lock-out Californians to over a tenth of their great state. As you 

listen to the testimony of my colleagues, keep in mind the views of those members who 

actually represent the desert areas in question---these are the members who have to live 

with the consequences of your actions. 

As you may be aware, H.R. 518 and S.21 would designate over 335,000 acres of 

my district as protected wilderness. Unfortunately, this designation ignores the Bureau of 

Land Management's determination of suitable wilderness areas as mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The public planning process 

established under FLPMA was designed to formulate a management plan that protects 

desert habitats without destroying local economies. This 15-year study compiled over 

40,000 public comments and came up with 2.3 million acres of recommended wilderness. 

I strongly believe this to be a fair and equitable compromise, the details of which are 

included in legislation I introduced along with Reps. Lewis, McCandless and Thomas, 

H.R.2379. 

A quick glance at the maps of either H.R. 518 or S. 21, however, will reveal a very 

different picture. Huge areas not recommended by the BLM would be locked away from 

any pnblic access, except on foot. Approximately 4 million acres would be encompassed 

by these bills, almost double the recommended area offered by the BLM. Neither bill 

addresses the concerns of wildlife in my district and neither bill assesses the damage it 

would do to my constituency. 

A little know~t fact that is ignored each year by the supporters of these lock out 
Statement of Rep. Duncan Hunter 

June 15, 1993 

Page Two 

224 

bills is that certain populations of wildlife depend on our continued access to these lands 

by vehicle. Due to scarce water resources, it is necessary to maintain water collection 

reservoirs or "guzzlers" in the desert for animals to survive. Over 300 guzzlers exist in 

the East Mohave and are maintained by hunters, private citizens and non-profit groups. 

H.R. 518 and S. 21 would prohibit access to wilderness lands by vehicle and to hunters, 

thereby destroying our ability to routinely maintain these guzzlers. Herds of bighorn 

sheep and deer, who thrive in my district, would slowly die off and become increasingly 

susceptible to disease. Mr. Chairman, I hardly think this is an example of responsible 

habitat conservation. 

Moreover, vehicular access is vital for the control of pests like the Whitefly and 

the Africanized Honey Bee and diseases like rabies and encephalitis. Abnormally high 

rainfall last winter gave rise to one of the largest mosquito populations the Imperial 

Valley has seen in years, and increased the risk of encephalitis. Without the ability to 

control these problems from the ground and from the air, my constituents would face an 

elevated health risk. 

Restricted access to these lands would also affect law enforcement activities along 

the California-Mexico border. All border areas in my district targeted by H.R. 518 and 

S. 21 are considered "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas" by the Department of 

Justice. Joint operations between the Border Patrol, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and local law enforcement would be 

severely damaged without unrestricted access to these areas (Tab 1). So far this year, over 

$514 million in illegal drugs have been seized by the Border Patrol and over $7.7 billion 

(street value) was seized over the last year by the Joint Narcotics Task Force in the high 

intensity areas of the Imperial Valley, primarily through sophisticated ground and aerial 

surveillance. There are also additional concerns that the provisions of H.R. 518 and S. 21 

would give a green light to establishing portable methamphetamine labs in wilderness 

areas. 

Rescue missions would also be jeopardized by the new designations. Imperial 

County Sheriff Oren Fox reports that an average of forty people need to be rescued from 

the desert each year. Many of these are illegal immigrants who often lack adequate 

supplies to face searing temperatures of over l20°F. Although they are immediately 

deported back to Mexico, some of these immigrants owe their lives to the rescue teams. 

A number of critical projects in my district would also be impacted by the California Desert Protection Act as well as by H.R. 880, the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1993. A proposed hydroelectric pumped storage project in 
Statement of Rep. Duncan Hunter 

June 15, 1993 

Page Three 

225 

the Fish Creek Wilderness could supply cheaper power to Imperial Valley residents if 

1,390 acres of the proposed 26,300 acres are excluded for construction (Tab II). Provisions in the Wilderness Act allow for the development of waterpower projects and I 

implore the committee to consider the benefits of this initiative. Regarding H.R. 880, the 

bill reflects a change in withdrawn acreage comprising the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 

Gunnery Range. During the last Congress, the version of the California Desert Protection 

Act passed by the House specified that this area would encompass the north halves of 5 

and 6, adjacent to the Mesquite Mine. I ask that the committee include clarifying report 

language (Tab III) recognizing this fact. Further, I believe provisions terminating the use 

of East Mesa and West Mesa Ranges as of January 1, 1994 would adversely impact the 

training activities of the military in the Imperial Valley. I therefore request that this 

language be amended to extend the withdrawal for 15 years, in concurrence with the 

China Lake and Chocolate Mountain Ranges. 

The damage caused by H.R. 518 and S. 21 would be most severe in our state on an 

economic level. The Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in my district is one of the 

most popular off-road vehicle attractions in the nation. Families come from all over the 

tri-state area to spend their vacations in the dunes. The Bureau of Land Management 

reported that this area received over 2.8 million visitor use days last year generating an 

estimated $1.9 billion in taxable sales for the entire Imperial County. In spite of this 

sizable industry, the Imperial County unemployment rate is at a staggering 22.5%. Between July and October of 1992, Imperial County had the highest unemployment rate in 

the nation at 33.6%. IfH.R. 518 or S. 21 are passed in their present form, Mr. Chairman, 

I can guarantee they will add to the economic hardship in my district. 

I have in front of me over 30,000 signatures of off-roaders from all over California 

who oppose these lock-out bills. Designating South Algodones as wilderness would 

Jock-out off-roaders from over one-third of the major OHV recreation area, over-crowd 

the remaining dunes and push traditional Imperial Dune users out of the county to find 

less crowded areas. A typical family of four will spend between $500 and $700 for a 

two-day weekend in the Imperial Sand Dunes (including food, gas, and vehicle maintenance costs). By making six of these trips per year with an average aggregate stay of 40 

days per year, it is easy to see the importance of providing adequate areas for off-road 

use. Without a reasonable desert management plan, the businesses that service offroaders and boaters would be forced to shut down all operations. 

Those in favor of the California Desert Protection Act would like you to believe 

that areas like South Algodones are pristine wildlife sanctuaries facing irreparable harm 
Statement of Rep. Duncan Hunter 

June 15, 1993 

Page Four 

226 

at the hands of off-roaders. The fact remains, however, that OHV recreation has evolved 

into a family-oriented event with organizations that promote environmental awareness. It 

is in their best interest to respect the areas they use and encourage responsible management plans. 

The BLM estimates the cost for law enforcement, equipment, materials and maintenance of a South Algodones Wilderness at close to $1.2 million in the firSt year and 

$604,800 each year thereafter. This is despite the fact that continual OHV use does little 

to these dunes that a good strong wind cannot repair. An important question to ask, Mr. 

Chairman, is who are we protecting these areas for? Do we really need to spend over $1 

billion of the taxpayer's money to acquire land they cannot use? The desert is a haven for 

hard-working families in California who cannot afford to vacation in Cancun or in the 

Bahamas. Without it, they lose an important resource. 

The Bureau of Land Management designated 2.3 million acres of desert as suitable 

for wilderness. Our bill, H.R 2379 embodies this rational approach allowing key lands, 

like the South Algodones dunes, to remain open for public enjoyment. H.R. 518 and S. 

21 contain serious flaws that will cause irreparable damage to my district if they are 

passed in their present form. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask the conunittee to consider the changes proposed by the 

elected representatives of the California Desert. These recommendations are in the best 

interests of the environment, indigenous wildlife, law enforcement, the military, small 

business and most importantly, the families who respect and cherish their access to these 

magnificent lands. 
June 15, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

PUblic Lands 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear congressman Vento: 

227 

.,.l8 ' 

U. S. BORDER PATROL 

Immigration d Naturalization Strvice 

1111 Nonb Imperial Avenue 

E1 Centro, California 922.43 

Offi" of rht Chit/Parrot At,PnT 

ELC 92/3-C 

I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with information 

which sets forth the El Centro Sector's concerns reqarding Senate Bill 

5.21, especially in the areas of general law enforcement, drug 

interdiction, and search and rescue. 

In the way of a little background, the El Centro Sector of the United 

States Border Patrol has responsibility for approximately 72 miles of 

international border between the United States and Mexico, the southern 

boundary of Imperial County. We have stations in Calexico, El Centro, 

Indio and Riverside, California and our area of responsibility extends 

into most of Riverside and some of San Bernardino Counties as well. 

In Fiscal Year 1991, we arrested 30,450 deportable aliens and seized a little over 11 million dollars in narcotics (wholesale value). In 

Fiscal Year 1992, we arrested 29 1 852 deportable aliens and seized 164.4 

million dollars in narcotics. As of May 1993, we have arrested 15,932 

deportable aliens and seized an all time record of 519.6 million dollarR 

in narcotics. Again, I stress this is a wholesale value. I can't begin 

to imagine how many youngsters on the street this amount of drugs would 

supply. You may have notjced thA dA~rease in arrqsts between Fiscal 

Year 1991 and Fiscal Year 1992, this was not because there was a lesser 

number of people entering the country illegally, but because we had 

fewer officers with which to do onr job, which brings us to the 

potentially disastrous situation with s. 21. 

We are concerned about all th'" propos<Pd arl!as in Imperial County, however, we are especially concerned about the proposed Jacumba 
228 

Page 2 

Wilderness area and the Fish creek area. AS you xnow, a wilderness 

designation means no motorized vehicles, only foot traffic or horseback. 

This would aake an already difficult job almost ~possible in view of 

the desolation and summertime temperatures of the areas in question. 

This, along with a short response time mandated by the close proximity 

of Highway 98 and Interstate 8 to the proposed JaCUlllba Wilderness area; 

which is utilized by smuqqlers to picX up their loads both aliens and 

narcotics, demands that our officers be allowed to utilize motorized 

vehicles for operations in these areas. Within the proposed Jacumba 

WilderneH area is an area know as Davies Valley. There is a road. 

through this area which runs from the MexicalifTijuana Highway in 

Mexico, all the way to Highway 98 near Ocotillo, California. This 

Highway has been a major thoroughfare for smugglers tor yearil and 

speaking from experience I can safely state that closing this area will 

not stop a smugqler from utilizing what would be left of the road to 

make qood his entry into the United states. They will simply ignore the 

fact that motorized vehicles are not allowed. There are also five (5) 

other well documented smuqqling corridors through the proposed Jacumba area. on one of these corridors, an existing road on the east edqe of 

the Jacumba area, ve seized 1277 pounds of cocaine valued at 

$41,000,000.00 durincr January of this year. A few months prior to that, we seized 427 pounds of marijuana worth $600,000.00. This seizure was made near Interstate a, riqht square in the middle of the proposed 

Jacumba area. Tbus far, in 1993. we have accounted for 197 entries made 

by people on foot and 19 vehicle entries in our west desert which 

includes the proposed Jacumba and Fish creek areas. In 1992, there were 776 human entriea and 18 vehicles enterinq throuqh this same area. 

Wa are in the Jacumba and Fish Creek areas almost daily with either 4 x 4 vehicles or aircraft. The purpose beinq to detect the illeqal entry of aliens and drug smugqlers. we do this by looking for tracks of both 

people and vehicles and ~y utilizing electronic detection devices which 

havA to M <:h .. .,lted "nd "EITVie<!>d nn a rP.'J'.Illlr t»>.,i.,. Vou """ ,.,. .. th"t H' 

we could not utilize low flyinq aircraft or had to walk into these areas or even utilize horses, the cost in manpower and response time would be 

incr@ased to the point that wo would probably just havo to ignore the 

activity in these areas and hope that we could maxe the apprehension after the 1!1111;U9'9'ler reached the highway. This, in turn, puts our operations in a di.fforont leqal arona, aubjocting our arrocta to 

different court decisions and in qeneral malting a successful prosecution more difficult. In silllple terms the creation of the JaCUlllba Wilderness area wiLl only create a no-mana land between the Mexican border and 

Interstate 8 and Highway 98 where an illegal alien or smuggler will be 

tree to roam at will or hide on United states soil until conditions are right for thea to cafely make their way further into the ~nitod State~. 

There is also a safety factor involved for our offj.cers as well as numerouo rooouc operations of people oouqht in thie deeolote terrain 
229 

Paqe 3 

without proper rooa ana water, as is otten the case. we did not keep statistics on the nuaber of deaths occur:rinq in the desert prior to 

1985. At that time with the cooperation of the Mexican officials we attempted to educate the potential entrant{s) as to t.he aanqers of 

attemptinq to cross into the United states through the deserts. We also 

altered our operations to ensure timely recponaes to any indicated 

traffic through the desert. The proposed JaC\Illl.tla and Fisn creeJC. 

wilderness areas have proven to be the most popular for use by aliena 

entering and. attemptinq to walk around our Highway 86 traffic chack 

operation. Since 1985 there have been 31 deaths in these desert areas. our officers have rescued 81 people that would have died had our officers not rescued them when they did. These people were already dehydrated and in bad shape. During this sue time frue, we made allout 

900 other apprehensions, all of which had thea same potentiel for 

disaster. I might add that a number of these rescues were made by our pilots who located the people and were able to land and acbaini~>ter first 

aid until a mobil unit arrived. 

We understand that someone has proposed to chanqe the language of the 

bill to give us access to a 60 or 100 foot strip along the border. I, 

think, you can see from earlier discussions in this letter how in 

reality thia would be of only very li:mited benefit. For a sucessful 

interdiction proqram we must have total and unlimited access to these areas. We have qone on record stetinq that we will assist any law 

enforcement agency in enforcinq whatever restrictions are finally 

arrived at for these areas. We feel that our presence will enhance and 

help to ensure the safety of the public that will be utilizing these areas. We must have motorized access to these areas to perform our duties and ensure the integrity of our llorders. 

I hope this information will be of help to you. 

anything more we will be pleased to do so. 

sincerely, (\ 

~t!!~.~~b .. ~. 

If we can provide 
230 

Magma Power Company 

June 14, 1993 

Hcoo.rablc Dwu:an Hunter 

133 Cannon House Offiee Building 

Washington, D.C. 205!5 

TAB II 

Magma is participating with the Imperial Irri~on District in the development of a Pumped Stonge 

&<:ility wbich is ill jeopardy if the boundaries of the California D=t Protection Act, HR. 518 is adopll:ld 

as presently indica1led in HR. 518. I am writing to ask for your support in excludini a portion of the Fish 

Creok Mountains Wilderness Study Area from H. R. 518, for possible Mute OOilStrUCiion of a hydroeloctric 

pumped storage project. This project would enable mtewable gccthennal eoergy to be utilized fur IJlCCtine 

the peak ~ nquimnents of the utility thereby cnhanci:na the value of the noopolluting geothermal 

pai'\'W. 

The area in questioll •••as once part of a military bombing range and would, most likely, have to be closed 

to the public:. We have already sent you copies of letters from bolh the Department of the Navy and the 

Bureau of Lalld Mallagemt:nt sta.tina that the an:a, known as S=tion 7, has never been decontaminated. 

The pa=l, loc:atcd on the ~em periphery of the mountain range, is the only identified loc:arion in 

Imperial County having the topograph.ical features necessary for a renewable me!iY project of this type. 

I greatly appreciat!: any assistance you might give this lli3I:W w!= H.R. 51& comes before the 

Sub<x>mmittee oa National Parks, Fomts, and Public Lands on Iunc IS. 

Sin=cly, 

MAGMA POWER COMPANY 

President 

fi:~!:·~ 

cc: .Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public La.nds 

4365 Exeololtlve Drive • Suite 900 • Son Diego. c..r.tomie 92121 • (6191622·7600 
231 

IMPfRIAl IRRibAII~~ ~I~IRI[I OPERATING HEADQUARTERS • P 0. BOX 937 • IMPERIAL. CALIFORNIA 92251 

GM-PI June 11, 1993 

Honorable Duncan Hunter 

133 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Hunter: 

I am writing to ask for your support in excluding a portion of the Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness Study 

Area from the California Desert Protection Act, H.R. 

518, for possible future construction of a hydroelectric pumped storage project. 

The area in question was once part of a military 

bombing range and would, most likely, have to be closed 

to the public. We have already sent you copies of 

letters from both the Department of the Navy and the 

Bureau of Land Management stating that the area, known as Section 7, has never been decontaminated. 

The project could be used by the Imperial Irrigation 

District to improve the efficiency of our electric 

system in order to reduce production costs and 

emissions. Both would result in benefits to our ratepayers and regional air quality. In fact, the 

south Coast Air Quality Management District and the 

california Energy Commission have stated that these 

types of renewable energy projects should not be 

included in the california Wilderness bills currently 

before the Congress. 

The parcel, located on the eastern periphery of the 

mountain range, is the only identified location in 

Imperial county having the topographical features 

necessary for a renewable energy project of this type. 
Honorable Duncan Hunter 

June 11, 1993 

Page Two 

232 

After consideration of the alternatives, I hope you 

will agree that reserving this small parcel for a 

renewable energy development is on balance the most 

environmentally responsible action to take, given the 

positive.effect this project would have on regional air 

quality, and is in the best interests of the people of 

Imperial County and our entire southwest desert area. 

I greatly appreciate any assistance you might give this 

matter when H.R. 518 comes before the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands on June 15. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ General Manager 

CLS:eey 
233 

• Report Language for H.R. 880, "The California Military 

Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1993:" 

"The approximately 226,711 acres to be withdrawn 

referenced in Section 2(b)(2) of this bill makes a minor 

boundary adjustment to the lands previously withdrawn for 

the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range by excluding 

approximately 640 acres (T.13S., R. 19E., Sec. 5N 112 and 

Sec. 6N 112) located at the extreme southern edge of the 

gunnery range. The availability of this approximately 640-

acre tract for multiple use under the public land laws is important to the economy of Imperial County, California and its 

deletion from the lands proposed to be withdrawn will not 

interfere with the purposes of the withdrawal." 

TAB III 
234 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas? 

STATEMENT OF BON. wn.LIAM M. THOMAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would also 

ask unanimous consent that a letter written by me to the junior 

Senator from California, Diane Feinstein, on January 3, and her 

response on January 5, be included in the record, without objection. 

Mr. VENTO. If you pass it up, I will look at it. 

[The document follows:] 
WILLIAM M. THOMAS 

(:()MMITT££$· 

WAYS AND MEANS 

HQUS£ AOMINISTAATION 

8UOGET 

l<tCliV!-.u.wtto~ntomua.nu..M4 

W-1~ OC 20$i$..()U0 

(202!115-2,1$ 

235 

((ongrtss of tbt 1Snittb ~tates 

~oust of 1\tPrtsentatibtli 

tlllla~ington, J)(. 205tS-oS20 

January 3, 1993 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

367 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washing~.c. 20510 

Dear Sena .tf~ 

-~-"""'us.TA'IT 

~1ltl!!ftiN£ M. A&OI.NATHY 

M'JIUe'fOFfiCU! 

• 100 T~tU~mM A¥t.. .-no ktnNJ.a. CA tHot 11011 32'1-U l! 

I$1W.J~Snur.#'tl5 

~CA.Hh 

(*OSI-.J...2U<C 

IJJO l'eK:t" ST~Uf, .203 

f"Jt11108Uoeii.CA'1344li 

1'05!773-lSJl 

It is my understanding that you plan to introduce 

legislation regarding the California desert soon after Congress convenes in January. As you know, efforts to enact similar 

legislation have failed in previous Congresses due to the 

controversial nature of this issue. 

Since certain areas of my Congressional district would 

likely be included within the boundaries of a California desert 

protection bill, I would appreciate your keeping me apprised of 

your efforts in this area. Many of my constituents live 1 work 

andjor recreate in the desert and would be directly impacted by 

the passage of such a bill. 

Specifically, I am concerned that your legislation would 

take into consideration the following issues: 

o the continued availability of grazing in those areas where 

it is deemed appropriate by the administering federal 

agency; 

o continued, unimpeded access to certain areas, to be 

identified by the Department of Defense, for military 

testing, training and evaluation purposes; 

o continued access to valuable mineral deposits in areas under 

consideration; and 

o continued access 1 where appropriate, for recreational use, includinq equestrian uses, hiking, off-road vehicles, 

hunting and camping. 

As you know, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 directed the completion of a comprehensive study of the 

California desert, which was to serve as the.basis of the Desert 

Conservation Area Management plan. I strongly believe that any 
236 

page two 

desert "protection" legislation should be principally based upon 

the conclusions and findings generated by this process. During 

the course of this study, over 100 public meetings were held, 

sixteen environmental impact studies were conducted and over 

40,000 comments from interested parties were considered. The 

results of this Congressionally-mandated study, based on such a 

high level of public input, should not be lightly dismissed. 

If your office needs further information on this subject, 

please contact my legislative assistant, Hans Steinhoffer, at x5-

2915. I am looking forward to working with you on this matter, 

as well as other issues of importance to Californians. 

WMT/hss 

~e~, 

WILLIAM M. THOMAS 

Member of Congress 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN 

-

237 

tlnitnl ~taru ~trultt WASHINGTON, 0C 20510.0504 

January 5, 1993 

Honorable William Thomas 

2402 Rayburn House Office Building 

washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Bill, 

Thank you for your letter of January 3, 1993, regarding the 

California desert bill. I appreciate your taking the time to 

share with me your concerns about the legislation. 

As you know, I intend to introduce the California desert 

bill on January 21. While my bill will be very similar to H.R. 

2929 as passed by the House in November 1991, I will be including a number of amendments in response to the testimony at House and 

Senate hearings. These amendments also will address several of 

the issues you raised. 

With respect to continued grazing in the California desert, 

my bill will allow grazing to continue for up to 25 years in the 

Mojave National Park rather than 10 years as earlier proposed. 

Grazing occurring in areas designated as wilderness managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management also will be able to continue. 

Regarding the Department of Defense, I fully appreciate the 

importance of the military testing, training and research 

activities conducted in the California desert. My bill will 

include a number of amendments to address the Department of 

Defense's concerns about continued access to certain areas in the 

desert for these activities. 

Regarding mineral resources, when the Calif.ornia des~rt bill was originally drafted, the boundaries were drawn to avoid known or potential mineral conflicts. Since then, the bill has been 

modified to accommodate a number of specific mining concerns. My 

bill will include these amendments. Additionally, I intend to 

amend the bill further to exclude the entire 31,000-acre mining 

claim block held by Viceroy Gold in the East Mojave. 

Regarding access, I agree that there should be continued 

access, where appropriate, for off-road vehicles, hunting, 

camping, and other recreational activities in the california 

desert. I believe my bill will provide the appropriate balance 

between these uses and resource protection. More than 33,000 

miles of roads and primitive routes providing access to desert 

lands will be unaffected by the legislation .• 
~8 

Finally, my bill is built upon many of the elements in the 

Bureau of Land Management plan for the California desert 

developed through the Congressionally-mandated study process. 

But it also recognizes additional concerns of the public and 

federal agency professionals regarding desert protection. For 

example, the September 1992 Field Institute poll found that more than 70 percent of Californians, including more than 70 percent 

of the people living in desert counties, support park status for 

the East Mojave as my bill will provide. I believe we must take 

into account this support and other public sentiment for more protection than that provided in the BLM desert plan. 

I have asked Kathy Lacey of my staff to stay in touch with 

Hans Steinhoffer of your office as the legislation goes forward 

and would welcome any additional comments, questions, or specific 

suggestions you may have about the bill. I look foward to 

working with you on this issue and other issues of importance to 

the people of California. 

DF/kfl 
239 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. "E~.Mr. Thomas? 

Mr. THoMAS. This is not new subject matter, and I come before 

the subcommittee in support of the legislation introduced by Congressman Lewis as the principal sponsor and supP.orted by those of 

us who represent the desert, primarily because 1t is the result of 

a congressionally mandated plan. There are 100 public hearings, 16 

environmental impact statements, mineral surveys, 40,000 comments, on and on, creating a documented public policy for arriving 

at a decision to use particular lands for particular purposes. 

In reflecting on the history of H.R. 518 and its companion Senate 

legislation over the last three Congresses, I believe there have been 

maybe a half a dozen ventures out into the area to try to take testimony from people. I think that is significant in terms of either the 

temperature of the hearings or the willingness to go out and actually get the answers that I think are absolutely necessary in making final decisions about land use. 

And I don't need to tell anyone, least of all the gentleman from 

Minnesota, about the difficulties or unanticipated problems associated with the Federal Government creating wilderness areas. In 

my district and areas that I have represented over the last decade 

we have created a number of wilderness areas: the Golden Trout 

Wilderness Area, the Machesna Mountain, Los Padres. 

What we tried to accomplish, and this process included getting down on the land itself, helicopter tours and horseback tours, was 

clearly excluding areas which (1) didn't meet anybody's criteria of 

wilderness, but (2) did not create the difficulty of inholdings. And 

when you examine H.R. 518 it is shocking, frankly, to discover that 

what is purported to be included in wilderness covers sewerage 

ponds, the Coachella Water Canal, private homes, abandoned trailer parks, and frequently used roads. 

It has been extremely difficult in the wilderness areas that I 

have in the Upper Sierra in attempting to buy out and go through 

the legal fights on relatively few in holdings. And, if you will simply try to get honest testimony from people who have to do the job 

of assessing and buying out the in holdings that would be included 

in this bill, that alone is hundreds of millions of dollars on top of 

any other costs that may be involved. 

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to show a map that was up here before or for the gentleman from San Diego to 

show a map and we look at a particular area and we say, Aha! And 

we relate it to another area and we say, Aha! And this one is red 

and that one is red, and we look at it on a piece of ~aper that, unfortunately, more often than not is 8¥2 by 11, and 1f it gets much 

larger than that-and I know you have now been out there a couple of times to appreciate the distances that we are dealing with. 

But, for example, one small insignificant detail in terms of moving 

an area currently controlled by BLM out of local offices in Inyo 

County and transferring the control of that to the Park Service 

without recognizing that between the two pieces of land are the 

Cottonwood Mountains, 15,000 feet high, and that to truly service 

it with the limited employee resources it is going to require a 150-

mile trip, when it is a 35-mile trip for the BLM, is to deal with a 

two-dimensional shuftling of acres for political purposes instead of 
240 

a truly sensitive understanding of people who love the desert, who 

made their life's occu:r,ation protecting the desert in government service and the impossible job that this bill imposes on them. 

Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that this subcommittee and 

committee will vote out a number of land-use bills dealing with 

California over the rest of this Congress, and at some point, although I know it is not required, but at some point it would certainly be an indication of an enlightened awareness of the legisla- tive activities of this committee if we were to bring together all of 

the bills passed out of this committee to examine the decisions 

being made in the area of desert tortoise land preservation, in the 

area of sequoia preservation, in the area of wilderness preserva- tion, in the area of desert preservation, because it seems to a number of us that no one has sat down and overlaid all of these poten- tial decisions on a map of California to fully understand the consequences. Not just in social and economic consequences, but also 

in terms of a rational reserve land use policy. 

Some of them make sense. Some of them in context with others 

make sense. But I don't know anyone who can honestly take a look 

at all of the proposed legislation-as I say, wait until you pass it 

out of committee-and then put it together and think this is a reasonable, coherent plan. Please, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to 

move significant, multi-million acre bills, please look at your left 

hand and look at your right hand and make sure that what you do is at least minimally coordinated, because it is going to have a 

direct impact on millions of Californians and indirect impact on 

tens of millions, and it will have a national impact as welL Please 

look at the coordinated aspect of a multiple of decisions that individuals see from an individual perspective and look at it collectively from a public policy point of view. 

And I thank the chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity totestify today on the California Desert proposal, H.R. 518. Though the 

number of the bill has changed, unfortunately, its content is substantially the same as that of H.R. 2929 from the 102d Congress. 

As a result, I must once again express my opposition to this legisla- tion. 

Contrary to what the sponsors of H.R. 518 would have everyone 

believe, their bill does not represent a compromise, nor does it represent how land management decisions should be made. Certainly the concerns of my constituents and of others who actually live, 

work and recreate in the desert, have not been given adequate consideration in the development of this legislation. As a result, I have again joined Congressmen Jerry Lewis and 

A1 McCandless in introducing alternative legislation to protect not 

only the California Desert, but the jobs of many who rely on the 

desert for their livelihood. The drafting of this bill, H.R. 2379, involved the kind of public input decision-making process that should 

be employed when major land use decisions are made. It represents 
241 

the culmination of fifteen years' effort to identify areas suitable for 

wilderness designation in accordance with a Congressionally-mandated plan, and takes into account the concerns of all groups interested in the desert's future. 

H.R. 2379 is the result of 100 public hearings, sixteen environmental impact statements, mineral surveys and 40,000 comments 

reflecting the views of all who use the desert. This study surveyed 

7.1 million acres of public land throughout California, and concluded that 4.8 million of those acres did not qualify for designation 

as "wilderness" because of existing roads and other factors. Therefore, through this process and as a result of public input, H.R. 2379 

provides for the appropriate use and protection of public land in 

California, and designates 2.3 million acres of true wilderness. 

In marked contrast, H.R. 518 appears to make raw acreage figures, not wilderness values or consideration of other interests, the 

primary determinant for deciding on wilderness. There are numerous sections of this bill that demonstrate how a public process 

would better serve our needs. I want to mention some of these 

problems to show what happens when the balanced approach is ignored. 

The bill creates wilderness and park land out of areas I never 

dreamed would be considered "wilderness" because they include 

sewage ponds, the Coachella water canal, private homes, abandoned trailer parks or areas with frequently used roads. When I 

helped produce the current Golden Trout, Machesna Mountain and 

Los Padres wilderness areas, I never sought to include these kinds 

of things. 

This bill will create never-ending nightmares for government 

land managers and private citizens. The handling of the area west 

of the Cottonwood Mountains is typical: H.R. 518 gives this area 

to the National Park Service, forcing Park Service employees to 

travel more than 150 miles in a circuitous route around this mountain range to administer an area Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) employees already conveniently manage from nearby local 

stations. 

The bill creates hundreds of thousands of acres of "inholdings"-

parcels of private and/or state property within the new wilderness 

and park areas. lnholdings, as anyone experienced with land use 

legislation knows, are a nightmare for the property owner and the 

government. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to buy these 

people out. We do not have federal land we can exchange for these 

properties. Federal properties available for exchange are already 

needed for other purposes such as mitigation for endangered species, including the desert tortoise, and wetlands protection. 

This bill also ignores the mineral potential of the California 

Desert. Eighty-one different minerals can be recovered from the 

desert. The bill's authors do not even know what they are asking 

you to give up. Of the seven million acres covered by H.R. 518, for 

example, five million acres have never been surveyed for minerals. 

Domestic industries that rely on minerals found in abundance in 

the California Desert will have to seek other sources of supply, 

both in the United States and abroad. 
242 

We have had family livestock operations in the desert for over a 

century, but this bill eliminates grazing in many desert areas even 

though there is no reasons to do so. 

For such reasons, H.R. 518 is not a compromise. It is clearly 

based on acreage rather than a thorough examination of the various interests and uses involved in the California Desert. The wisdom of Congress' decision to mandate the process by which BLM 

conducted an exhaustive, thorough study of the California Desert 

clearly shows that listening to all the public's interests and blending all of the factors included in the desert's future is the best way 

to reach a lasting agreement. 

Like the authors of H.R. 518, we are all seeking to achieve the 

same goal: Protection of a unique and remarkable resource. Millions of Americans use the California Desert every year under current conditions. In order to ensure that all Americans and their 

children have a chance to enjoy and benefit from this resource in 

the future, we need to enact truly balanced legislation, the kind of 

product that H.R. 518 clearly does not represent. 

Those of us who represent the California Desert do not accept 

this proposal and urge the members of the Subcommittee to reject 

it as welL 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Some would say California is represented 

on this committee. Others would say it is overrepresented on this 

committee, depending on your point of view, on both sides of the 

aisle. ·But in any case, hopefully, these members do bring with 

them an understanding of the area and the State. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lewis? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to express one more time my appreciation for your courtesy, allowing us 

to participate not just as witnesses, but also participate on the 

panel today. Because of that I would like to have permission to 

submit my complete testimony for the record and I will make a few 

comments and not take a great deal of your time. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Without objection, your statement will be made 

a part of the record. And Mr. Thomas' exchange of letters with the 

senior Senator will be placed in the record. 

Mr. THOMAS. The freshman senior Senator. 

Mr. VENTO. From California. Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I really 

am not certain I care for charts, but this was drawn up in no small 

part to give an outline of the best guesstimate of some of the experts inside the Department as to what the costs might be in contrast between H.R. 518 and S. 21 versus H.R. 2379. The latter bill 

is a bill that was recently introduced. 

[The chart follows:] 
243 

ESTIMATED lAND ACQUISITION COSTS OF DESERT PROTECTION LEGISLATION 

[Dollars in millions] 

H.R. 2379 S.2111i.R.518 

Estimated acreage of inholdings to be acquired for expanded wilderness and 

parlls ...................................................................................................................... . 400,000 1,000,000 

Total number of wilderness and pari<. proposals with significant 4 25 inholdings ........... ========= 

Estimated inholding acquisition costs ..................................................................... .. $335 $1070 

Estimated land transaction costs ............................................................................... ___ __;_ $47.5 ____ ...;__ $160 

Total land acquisition costs (Estimated) ......................................................... . $382.5 $1230.0 

Mr. LEWIS. Thereby it couldn't really be a part of this agenda. 

I think you will appreciate the reason for its lateness. I had every 

hope that as we move forward in this Congress that we would have 

a new opportUnity for communication with the Senate. Senator 

Feinstein and I have known each other for a number of years. I 

was very hopeful we would have an environment for a positive 

compromise as a result of that, so I held off introducing what essentially is the bill that we have had in the past, and it does reflect 

the work of that Public Lands Commission. 

Having said that, it is very important for me to share with you 

that much of the California Desert lands now lie in my district. A 

very significant portion of that desert territory which was in Mr. 

Thomas' district in Inyo County is now, as a result of redistricting, 

mine. In the meantime, all of the Members present on this panel 

share both an understanding of and a concern about the future of 

the California Desert. 

I want you to be reminded, Mr. Chairman, that I feel very 

strongly about my own credential relative to environmental concerns. I don't take these subjects lightly. As a member of the State 

legislature I was the chairman of a select committee that involved 

major issues of the environment. I was the author of language, or 

a bill that created probably the largest and certainly the most significant air quality management district in the country, a district 

on which board later my colleague Al McCandless served in the 

first sessions of that commission. 

I have introduced legislation to try to control what we call cactus-nappers who were coming across the Arizona and Nevada borders, where they used to send in trucks to steal desert cacti and 

sell them in the marketplace in those States not so far away. Indeed, here in the House I have continued to work in air quality 

matters with our colleague Henry Waxman, and we have had some 

considerable success in connection with that work. 

Having said that, my predecessors, Jerry Pettus, and when he 

was killed subsequently his wife, played a key role in the passing 

of FLPMA and establishing the process that eventually brought us 

here, and it was that early congressional action that expressed concern about a positive balance relative to the way the desert would 

be protected as well as be able to be used in the future. It is very 

important for me to have you know that once that process had gone 

forward and the Public Lands Commission had produced its product, the 15-member Desert Advisory Council after spending years 

drafting that plan. Their plan was drafted with widespread participation and support of environmentalists, conservationists, biolo-
244 

gists, ranchers, miners, off-road vehicle users-everybody who really has a concern and interest in our desert. 

When the/rocess was completed and the recommendations were 

finalized an signed by President Carter's Interior Secretary, Cecil 

Andrus, the report contained the following conclusions. The desert 

will continue to be accessible to people in vehicles as consistent 

with changing trends and needs. New power lines and probably 

power plants will have to be constructed in the desert. The objectives of the Congress and the public will have been achieved: multiple-use resource protection and sustained yield. 

These conclusions were drawn by the Desert Advisory Council 

after four years of study, 50 public meetings, and over 40,000 individual comments. It was the result of a very small group of people who I have chosen to describe as elitists that we eventually took 

off track that very important congressional process, and we have 

now been involved in the midst of a stalemate for a decade, and 

as a result of that very important desert lands have gone unpro- tected compared to where we would have been if we had just followed the process Congress established in the first place. 

It is important for me to take us back just for a moment to an 

item that you allowed me to question the Secretary about. It is an 

item that, really, we didn't focus on in the last Congress because 

the language that swirled around this subject area was developed in the committee in the closing moments before the bill came to the 

floor. But it involves those compromises that solve the problems of 

the California Teachers Association, of the public employees system, by way of, essentially, that language I have been referring to 

as the Catellus solution. 

To illustrate that, Catellus is the private land company that represents the interests of the Santa Fe Railroad and others. They have somewhere between 355,000 and 410,000 acres, I am not 

sure. We can't get a handle on the exact number left. But nonetheless, it is a major piece of holding that has to be settled before we 

can actually go to the other end of this process. 

In the language, Catellus has an extremely valuable asset essentially gifted to it by the Congress; that is, they have chits that can 

be traded for like property in the Federal holding, not just land in 

California, but values that might involve undervalued RTC property, for example, land in other States as was suggested this morning that would have to be approved by the Congress, but all understanding was that that would be part of the solution, essentially 

took this big vested interest and said, Friend, we are going to solve 

this problem and, you know, that will remove your opposition, 

members of the California Teachers Association, et cetera, et 

cetera. We all understand how that process works. 

Let's say we take some of those chits and we go up to the Bay 

Area where we are closing bases. Catellus could sell some of its values to another private interest, maybe a developer interest, and 

they might very well trade that value for, let's say, Treasure Island-small, maybe undervalued, RTC piece of property or a base 

closure property. 

Indeed, if I were a member of the board of directors of Catellus 

Corporation I would be chomping at the bit to be able to exercise 

those kinds of opportunities for my stockholders. 
245 

I was fleased to hear the Secretary say that he represents the 

people o the United States, not just special interests. I wouldn't 

suggest that really is the interest of this committee either. But 

clearly this language was designed to withdraw or take back the 

opposition of major power centers. The unions that represent the 

teachers, the unions that represent public employees, a force that 

might very well have dramatically affected the ability to move a 

bill out of this committee. 

But who is gointt to pay for those compromises? I would submit 

in the final analyms the f.ayment is going to be made by the American taxpayer, you and , at a time when the Congress has exercised its will through past, very _positive public affairs processes. A 

public commission held public hearings. We solved the problem, 

made the compromises, then a decade or so ago chose to walk 

away, and created this current circumstance, an environment that 

is so full of holes it is hard for me to believe the Congress does not 

want to go back and undo what it has chosen to do in terms of a 

new path. 

Mr. Chairman, I in the past have J?rided myself at being very, 

very careful about partisan considerations in matters of this kind. 

But for the record I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that early 

on I communicated with our junior Senator from California shortly 

after her election. Mighty close in that election, those two. In the 

meantime, I have known her for a number of years. She told me 

personally that she was not going to be an expert in this subject 

area. She had made a political commitment on the campaign trail 

and was going to go forward with what was essentially the Cranston legislation. 

It is very clear br, my discussions in the House that it is understood here that while she has to run for reelection just a year and 

a half from now that it is going to be her bill that goes through the process. There is no doubt in my mind that, while this bill represents something less than a park in the East Mojave, when we 

get through the conference process it will be a park in the East Mojave, because that is what some of those special interests want. 

And it seems to me that politics has gone a bit far in this process when you are talking about such critical concerns to the future economic interest of C8.lifornia. I will submit that the bill that will 

come out of conference will seriously threaten almost 20,000 jobs in Southern California, will lay the foundation to undermine one of 

the most important industries we have in the southland, the mining industry. It will cost the taxpayers so much money that I have 

chosen to go to the partisan extreme of suggesting that this bill 

when passed, which will be S. 21, will be remembered as the California Unemployment Act-the Feinstein California Unemployment Act of1993. 

Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further remarks for the record, but I do appreciate your courtesy. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JERRY LEWIS 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: 

Again this year, I welcome the opportunity to appear and testify 

as you consider H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act. 
246 

Over the past several years, I have addressed the complex issues 

raised by this bill and nearly identical legislation introduced by 

Senator Feinstein and her predecessor, Alan Cranston. Today, I intend to restate many of my previous questions and arguments 

while shedding new light on this committee's effort to craft a sound 

formula for managing the Golden State's crown jewel, the 25 million acre California Desert. 

I come to this position of opposition having compiled a proud 

record of sensitivity to environmental concerns. I would like to 

briefly share with you my long involvement with matters relating 

to the environment. As a member of the California State Assembly, 

I drafted legislation creating the South Coast Air Quality Management District. I also sponsored the Cactus-Napper bill, an attempt 

to control the illegal transport of cacti from California's public 

lands. More recently, I joined with Representative Henry Waxman 

in passing legislation to reauthorize a tough and flexible approach 

to helping this Nation's major urban areas meet ozone attainment 

standards. Our bill gained bipartisan support as well as an endorsement from many environmental groups, including the Sierra 

Club. 

My predecessors, Representative Shirley Pettis and her late husband, Representative Jerry Pettis, were instrumental in passing 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA] in 1976. 

FLPMA mandated a public planning process for California's public 

lands. A 15-member desert advisory council spent 4 years drafting 

a management plan for the desert. Their multiple-use plan, 

achieved through a congressionally mandated process, was drafted 

with the widespread participation and support of environmentalists, conservationists, biologists, ranchers, miners, off-road vehicle 

users, campers, rock collectors, and others. 

When that process was completed and the recommendations were 

finalized and signed by President Carter's Interior Secretary Cecil 

Andrus, the report contained the following conclusions: 

The desert will continue to be accessible to people in vehicles, as consistent with 

changing trends and needs . . . new power lines, and probably power plants will 

have been constructed in the Desert. The objectives of the Congress and the public 

will have been achieved: multiple use, resource protection, and sustained yield. (p. 

155). 

These conclusions were drawn by the Desert Advisory Council 

after 4 years of study, 50 public meetings, and over 40,000 individual comments. Nine hundred people attended Desert Advisory 

Council workshops and a plan was finalized at a cost to the American taxpayer of somewhere near $8 million. 

In virtually every important sense, H.R. 518 and its Senate counterpart S. 21, attempt to bypass this process. H.R. 518 and S. 21 

were originally drafted and introduced by an elite few behind 

closed doors with little public input. It is no secret that those most 

supportive were dissatisfied with the final compromise plan 

reached through the congressionally mandated (FLPMA) process. 

Consider how the FLPMA product was portrayed by the Los Angeles Times in its editorial of October 13, 1980. 

* * * The plan appears to protect the interests of preservationists while recogniz- ing the needs of m.mers, ranchers and utility companies. It is a balanced plan; no one group will be entirely happy with it, and that's a good sign. 
247 

Today, the subcommittee considers the legislation which reflects 

the preferences of the one group of elitists who walked away from 

the compromise. Indeed, to consider H.R. 518 is to circumvent the 

public process, to violate the public trust of those who committed 

years to the public process that culminated in a reasonable and 

comprehensive desert plan. In the eyes of this Member and a solid 

majority of my southern California constituents who live in, work 

in, and love the desert, such a violation is not only unbelievable but 

totally unacceptable. 

One of the leading obstacles to the permanent resolution of 

desert protection is the question of management of the East Mojave. I find it absolutely absurd that H.R. 518 would create a 1.5 

million acre national_park in the East Mojave at a time when the 

National Parks and Conservation Association has identified a $3-

$5 billion operations, maintenance and land acquisition backlog 

within the existing park structure. By their own estimate and in 

the East Mojave alone the Park Service would have to spend $16 

million to acquire private land. That $16 million would not improve 

the properties, it would merely compensate the existing property 

owners for the loss of their property interests. This compensation 

is only for private landowners. It does not even take into consideration the lands owned by the State and by Catellus Corporation. 

Furthermore, at the present time, six active mines operate in the 

proposed East Mojave National Park. I have always been open to 

protecting those areas where natural values exceed economic importance. However, it baftles me that areas which contain power corridors, roads, railroads, pipeline rights-of-way, an aqueduct and 

active mines can be considered of National Park quality. It also 

baftles the Park Service. 

The special features of the East Mojave are protected within the 

East Mojave national scenic area and carefully spelled out in a 

1988 management plan/repared by the BLM with extensive public 

participation. We shoul follow the recommendations of the professional land managers--they s:fifest reducing the acreage and carving out wilderness to avoid co ct. 

Let me now raise some important questions with regard to the 

way this bill could affect current and future uses planned for the 

California Desert. At a time when the entire Federal Government 

is facing tight budgetary constraints at every level, it is inconceivable that Congress and the administration could support a plan in 

which the price tag is presently unknown. However, 1t is estimated 

that this bill will cost the American taxpayer in excess of $1.23 billion. It is essential that we identify the public costs associated with 

this approach to transforming public lands into wilderness and 

parklands. I am informed that State inholdings total 244,000 acres 

and Catellus Corporation's inholding amount to somewhere between 355,000 and 410,000 acres that would be transformed into 

either wilderness or parkland in this bill. Those figures don't include the many individual inholders. Yet, this bill makes no attempt whatsoever to augment what almost everyone will agree are 

already inadequate resources for this new mandate. 

There are certain land exchange provisions contained in both 

H.R. 518 and S. 21 that, to say the least, provide for interesting 

public policy. Under this legislation, the Catellus Development Cor-
248 

poration-the real estate arm of the Santa Fe Railroad-would be 

allowed to exchange their land for other Federal rroperty-includ- ing devalued Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC holdings. These 

exchanges would be not only in California, but throughout the entire United States. H.R. 518 and S. 21 also authorized Catellus to 

transfer or sell their monetary credit to third parties rather than 

a Federal cash buy out. This is indeed a dangerous precedent. This 

interstate exchange provision is also a direct violation of section 

206 of the Federal Land Management Policy Act [FLPMA], 43 

U.S.C. § 1716, which implicitly prohibits interstate land exchanges. 

I do not want to raise vtsions of robber barons but, to extend these 

land exchanges to other States as well as include devaluated RTC 

properties for exchange puryoses does just that. With their average 

per-acre value of land estrmated at $1,000, Catellus will be afforded a credit account of nearly $400 million dollars. I suggest the 

committee take a long thorough look at the ramifications attached 

to this provision. The true emphasis of any land exchange provision 

should assist the small inholder-not large corporate interests. 

Nothing is more important to the desert than water. However, 

the passage of this legislation in its current form amounts to a very 

curious form of water policy. While H.R. 518 does reserve a Federal 

water right for each wilderness, there is no mention of rights-ofway to serve the small and big game guzzlers being maintained by 

the State. 

Proponents of this legislation argue that they have changes to 

protect all legitimate current uses of the desert. California's existing mining industry is a sector where high-pay manufacturing jobs 

are currently flourishing, however, if this legislation is enacted, the 

majority of these jobs will move to other states and most likely 

other countries. At the present time, the mining industry in the 

desert of southern California provides approximately 20,000 direct 

jobs. Mining in the desert contributed $3.09 billion to the southern 

California economy in 1989. According to one survey, the average annual wage for a local worker in this industry is $36,900. With 

the high unemployment rate in San Bernardino and lnyo Counties, 

it simply doesn't make sense to cripple a growth industry. In countries like San Bernardino and Inyo, the Federal Government already owns 75 percent or more of the entire land base. These countries are already heavily constrained by Federal ownership. They 

need the economic contributions that mining, grazing and other 

well-managed commodity uses can provide. 

The BLM, in the desert planning process, excluded some WSA:s 

included in H.R. 518 precisely because of their mineral potential. 

But they also found almost 2 million acres with significant resources to be suitable for permanent wilderness designation. That 

is called a compromise between uses. If this bill is enacted in its 

present form, the California mining industry will be confined to 

less than 15 percent of the 25 million acres contained in the California Desert. 

These economic limitations raise vital national security concerns 

as well. The California Desert is a repository for 24 strategic minerals including 97 percent of this country's reserves of rare-earth 

minerals such as Yttrium and Lanthanum. These substances are 

critical to America's competitiveness. They are needed for the super 
249 

alloys that allow us to build our latest generation of military airplanes. Their unique electronic properties are essential to the 

microchip industry of the Silicone Valley. 

This concern with national security brings us to the military 

withdrawal portions of this legislation. Several issues regarding 

military use of the desert must be addressed and permanently settled prior to the enactment of any desert legislation. These issues 

are as follows-the potential expansion of the National Training 

Center at Fort Irwin [NTC], the possibility of increased overflight 

at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

[MCCGCC], buffer zones between military activities and wilderness 

areas near the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range 

[CMAGR} and a moment corridor linking MCAGCC and the NTC. 

Much of our success in operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm 

can be directly attributed to the national training center at Fort 

Irwin. General Norman Schwarzkopf had this to say about NTCFort Irwin: 

I commanded the 24th Mechanized Division during seven different rotations at 

Fort Irwin * * * It is the best investment the Army has made in the 35 years I 

have been in the Army * * * The reason we did so well in the Desert Storm and 

Desert Shield, is because almost every commander we had over there had some kind 

of involvement in the NTC * * * 

Any solution must deal squarely with the real conflicts between 

solitude in wilderness and the irreplaceable weapons testing, combat training and low-level overflights which now occur routinely in 

this vast area. This is another prime example of a conflict that 

could have been avoided by abiding by the public process mandated 

under FLPMA. 

In its present form, H.R. 518 will also jeopardize the California 

Department of Transportation's [CALTRANS] ability to efficiently 

maintain the highways of the desert region and to make improvements necessitated by future growth. With regard to Death Valley's 

State Route 190, H.R. 518 is unspecific as to who would be responsible for maintenance-the park service or CALTRANS. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, during my 

years of service in the House, I have strived to seek bi-partisan solutions to our problems. I am not known for political excess. But 

I must say, as we come very close to the conclusion of this committee's work on this issue, this process has been driven far more by 

politics than by compromise. 

It appears that many of my colleagues in the House and Senate 

prefer lip-service to compromise. They do not appear willing to 

compromise in order to pass balanced desert legislation. I have 

worked hard and will continue to work hard, seeking compromise 

on the issue of desert protection. During Senate hearings on S. 21 

in April, Senator Feinstein indicated a willingness to negotiate. I 

have indicated a strong interest in working with her to develop an 

alternative plan which would protect pristine areas as well as vital 

economic interests. To this day, that offer has been met with silence. 

The same story holds true for this mining, off-road and hunting 

interests. They have all been asked to submit compromise positions 

and each has complied with that request. To my knowledge, all 

been rebuffed. Because most attempts to compromise have been 
250 

turned away-1, along with my desert colleagues-decided to introduce H.R. 2379, the California Desert and Employment Preservation Act. I remain hopeful that there can be some type of compromise over the many differences that remain between H.R. 518 

and H.R. 2379. I believe such a compromise is achievable. 

For years, Alan Cranston and more recently Dianne Feinstein 

have blamed Pete Wilson and John Seymour for the stalemate over 

desert preservation. To my friend and colleague I say, "Dianne, it's 

time to end the blame game. Let's pass desert legislation that balances both environmental and economic interests." 

If H.R. 518 or S. 21 pass in their present form, they will close 

down millions of acres of desert in the name of wilderness protection that in no way reflect those qualities that justify wilderness 

or national park designation. From an economic and environmental 

standpoint, H.R. 518/S. 21 is an extreme and costly proposition for 

the American taxpayer. It will close down much of the future of the 

mining industry in the west and will dramatically effect some 

20,000 jobs in southern California. Desert legislation must balance 

desert protection with economic preservation. The Feinstein desert 

bill falls this critical test. 

At a time of great economic distress in California, H.R. 518 and 

S. 21 will be known to those who live and work in the desert-as 

"The Feinstein California Unemployment Act of 1993." The American Taxpayer cannot afford this bill's $1.23 billion price tag. 

Mr. VENTO. The gentleman made some strong statements with 

regards to what the effect of the bill is. Am I right in understanding, Mr. Lewis, that your new bill is very similar to the version you 

introduced in the lOlst Congress and which was the subject of several hearings, including our California field hearings? 

Mr. LEWIS. As I recall exactly, there were approximately a half 

a dozen hearings that included at least the essence of that bill, in 

contrast to roughly 50 hearings that were held by the commission 

created by the Congress over a period of 4 years. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas, I assume your reference to the logistical 

problems associated with transfer of BLM lands to National Park 

Service management is a reference to the proposed expansion of 

the Joshua Tree area, or is it the Mojave area? 

Mr. THOMAS. There are a number of areas dealing with planned 

expansion of the park, the National Monument and withheld lands 

in and around Death Valley. In addition to that, in cavalierly shifting between Park Service and BLM and Forest Service significant 

acreage, it has been moved around on the map without a full appreciation of where the Federal employees of the various departments and agencies are stationed, and what their additional responsibilities would be if assigned new territory. And that alone, 

given the numbers of people that are going to have to look over 

enormous square miles of new territory, should be taken into consideration unless, of course, the chairman believes that on top of 

the hundreds of millions of dollars in dealing with the in-holdings 

we should cavalierly hire hundreds of additional new employees so 

that they can actually do in terms of their Federal job what the bill 

purports they would do. 
251 

Anyone examining the map, and understanding how far you can 

drive in a day, and what you can do in terms of 24 hours, know 

that what the map says is going to be done isn't going to be done. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that it is not unusual for the agencies 

like the Park Service and the BLM to enter an agreement to manage certain lands that are not Park lands, that may be BLM lands, 

or for BLM to sometimes manage other agencies', even other department's, lands such as Agriculture lands, to try to facilitate such 

problems in terms of logistics, in terms of in which jurisdiction the 

land is. So that is not an insurmountable or even a big problem. 

And the issue here is administrative feasibility and boundaries 

are important, and designations are important, and we try to make 

the decisions based on other characteristics which you have also 

addressed in your statement. 

Mr. THOMAS. :Nt:r. Chairman, if I might respond briefly? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. THOMAS. You certainly can take a piece of property that is 

currently under the jurisdiction of BLM, move it under the Park 

System because someone said they wanted to do that in a piece of 

legislation, and then have the Park Service negotiate with BLM to 

go ahead and continue to manage the BLM land. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. THOMAS. You can certainly do that from a partisan political 

position. 

Mr. VENTO. No. We would do it--

Mr. THOMAS. But from an administrative position, it doesn't 

make a lot of sense to make the transfer in the first place. That 

came out in the public hearings. That is evidenced in one piece of 

legislation. 

But the cavalier shifting of landholdings between agencies is one 

of the premier evidences ofH.R. 518. We can go on in terms ofvarious areas. 

Mr. VENTO. I would be happy to visit with the gentleman further 

about it. I am just suggesting it is not unusual for the agencies, 

or the departments even, from Department of Agriculture to Interior, to share administrative responsibilities in a way that does not 

necessarily relate to the designation or ownership or the land patterns. That is my point. Whether you suggest the motives of how 

that is done or why it is done is certainly another question. You 

know, I don't agree with him with regard to some of the designations. But that wasn't what my response was to you. 

Mr. Hunter, you had talked about some of the water maintenance activities such as the sippers which are used for the desert 

bighorn and other species which are generally, or may have been 

maintained for grazing activities. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUNTER. Say that again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. The sippers, the water areasMr. HUNTER. The guzzlers? Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Guzzlers-pardon me-yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Are they maintained for use of cattle, or are they exclusively used for wildlife? Most of these are not for cattle, are 

they? 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 9 
252 

Mr. HUNTER. No. These have all been, according to the Regional Secretary of the California Fish and Game, have been put together 

for wildlife, and I have got the breakdown of the areas where they 

exist. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I think it is important. I want to just attest to you that the BLM guidelines for wilderness provide for a 

methodology and means to, in fact, maintain such areas. This is a 

consideration clearly in terms of your view, because you are saying 

that they need to have motorized access in terms of maintaining 

these. I am suggesting to you that we had the similar situation in 

Arizona and other areas. As a matter of fact, this year we are going 

to dedicate, in August, a wilderness training institute and research 

institute in Montana which specifically addresses further formalization of such training for individuals and/or research which 

will enhance the ability in wilderness to maintain such activities. 

But they are maintained now in other areas. Maybe the numbers 

here are the reason or the conditions are somewhat different than 

in Arizona. 

Mr. HUNTER. A key is, Mr. Chairman, if I might address that, 

and this is according to Randy Rister of California Fish and Game 

who was instrumental in putting these things in, is that you have 

some differences. This isn't like going into a mountain area where 

you backpack in or you can take in mule teams easily to establish 

drinking areas. In the first place, you wouldn't need to do that in 

mountain areas because you have enough precipitation and natural 

springs. 

But this is a place where you have 120-degree heat in the summertime and where you have to cover literally dozens and dozens 

of miles. The desert, basically, is big distances. And, if you put yourself at the periphery of these big proposed desert areas and say 

that you have to go into the center, you may be talking about taking in a team of mules in 120-degree heat, 20 or 30 miles through 

the desert with massive backpacks, because in some cases you got 

to lay concrete. Because you have a very tiny amount of water coming out and you have got to be able to catch that water and hold 

it for extended periods of times. 

So according to the guy who put them in, and that is Randy 

Rister, who is an up and coming athletic, tough desert guy, he said, 

"These bozos in Washington who say we can do this stuff with 20 

mule teams don't know what they are talking about." 

And, Mr. Chairman, that is the essence of this thing. The desert 

means great distances. And for everybody from Ida Little, the 

grandmother in my district who has taken people for 20 years on 

tours of the desert flowers in these areas-Ida Little at 75 or 80 

years old is not going to get out with a backpack and be able to 

go a quarter of a mile before she drops in the sand. You have got 

to have a vehicle to be able to appreciate and get out and penetrate 

the desert in these areas where you have an interest, whether it 

is a family of four that have a particular camping spot where they 

have been for the last 15 or 20 years like some of the families we 

visited with or your grandmother who takes people on tours of the 

desert flowers or Fish and Game people who maintain the wildlife 

or the Border Patrol that have to interdict narcotics. 
253 

These border patrolmen, and that is another point, Mr. Chairman, they cut for sign right at the Mexican border and they see 

where these smugglers with cocaine have come across. They can't 

limit their search to a 150-foot strip on the border because by the 

time they find the footprints those people are well in the proposed 

wilderness area. They have to pursue them and track them. 

And that is why I would like to ask you to really look at this 

thing with some scrutiny in these various areas and see if maybe 

you haven't seen some arbitrary decisions putting this thing together. 

Mr. VENTO. We will pay attention to both of those points. 

Finally, I note, Mr. Lewis, that you have referred to this cacti 

smuggling that has been taking place in the California Desert by 

the people from.Nevada and Arizona. 

Mr. LEwis. Cactus-nappers. 

Mr. VENTO. Cactus-nappers. But you suggest that no one from 

California has been responsible for this. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, they are no longer a Californian. See, we automatically rescind their residency. 

Mr. HUNTER. We follow them with the source tax. 

Mr. VENTO. You only look to the east for problems, not to the 

west, I guess. Well, gentlemen, you have been patient. Mr. LaRocco is present 

and probably has a question or two for you. 

Mr. LARocco. Just two. Mr. Lewis, you had mentioned that 

there would be 20,000 jobs lost in what you called the California 

Unemployment Act. Is that in line with what the Secretary said 

with regard to the Viceroy mine? If the Viceroy mine were excluded 

and there was a line drawn around it, we would get uncertain 

whether the whole claim block--· 

Mr. LEWIS. It is exclusive of the Viceroy mine. That Viceroy mine 

has been a chapter in the process for a long time now, so they are 

not included in that guesstimate. It is very clear, however, that 

California's economy depends a great deal upon the mining industry, especially the region that we are talking about. It is one of the 

fundamental industries. The numbers of jobs are difficult to guess- timate, but those are attempts to be conservative about the real 

impact upon our economy at a time when California is in desperate shape economically. 

Mr. LARocco. But mainly mining industry jobs? 

Mr. McCANDLESS. If I may respond to that? 

Mr. LARocco. Sure. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. I might be able to focus in on a little different 

area. Let's take the little community of Blythe, for example, which 

is approximately 8,000/eople. It has a large population of motels. 

During the early perio of this program of the Desert Council the 

people in Blythe were after me like they would like to tar and 

feather me because they visualized that they were going to lose a 

lot of what they had in the way of weekend and other types of vacation economy. One of the gentlemen who came up to me owned 

one of these smaller motels, and he said, "McCandless, I want to 

tell you that 22 of my rooms last weekend were taken by people 

who were out visiting the desert area, and now you are going to 

take that away from me by making this a pristine area. I don't 
254 

want to have anything to do with you and I am not going to vote 

for you next time." That is an example of one person, yes. But the 

fact that he had 22 rooms that weekend rented to people that we 

are referring to here who enjoy the desert, and the fact that down 

the street not too far the Safeway store parking lot had a considerable number of campers on pickups getting provisions to go on out 

into the desert to camp, was indicative that this economy of Blythe 

relies heavily on this kind of activity and usage of the desert. 

And so you multiply that by Ehrenberg across the Arizona line, 

Parker, Vidal Junction, Needles, Barstow, Desert Center, Chiriaco 

Summit-we could go on and on and on. It collectively has a substantial economic impact if these people are restricted to the degree that the bill we are currently looking at does. The incentive to 

want t.o go to the desert will not be there because it is off limits. 

Mr. LARocco. Are you sure they weren't loading up those RVs 

to go to Idaho? 

Mr. LEWIS. A possibility, Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Yes, Mr. Hunter? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. LaRocco, I load up my RV to come to Idaho and 

try to leave with an elk as often as possible. 

Mr. LARocco. Joe Parkinson told me. 

Mr. HUNTER. Joe doesn't get his elk usually. 

Mr. LARocco. I know. 

Mr. HUNTER. No, I am just kidding, Joe. I know you won't read 

this transcript. 

Let me give you another aspect of this economic devastation. Of 

the 2.8 million visitor-days at just this little piece of dunes, sand 

dunes, the South Algodones Dunes next to the Mexican border, and 

this is something Herman Snyder is here with the Off-Road Coalition, but they have done some surveys and the average person there or family that comes to those dunes spends between $15,000 

and $80,000 on their off-road vehicles. Now that may be anything 

from a couple of 4-wheelers to some of these very, very expensive, $20,000 dune buggy rigs that will hold the entire family while you 

go over the dunes. 

And the building of these dune buggies and these off-road vehicles has become a California industry. One gentleman showed me 

his rig, which he was going over the dunes with with his family, 

that he had bought turnkey from a California company, manufactured totally in California, $20,000. So if you multiply that $15,000 

to $80,000 in off-road vehiclejurchases, you can see there is an 

enormous industry built aroun off-roaders. 

Beyond that, just the two little communities there next to the 

dunes, El Centro and Brawley, in my district, reported $67 million-$67 million in annual taxable sales as a result of these visitors to the dunes. So this is not only a very important quality-oflife issue to the blue collar folks that enjoy the dunes, but it is also 

an industry for the people that make the vehicles. We got one gas 

station that goes from 800 gallons a day to 10,000 gallons a day 

during off-roading time in a little town that is similar to the one 

that A1 McCandless talked about. 

And just to give you an idea of the impact of this, when I was 

out visiting a couple of weeks ago I asked my off-roaders, I said, 

"Get me some signatures from your people," and within a couple 
255 

of weeks they have provided us with 45,000 signatures from people in my district. Forty-five thousand, mostly working people, who 

say, "Please don't close down our desert." That is what we are looking at in terms of economic impact. Mr. LARocco. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, just briefly-! did not hear a response as you reviewed the concerns that were mentioned, and I 

do have a very serious concern about our ability to resolve 

inholdings. I wonder if the chairman has any concern about that 

as well. 

Here is the problem. A lot of the land has to be made on a like 

exchange basis, if we try to persuade people to make exchanges. 

We are finding that given the extensive government-held land that 

it is a very difficult thing to do now, much more difficult to do now 

than 10 years ago, because of the need to mitigate for endangered 

species. That when you take the endangered species law, the miti- ~ation-and, believe it or not, when you talk about the desert there 

1s still a wetlands problem by definition in certain areas. And when 

we have to buy out these properties-a number of people were 

there because they wanted the land, and they are looking for a 

land exchange. And we are running out of options for land exchange, and the only other way I know is to up the bidding in a 

way that we buy them out. 

And given the extensive in-holdings in this bill, it will be hundreds of millions of dollars to buy them out, not to mention the exchange problem. Does the chairman see any potential problem in 

that area? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that the response to the question is 

that there are some unique provisions. The major provision deals 

with what has been referred to as the Catellus Development Corporation. In any case, the problem of inholdings within public land, 

whether it is BLM or within a park-designated area, persists. We have had, I would remind the gentleman, a backlog. Some 

would claim it is very high. I think it is overstated somewhat. In 

terms of the value going up, when we designate a park everyone complains about it but then the value goes up very quickly for the 

lands in and around it, which is always a concern to us because 

it sort of compounds the problem of value. The park actually does 

increase its value. So I would not try to convince my colleague, Mr. 

Hunter, of that today, but I would say in terms of its recreation 

value and the other attributes that are important, it is something 

to think about. We seldom try to justify the park designation on 

that basis. 

Getting back to your question, this provides the opportunity, as 

the Secretary said, from the public domain some 270 million acres 

of land to try and block up. I might say that I think that the agencies historically have been less than cooperative in terms of trying 

to block up land, whether it is the Forest Service and/or the Park 

Service. 

And so trying to facilitate that process, this goes beyond the 

State of California, where, of course, the options would be more 

limited, to embrace and look to other areas to try to block up the 

land. So I think it always is good to bear in mind if the trades and 
256 

the exchanges don't go forward that there is potentially a liability in terms of extinguishing whatever claims are there on a dollar 

basis, although that is not possible to do other than on a willing 

seller/buyer basis in wilderness areas. In parks it is a little different proposition. But they would have to come back before us to 

facilitate these exchanges, which we expect would be larger. So this 

really would put them on a path of tryin~ to avoid the conflicts in 

land use. That really is what we are talking about here, although, 

as I said, there are some parks that have been around for a hundred years and still have inholdings within them, and it isn't par- ticularly a high priority to eliminate some of those inholdings on 

the part of Administrations past and/or current, especially with 

what they are asking be appropriated from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

But it makes the job of administration much more rational to 

have these lands somewhat blocked up. And we are moving. In 

fact, we have, the committee has, really, with the instigation of the 

past Administration and then Director of BLM, Cy Jamison, finally 

come to meet issues in Utah for Mr. Hansen and Mr. Owens and 

now Mrs. Shepherd and others, Senators Gam and Hatch, and now 

Senator Bennett. We have worked to bring t?iether a conclusion to 

a land exchange there which is pretty significant in terms of the 

school sections dispersed throughout the State, really based on 

Governor Scott Matheson's efforts to do that. 

So I think we are moving in that direction, Bill. Quite aside from 

the merits or demerits of this legislation, I think there is some 

hope here. And again, you know, the Congress has been very reluctant to grant the land management agencies authorities to do 

things like this because of Members concerns, like you care about 

what happens in Inyo County. Or now maybe Mr. Lewis cares more 

about what happens in Inyo County, I don't know, in terms of the 

boundary lines. 

So, that is to say, we have reserved onto ourselves the respon- sibility to act on these particular measures, not to let them transfer 

administratively. We don't. And, as a matter of fact, if you look at 

land-use law, we don't trust the administrators of land very much. 

We have been very jealous about what we have done and very careful because of the profound effect it has on the myriad of concerns 

that you have raised here toda.f' 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Hunter? 

Mr. HUNTER. I just wanted to respond to oneMr. VENTO. Don't encourage me. I get carried away. 

Mr. HUNTER. I just want to respond to one thing that you said 

because you mentioned the fact that parks typically will track economic activity and we have mentioned economic activity, and I 

have here the tristate impact is $2.7 billion, according to the OffRoad Association-that is California, Arizona, and Nevada-as a 

result of off-roading. 

But I just wanted to say that I am a backpacker. You probably 

are too. I have backpacked every State in the West except Washington. And I backpaCk the mountains. 

And I guess my question to you is, if we are ~oing to proceed on 

the presumption that people are going to come m and backpack in 
257 

these desert areas like the Algodones Dunes, when was the last 

time you saw somebody with a backpack on hiking through sand 

dunes? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it is tough walking, you know. But we have got 

these new skis we are putting out. 

Mr. HUNTER. I think we are talking about essentially locking out 

people. 

Mr. VENTO. My concern-! think there are a lot of surveys on 

tourism and the value of parks. I don't try to justifY the designation of lands on that particular basis, although l was referring really to the land values more so than the other issue that you raise 

in terms of probable tourism and dollars that are attributed to it. 

Parks generally come out pretty far ahead, I think, in those types 

of analyses. We have a lot of people around that are far more expert than I, but I seldom, as I say, try to justifY the action of designation on that because there are other things that we look to in 

terms of the significance of it--the feasibility of the management, 

the appropriateness of that designation. So I choose not to contest 

or to advocate parks on that basis from my own perspective and 

judgment. 

We are concerned about impacts. It will be changing here to a 

different type of a user. There is no question about that. I looked 

at that area, incidentally, and it appeared to me that there were 

some areas that would not be designated wilderness or parks. It 

would remain open, obviously, to the off-road vehicles depending 

upon how BLM would manage it. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. Let me just address that very quickly because 

I asked that question also when I went out and spent some time 

with my off-roaders, and they pointed out to me that the places 

where you have some fatalities, and over the years you will have 

a few, are where people are very close together. 

Mr. VENTO. Oh, yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. You could see a lot of people working the dunes as 

they were talking about this. The real impact of this closure of very 

large areas like the South Algodones Dunes, which is their favorite 

area, results in having all the people compacted into very small 

spaces. And they said if you are looking at a situation where you 

are going to have less safe conditions for people who are using their 

4-wheeler drives or dune buggies it is going to be this post-park 

designation where you have all of the off-roaders packed into fairly 

small areas and therefore have close proximity. 

Mr. VENTO. That brings up another question to me, I guess. 

When you are done questioning me, just let me know. 

Mr. HUNTER. We have got a few more to roll back at you. But 

I guess my question, since you asked me, Mr. Chairman--

Mr. VENTO. My point in terms of that would be that I expect that 

the concern is you are faced with the prospect of permitting activities and limiting the numbers, which we have had to do for some 

very popular wilderness areas like the Boundary Waters Canoe 

Area in Minnesota, which is a real challenge. It is interesting, anyone who would want to go that place that far remote and that cold 

where there would be a permitting process. But nevertheless, a lot 

of people want to. Some object to it on that basis, you know. 
258 

I expect where you have the type of population that you have in 

California they might be facing those types of questions with regards to utilization of resources safely, and there may be a threshold you would accomplish or get to quicker with this legislation. 

But it may be something that you face, in any event. 

Mr. Hansen has now shown up, but he probably hasn't any questions of his colleagues. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me apologize, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to my 

colleagues here. I had another meeting and I got over as soon as 

I could. I appreciate your testimony. I have got it here. I will try 

and read it as soon as I can. But I would like to ask a question 

or two, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lewis, we have got these two bills in front of us at this particular time. I am given to understand that you also have a piece 

of legislation, which I assume will be supported by all four members of the panel. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. LEWIS. That is correct, Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Tell me a little about your legislation, if you would. 

Mr. LEWIS. We have outlined the cost contrasts on the chart up here, Mr. Chairman. It is legislation that you have had before you 

before, and you have been more than kind to discuss that with me 

in the past. It is a reflection of the Congress-created Public Commission's review. That lands body spent 4 years taking testimony 

at public hearings, et cetera, et cetera, and this essentially was 

their product. 

I might mention to you, Mr. Hansen, as well as Mr. Chairman, 

as a way of closing up my own testimony, at this moment I feel 

it is time to get to what my friends often accuse me of. It is a thing 

called GGS. For the vernacular, that is "good government stuff." 

Mr. Chairman, it looks to me as though you and Mr. Hansen and 

your very staff and committee members are going to produce a 

product that has a chance of becoming law this year. That is going 

to go through the process of the conference dealing with the other 

body. I would really hope that this committee and your staff would 

take the time to close the door and sit down with the highest level 

personnel within BLM and the Park Service, close the door sans 

the other body, and ask them what they think about some of the 

management problems Mr. Thomas is referring to, some of the 

changes that could be made internally that would make this a 

much better bill, a much more viable product in terms of your real 

interests relative to the environment. 

They have talked to me personally behind those doors. They are 

not getting a hearing in the process in the other body, in my judgment. You could be of real service if you just take those steps as 

you prepare to go to conference with the other body. 

My bill, Mr. Hansen, is only a reflection of that long public hearing process and reflects the interests of those of us who live in the 

desert. I really do not expect that it will have much of a chance 

of moving further than this commentary today. 

Mr. HANSEN. I was with you, you may recall, in Barstow, 

Califomia--

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN [continuing]. A couple of years ago. I rarely have 

been to such an interesting and lively hearing in my life as those. 
259 

It looked to me like thousands of people were crammed into that 

one building, all of them wanting to be heard. Mel Levine was 

chairing it, as I recall. 

If I may ask a question to whoever wants to respond. AB we listened to Secretary Babbitt, and no disrespect to the Secretary or 

anybody, but there was a lot of things brought up that fly in the 

face of the 1964 wilderness bill. Things such as roads especially always bothers me. It seems like we go out of our way to violate our 

own laws regarding roads. The issue of hunting came up, which 

was referred to. The issue of mining. The Secretary made a big 

point of the mining being illegal in many areas. I don't know if that 

was the word he used, but he thought they were kind of fly-bynighters in those areas and making a mess of things. The issue of 

military flyovers was something that we discussed. 

It really bothers me in a way. We pass laws around here like the 

1964 wilderness law, and I have worked on so many wilderness 

bills in the years I have been here and most of them fly in the face 

of our own law to a certain extent. I guess that is why some people 

are trying to change the designation of some of our roads, for example. 

Would anyone like to comment on those statements? Mr. Thomas? 

Mr. THoMAS. The gentleman from Utah, in my testimony I indicate that in my area, formerly in my area in Inyo County, which 

is now Mr. Lewis'. We have traded it back and forth over a decade. 

Let me say it is the second largest geographic county in the United 

States and 93 percent of it is government-owned, and so they need 

more than just one person to help them when they are told they 

need even more government land. 

When we were creating the Golden Trout Wilderness up in the 

Monache Meadows of the High Sierra we walked, we helicoptered, 

we went by horseback, we took sight lines, we examined areas that 

had been impacted by man, and we attempted to create areas 

which would minimize the problem of including traveled roads, 

paved or otherwise, developed areas, canals, running water, which 

are going to have to be maintained, and other activities. There are 

ways to mitigate these problems. For example, we cut the 

Domelands Wilderness Area just west of the road. There was great 

clamor to do it on the crest of the hill to include the road. It made 

no sense whatsoever if you were on site looking at the decision. But 

if you were somewhere else and you were blocking off acres on a 

map, you wanted to go to the crest line. 

We were able to do this with the help of of the then national 

president of the Sierra Club, who is a friend of mine. We sat down 

and we initialed the map and we said, "This is where the line 

should go," because it made sense. 

But you have in H.R. 518, and its companion legislation in the 

Senate, wholesale incorporation of a number of in-holdings and activities which will not allow a reasonable administration according 

to the Wilderness Act. It makes no sense if you are out to create 

a workable structure. It makes all kinds of sense if you are doing it for politics. 

Mr. HANsEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Hunter, I know you spend a lot of time hunting. 
260 

Mr. HUNTER. Let's keep that off the record, Jim. [Laughter.] 

Free time. Free time. 

Mr. HANSEN. I won't go any further than that, except to say I 

am sure you have been very active in some of that particular area. 

The Secretary felt that the hunting in the area was minimal, even 

though there was a list of six or seven species that people hunted 

in that area and quite a few user days, so to speak. 

Would you like to comment on the hunting potential of that 

area? 

Mr. HUNTER. Sure. 

Mr. HANsEN. Because that seems to be an issue that is going to 

come up on this bill. 

Mr. HUNTER. I think this is an important issue and, yes, I like 

to hunt and fish, and all the Hunter boys go out and spend their 

spare time with dad when I can pull them away from the city and 

spend a little time in the outdoors. And the key is, and once again 

this goes back to the central theme of why hundreds of thousands 

of California blue collar folks like the desert. It is not because you 

fill up your gamebags with a tremendous amount of game, but because you have some elbow room to get out there with your kids, 

with your family, and spend some time. 

And, in fact, the Secretary is a little bit wrong with respect to 

at least my district that I can speak for, because of the fact that 

our volunteer organizations-most of whom are hunters, incidentally-have gone out in this 120-degree heat and put in these guzzlers. They have developed these water sources for game and we 

now have about 300 of them in my congressional district. They 

have gone out and they have built them, and they have brought 

back a fairly sizable population of desert mule deer along with 

small game, rabbits, quail, et cetera. So we actually do a lot of 

sportsmen days now per year that are being exercised by California 

families, at least in my district, and the statistics I have seen with 

respect to the Mojave indicate the same. 

But once again it is not whether or not you come back with a 

large trophy or you get a lot of game. It is once again the fact that 

a lot of folks in California can't afford to go fly fishing in New Zealand when they get some time off, unlike a lot of the proponents 

of this bill. And they like to be able to put the kids in the camper 

and drive 50 or 60 miles into the California Desert, ~et out with 

a 22, hunt for some jackrabbits with their teenage kid, and they 

may not get any jackrabbits, but they have got some elbow room 

and they have got some time to spend, and some elbow room and 

distance to spend with their kids, and that is what is important. 

So there is hunting in the true definition of hunting, and that is, 

spending a lot of good quality family time with your family and 

friends, available in the California Desert and we should not foreclose that. 

Mr. HANsEN. Mr. McCandless, do you want to respond to any of 

those issues? 

Mr. McCANDLESS. You talked about roads and that is a very sensitive subject with me, because it is difficult to define in this bill 

proper usage of what I consider to be established desert roads. It 

is my understanding and memory that if a road is not maintained 

by some type of device, apparatus or piece of equipment on a regu-
261 

lar ongoing basis, that it is not to be considered as a recognized thoroughfare or road to get from one point to the other. 

The Southern California Desert began with these desert roads, as 

we call them, when they used teams of horses and buggies to come 

west with wagons, and when the stagecoaches traversed back and 

forth. From that came then the automobiles, and now it is called 

Interstate 10 from Phoenix to Indio to Los Angeles. And off Interstate 10 are many private holdings of property that are used for 

recreational purposes, but in many cases these roads because of 

their characteristics are determined to be not applicable as they go 

through certain terrain, and therefore that terrain shall be considered wilderness eliminating the availability, or accessibility, I 

should say, from a main thoroughfare, be it interstate, a State, or 

a county road into where their property is owned, because of the 

type of road involved. 

This is an area that really should be addressed in this bill, to 

permit access to m~or portions of private property. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the comments from all of 

you gentlemen. Just let me say respectfully, in my years on this 

committee I think the people who really get snookered on wilderness are those people who want access. When you get right down 

to it access becomes the key. Having been the author of the one 

wilderness bill in the State of Utah and working on others, people 

who feel they can walk into a wilderness area or drive into one are 

kidding themselves. 

We passed the 1984 Utah wilderness bill on Forest Service. I still 

remember my office was flooded with calls from people in Utah 

that said, "I can hardly wait to get into that wilderness area with 

my RV." What a shock for a lot of folks, if I may say so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your participa- tion this afternoon. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank ~ou, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I had some information I referred 

to. Could we put that in the record? 

Mr. VENTO. Submit it and we will look at it. 

Mr. HUNTER. Oka,y. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen and I will make a decision on it. Thank 

you very much. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BILL HORN, THE WILDLIFE LEGISLA· 

TIVE FUND OF AMERICA; ELDEN HUGHES, DIRECTOR, 

DESERT PROTECTIVE COUNCIL; DAVID J. SIMON, NATURAL 

RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER, NATIONAL PARKS AND 

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION; AND A. AARON MEDLOCK, 

ESQ., DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, THE 

FUND FOR ANIMALS 

Mr. VENTO. We have a seeond panel here this afternoon. Leading 

off is the former Assistant Secretary of Interior, Mr. Bill Horn, 

Wildlife Legislative Fund of America he represents now; Elden 

Hughes, the Desert Protective Council; David Simon, the National 

Parks and Conservation Association; Aaron Medlock, The Fund for 
262 

Animals. We want to thank them all for their patience and for 

their participation again in a hearing on the California Desert. 

Your statements have been made a part of the record in their entirety. What I would like each of you to do is to try and summarize 

your statement in about 5 minutes. We are about halfway through 

the number of witnesses right now, but admittedly there are quite 

a few Members of Congress that participated and it takes a little 

longer for them to conclude remarks than for anyone else. I think 

that is because of the tough limits we operate under in the House 

in terms of time. So if you give them a little leeway they tend to 

use it and use it well. 

Mr. Hom, welcome back in your new role. 

STATEMENT OF BILL HORN 

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be back 

before the subcommittee, and I have the pleasure and honor to appear today on behalf of the sportsman coalition consisting of the 

Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the National Rifle Association, the Congressional Sportsman Caucus Foundation, Safari Club 

International, United Conservation Alliance, the Foundation for 

North American Wild Sheep, and the Foundation for North American Big Game. This coalition represents millions of American 

sportsmen nationwide and in California. It urges the subcommittee 

to adopt an amendment to pending legislation to change the designation of the Mojave area from a proposed national monument or 

park to a 1.5-million-acre national preserve. National preserve designation within the national park system has been used in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, and Texas to protect important ecosystems and allow hunting and wildlife management activities to continue. 

Designating the Mojave area a national preserve under National 

Park Service management will conserve the natural values of the 

area and enable important hunting and wildlife management activities to continue. And, as the committee may know, the preserve designation was specifically created by this committee in the early 1970s to facilitate hunting and to provide for wildlife conservation 

activities, and adopting a preserve amendment for the Mojave area 

would enable the subcommittee to act consistent with 20 years of 

legislative precedent. 

The amendment that we have proposed also includes language 

specifYing that the California Department of Fish and Game would 

continue to regulate the wildlife management, including hunting, 

in the Mojave National Preserve, and this language is similar to 

provisions of law previously adopted in Alaska, Florida, Alabama, 

and Texas involving the other preserve units. 

Let me also add that the California Department of Fish and 

Game continues to believe that BLM management of the Mojave 

best serves its wildlife management interests but has stated in a 

recent letter that the preserve alternative is more consistent with 

its wildlife man8¥ement objectives and goals than would be Park 

or Monument designation, and I would like to submit a copy of that 

letter, dated June 11~ .. to the clerk for inclusion in the record. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Witnout objection, it will be included. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

[The letter follows:] 
263 

!'~ (11 ~.,......_.,~ t!liOUICI;;,.' ;;-::::::;;'-·----~---..-,----------......;"";:.:.:..;::-;;;:;::.;;.; __ _ 

OEPAIITMI!NT OF Fl511 AHO GAME .. , .......... , •<>101 .. _ ~IIWNtO. (A .._,,.. ,,....,. 

The ~onoraDle Pianne feinatein unite~ Stat•• Sonata 

Ktrt senate ottice Bu114t"9• Suite )31 W•ahington, o.c. 20510 

The Cali!o~nia o.,art•ent of Pieh and ca~• ie vitally int~ratttd in the protection of the aoutnern C•litorn1a daeert. 

Por many yesra, our atatf hae vor~ed with tho ~~11e, land 

ovnerc, •nd other State and redaral •v•noiaa to ~&na9& and 

protect ~h .. fiah, wildlife, an4 rtativo plantll that Uvo thara,. 

while invrc~sinq our eoient1tic kno¥ladqe of the 1iYih9 6aaart. 

I halieve tnet your bill s.~l. the Desert Protection ACt ot 19•~. ntters a weans to further eafe9uaro the C•lifornia deeert, 

but I a~ concerned that neither our pe~art••nt'e i~rtant 

oftorte et scientific reaaarob and manaqi"9 wildlife be 

rorRnlosed nor the hUh~in9 public ~ shut out ot thia region we have hlstoric~lly uacd. Th~a ie particularly eritioel in tho tut Ho,41ve )nd axpanaS ona ot Doat.h V.lloy .. 

lla•nhininc; healthy wildlife populatlona in thie anrt environ~ent requires active, ~t paetiva, ~anaqement, and huntinq 1• inteqral ~o that wanaw«Nant. Protection tor th• dee•rt ehould 

111ora IUSequately prcwide tor ce~aplltible recreation and the ~•nag-..nt of wildlife. For the•• reasons we urge that tho 

1111-ceau of !.and Manac;oMnt (BUll retain jllrUdicUon over the l .. t. 

Nojavo and the Hunter Mo~ntain/Laat ebanca Ranc;e expansion• of 

Death valley, oz· ~t a llli!lilllum you eoneid•r "Jhllt.lonel Preserve• 

11tatu" tor t.ll<>se areae. 

We have to qaln aeco•• lnto the d .. ert to ban•tlt it• ha»itat. some natu~al eprift91!1 h•ve been de•eqed by oongantratio~• of w114 bur~ an4 invaded by oalt o.de£, • nonnative plant th•~ ooneu111ee conelderable wat•r• our Depart~•nt 

"•• cooperate~ with the &LM •nd privata or;ani2ationa, auoh •• Mt-M.qhway voh iol• club&, env1rorunantal 91:'01.11)11 1 private 1an4ovneto, and nunti~ club&, to restore and i~prove thee• 

epr1n;s and to build nufterouo rain catehnent ba•tn•l or •q;ur.t:hn-..... Th••• 'W•~•r- •oura•• •r• vital to all w l.cUJt• in the <~•••rt., to tho <Jil!IWI &ptoo1•• that are hunt«d--deer, b.lqhorn elloop, quAil, ono chulla¥" p~:rtr!dq•, tor O)(&l!lfllo••anll to th<:lwle that &toe not~ nuoh a~ na~tropical bird•, reptilas 1 ond r•ptor•• Th•r• are 
The Honorabl~ D(anne Feinctain 

June 11, 1993 P•w• Two 

now 771 auch wa~er eitaa to~ v!14life in Sep ~Lno COunty, find their p•riQ<I.ic repair r-.w.ree heeVJr ~nt RVI and 

$CflllpMnt th•t c:atsnot M oan-.t.M in on f!-t. IICLIOft of! tllia •~tort 

haa eOMe !to~ volunteer• and privata donation• that fr~ 1t6t to 

1992 totalllhl .. oro tban :n,ooo <lay• ot labor and aatarialt worth 

nearly $l.S ~~llion. 

atcause o! our active aen&9-..nt 1n tne dateTt, tbe.bithotn 

$heep has co~e back froa it. 1ov levtle ot the early ltOoa to tha 

viable population that ca11torniana enjoy today. ror tba palt twtnly year&. we have wo¥k~ Vitb the BLM, the ai11tary, and aany private con&ervation and bvntint or9anlzations to eui1d oatahaant 

beain• to raplace dovraded ~ringe and to capture bSthorn eheep to raestab: i~l> population• in hietor1cal habitat• froa Whicn they had lonq been 90ht. 

~he bi9horn sheep population in t~ Ol~ Dad Kountaint or the 

laat Moj•ve i# ou~ so~rc. •t~ for r .. •~•blJ•binw ~eep 

population• elaavhere in tbe1r hiatoric ran,o. rro. thle prod~ctivo nerd we have captQred and ralooato4 •ore than 200 

bi9horn sheer. safely, ef~iolantly, and vi~ Minl.a• d!•turbanca 

to the da•~rt, bee•~•• we have bean able to uae v~icLe• and 

II•• i.ooptero. t Clll conoazol'llld: tlult llatiOM1 Park wilderneaa et.111tus 

tor the ta~t Xojave ooul4 aovaraly curtail what hll ba•n • real auoo .. u stcr>' ln biqllorn ehMp unageliiOftt. 

I am ~leo deoply concerned with preaerv1ft9 hunting in the 

&.•t Moj$ve ~nd elaevbore. Bunt~• in Calitornio a.y appear to 

have huge tot·ntoriea .in wl\lob to bunt:, ltll.lt. the r-lit.y of 

population 9rowth and reor .. tton d ... Pd• in this Ctat. ••k•• it 

1nareaa1ngly ~ore difficult for the huntinq pu•llc to enjoy a day in the ttald. Jn the !a•t M~ave and tbe Death Valley •xpantiona into Munter M~untain and Laat Cbance lange, whore th• iepr1nt or hunter• has b~en hardly noticeable and ~lr cont~~~~iona to 

Wildll!a eotHiidaratlle, bunt:erw. could ba .. aled off ~o. a vaat raq1on 1n wh•ch nvntin; 1a ~tibla with de .. rt pr .. ervatton. 

rnat apirl~ of eona•rv•tion wqat ~ bo da_,.nec~ by oJo•lng orr tbewe ar•ae to hunting. 

For decA~es thie rugged QOYntry baa provided ~ publ1o with ao~e fln~ upl~nd 9••• hunttn;--partioulerly queil. ehu~ar, dove, 

and rabbit•·a• well aa d .. r and, in recent yaara, blwborn aneap. The huntur~. !n turn, 9iv• a boOet to local reatauranta, eot•la, 

and w•a &tat:~~~. tn the &aat Mojave, ror •xa•ple, upland tame huntora h~v• apqnt ~ore tn-n 110,000 reor .. ttona daya annually. fiiOOf>ll•• ollr ml'<'I•'J•-••t. ha• bel..., l>rin<J DaClr. 1;1191\ol:'n •heep, W. 

hav• b4•n abl~ ~o oCrer •a.e llaited 8beap hunein9, the pera1ta for vhicn n~v~ produced •or• tb•n t500,ooo--~ll u..o to expand 

po'pulatio"" u! l>iqhorn •h••P· 
Tho Honor~bh Dhnne l'o1netaln 

J'un" ll, !!!!ll 

Pa9a 'rhr<PC' 

265 

I went to aaeur• you that th• Oepertaent an~ tho Colifornia 

f11h and ~·m~ com~i••ion cloeoty revulat• huntift9. rhrou~h 

huntinv ••••~n•, bo9 1~-ito, b19 9••• p.r.it~. and tha vitorous 

ontorcement of ~ll huntinq l~w• 4nd r.,uletion•, we bel' in•ura 

eonlervetion of both w1ldlife anc tho privilagtl ot tht hunting pubU~;. 

c~rtainly tho ~ore 4ittioult hurdla both tor huntin9 and cur P•partment•a ability to oont1nue eeientitie 1tudy and ~ana9• 

"'iUI.Hte tt,~n ia the phcin9 of !:.he h•t Ng:J•v• an4 the !luf1ter 

Nountaln/Last Chance Rente expon~ion of ~eth Valley undQr tno 1ur-hc11ctio~ of the National l'erll Sorv.l.ee (NPI) utnar than the 

Bureau of ~and HanaqBm•nt. Through trodit1on and law, th' NPS 

bos excluded huntinQ in tha National ~arka and not looked 

favorably ~pon active state wildlifo ~anegamant ot 1and• under 

itv judadl ctioll. 

It 1a ~y undaratanding that Congr••• has ~ad• exceptions to 

thh 1 howBver 1 in the NPI cato;ory of "Nat:iond Pr•••rvea, • Whllo ,.. would pr•tcr ~hat jurisd1ct1on ot tbo laat Mojave viloerness and of the Hunter Mountain/L&at Chanoe aante 

e)lpansior>l! or Deat.h Vlt).ley umain il'l tha BLM, :t wwld urt;~a that 

you con~;idc.r "National Preserve• .t.atus 1118 a poeeiblt alt.arnatjv~. '<~ith npHeit lan(JUa(JCI th•t prea.rves hunttnq and 

our continued ~cc~•• for carrying out our respontibilititl tor 

ccientitie re~onr~h and wildlife management. tn all &LH wildern~ee areas. we nnGd similar langua9e to guarantee our ace••• to oor.duct roaoaroh and manaqe wildlife. 

I do want. to ruatulro you th .. t thb Oapartllant h decHc:o.ted 

to proteet1on ot the dosert eooeystea. Continued nuntinq in, and 

thia Department's aecea; to, this reqion 1s in harmony with that 

important qoal 

I will be plaaeed to worx further with you and your ~taft to enau:re th<~ io•st "'"Y• to furthar 'W.i14l ite con•erv•tio., thl'OU'Jh thia landmar~ lo~islation. 

IIG:vp 

lloyd 

~~ G5b.llona 

Diroot.or 
266 

Mr. HORN. Let me add that there is a strong tradition of hunting in the East Mojave. In 1991, sportsmen hunted, among other species, dove, quail, chukar partridges, jackrabbit, cottontail, coyotes, 

bobcats, deer, and bighorn sheep. California Department of Fish 

and Game estimates sportsmen spent nearly 170,000 hunter days 

in the East Mojave, a not insignificant amount of effort. And it 

should be noted that largely because of the effects of the recent 

persistent drought in the area these numbers and hunter days are 

well below the long-term average. The State expects that with the 

end of the drought the numbers of hunters and days will stabilize 

and likely increase, and a summary of hunting effort has been attached to my statement. 

Hunters in California may appear to have vast areas in which 

to hunt, but the reality of population growth and recreation demands in Southern California make it increasingly difficult for the 

hunting public to enjoy a day in the field, especially on their public 

lands. National Park or Monument designation of 1.5 million acres 

in the Mojave will only exacerbate this problem. In contrast, Preserve designation will seek to maintain existing opportunities. 

Let me conclude by adding that hunting and wildlife management have been a key, integral part of activities in the California 

Desert for many years without any adverse effects on the natural 

resources that the various pending bills seek to protect. National 

Preserve status will enable these important traditional activities to 

continue while providing protection to other natural resources and 

values. There is no reason not to designate the Mojave region a N ationa! Preserve unless a primary objective of pending legislation is 

to simply stop hunting. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Horn and attachment follow:] 
267 

THE WIWLIFE LEGISLATIVE FUND OF AMERICA Th protect the Herit.age of the American Sportsman Whunt., to fish 11nd to trap. 

Statement by 

The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America 

regarding 

H.R. 815, the 

•california Desert Protection Act• 

before the 

U.S. Bouse of Representatives 

National Affairs Office 1000 Connecticut Avenue. N.W, Suite 1202 Washington, D.C. 200.\6 202/466-4407 FAX 202/466-8727 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

SubCommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

June 15, 1993 

Washington, D.C. 
268 

The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA) and a 

coalition of other wildlife management groups including the 

National Rifle Association of America (NRA), the Congressional 

Sportsmen • s Caucus Foundation, Safari Club International (SCI), 

United Conservation Alliance (UCA), the Foundation for North 

American Wild Sheep (FNAWS), and the Foundation for North American 

Eig Game oppose H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act in 

its present form. The legislation is overprotective and severely 

limits recreational opportunities in the desert, especially as they 

relate to wildlife management in the California Desert. 

H.R. 518 would expand the Death Valley and Joshua Tree 

National Parks and establish the Mojave National Monument, 

affecting approximately 5.5 million acres of the California Desert. 

Hunting is traditionally prohibited in Parks or Monuments. 

The coalition supports an amendment to H.R. 518 to change the 

designation of the Mojave area from a National Monument to a 

National Preserve. National Preserve designation within the 

National Park System has been used in Alabama, Alaska, Florida and 

Texas to protect important ecosystems and allow hunting to 

continue. In the past, it has been argued that allowing hunting in 

a Mojave National Park or Monument would be a precedent-setting measure to open other National Park units to hunting (please note 

that hunting is already allowed in a significant number of Parks 

and Monuments). Designating the Mojave a National Preserve will conserve the natural values of the area and enable important 

hunting activities to continue. The Preserve designation was specifically created by Congress in the 1970's to facilitate 

hunting and to provide for wildlife conservation. 

The amendment supported by the coalition will also include 

language specifying that the California Fish and Game Department 

continue to regulate the wildlife management (including hunting) in 

the Mojave National Preserve. 

There is a strong tradition of hunting in the East Mojave. In 

1991, sportsmen hunted dove, quail, chukar, jackrabbit, cottontail, 

coyotes, bobcats, deer and big horn sheep. The California Fish and 

Game Department issued 18,937 licenses for the area and it 

estimates sportsmen spent 169,300 "hunter days" in the East Mojave. 

It should be noted that largel;- because of the effects of the 

drought in this area, these numbers and hunter days are well below 

long term average. The State of California expects that with the 

end of the drought the numbers of hunters and days will stabilize 

and might even increase. The complete summary is attached to this 

testimony. 

Hunters in California may appear to have vast areas in which 

to hunt, but the reality of population growth and recreation 

demands in Southern California make it increasingly difficult for 

the hunting public to enjoy a day in the field. National Park 

designation of the Mojave will only exacerbate this problem. 
269 

H.R. 518 must be amended to designate the Mojave region as a Preserve to provide for the employment of sound scientific wildlife 

management programs and conservation efforts. Such an amendment 

will ensure that vital wildlife resources of the California Desert as well as the public that uses and enjoys these resources will 

continue to benefit from successful management programs. Hunting and wildlife management have been a key part of activities in the 

California Desert for many years without any adverse affects on the 

natural resources H.R. 518 attempts to protect. National Preserve 

status will enable these important traditional activities to 

continue while providing protection to other natural resources and 

values. There is no reason not to designate the Mojave region a National Preserve unless the primary objective of H.R. 518 is to 

stop hunting. 

WLFA is an association of sportsmen-conservation organizations 

established to protect the heritage of the American sportsman to 

hunt, fish and trap. Through its associated organizations, WLFA 

represents an aggregate membership of more than 1.5 million 

sportsmen-conservationists, many of them in California. 

The NRA is a 3.2 million member organization whose programs and policies help provide for hunter education and training, access to hunting lands, and support for professional wildlife management. 

The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Foundation is dedicated 

to preserving and promoting traditional hunting and fishing. 

SCI is a worldwide hunting and conservation organization. SCI 

has more than 114 chapters in fifteen countries. SCI represents more than one million sportsmen and women through membership and 

affiliated organizations. Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, the 

bulk of SCI's membership is in the United States. In the past eighteen years, SCI bas contributed over nine million dollars for 

programs that have directly enhanced the professional management of 

the world's renewable wildlife resource including over $900,000 

this year alone. SCI conducts a nationally accredited and 

conservation education seminar known as the American Wilderness 

Leadership School (AWLS), is founder of "Sportsmen Against Hunger" 

(a humanitarian conservation effort funded by the sportsmen of our organization which provides wild game meat to soup kitchens for 

those people that are in need of a hot meal) and operates the 

International Wildlife Museum located in Tucson, Arizona. 

UCA is a national coalition of outdoor industry organizations working for the continuation and increase of public acceptance of 

hunting, fishing and other responsible wildlife management strategies. 

FNAWS was organized in 1976 to promote the management, the 

enhancement and the increase of populations of all indigenous 

species of North American Wild Sheep, and to take all steps 

necessary to protect such species from population decimation and 

extinction. 
270 

Suamary of Wildlife Management Related Data 

for the East Mojave Desert 

It should be noted that largely because of the effects of the 

ongoing drought in this area, the following hunter numbers and 

effort are currently well below long term averages. With the 

recent rains, we should expect a stable, if not increased number of 

hunter and days. 

Bunter Numbers imd Effort for 1991 in East Mojave Desert 

Game &l!B! Hun:!;~:t NYI!ll2~u Hun:t;er :t;;:tfQ;tt {daJ!:§} ~ 

Dove 5,000 20,000 73,000 

Quail 7,000 54,000 67,000 

Chukar 2,000 9,000 6,000 

Jackrabbit 3,000 30,000 24,000 

Cottontail 3,000 24,000 19,000 

Coyotes 1,300 32,000 4,000 

Bobcat 130 300 ? 

Deer Hunting in ZQn~ D-17 (all wi:!;hin East Mojave} 

xsw: 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

Big Horn 

xsw: 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

NY.!!Y2!ill: of Permit§ H!ilrvest Percent Qf Su£:cess 

* 500 15 3 

* 500 29 6 

* 500 29 6 

* 500 26 5 

500 31 6 

500 45 9 

* The Inyo Mountains were included in Zone D-17 prior 

to the 1991 Season. It was estimated that 

approximately half of the total 1,000 permits 

hunted in the current boundaries 

Sheep Hunting in tbe East Mo1ave (Marble and Kingston) 

N1!!!!.!2er Qf Permits Harveg;:t; Percen:!; of Success 

5 5 100 

5 5 100 

6 6 100 

4 4 100 

5 5 100 

7 7 100 
271 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hughes, please proceed with your statement for 

about 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ELDEN HUGHES 

Mr. HUGHES. I am Elden Hughes, a director of the Desert Protective Council, which is a 40-year-old environmental organization focused solely on the desert. I am third-generation Californian. Six 

of my great grandparents were running cattle in California in the 

1860s, and I was raised on the cattle ranch with a strong tradition 

of hunting. I have been hunting in California and other Western 

States for 45 years. Yet my first memory in life is the Yosemite 

Valley and a deer that was so tame that my parents had to hold 

me back. I was not quite three. 

There is a proper place for both hunting and national parks. It 

is just that both should not share the same piece of ground. When 

I hunt in a national park it is with a camera and I do not want 

the animals to view me as a predator. When I hunt with my .257 

Roberts I do not want the animals to be as tame as cows. I note 

your previous comment on what should be hunting what. 

I and my sons have taken the NRA Hunter's Safety course, and 

I have been a member of the NRA much of my adult life. I quit 

when the NRA took policy positions against Parks and designated 

wilderness. Shame on them! 

My favorite deer hunting area in Utah has been ruined by 

"yahoos" on ATVs. Only wilderness designation will save Utah 

hunting. Sure we will all have to work harder to get where we 

want to go, but where we want to go will be worth getting to. 

In California the NRA is focusing on the Mojave National Park. 

They say there should be no loss of hunting opportunity. Ah, come 

on! One rural road in Lassen County removes more hunting opportunity than all of the Mojave National Park. 

Let's state the issue straight. The NRA wants to open all N ationa! Parks to hunting. That flat out should never be allowed to 

open. Failing that the NRA wants to kill the Mojave National Park. 

That too should not be allowed to happen. 

The resources of the East Mojave are park quality resources with 

vast vistas, extraordinary scenery, deep limestone caves, rare singing sand dunes which are the third highest in North America, and 

a treasury of natural biodiversity. The hunting resources of the 

East Mojave-and I have hunted it-are poor deer hunting, about 

25 deer per year. I bet you get more roadkills in every county in 

Minnesota than that. There are 4 to 5 permitted bighorn sheep per 

year, and for the last decade poor bird hunting. ''Yahoos" on ATVs 

chasing rabbits don't count. 

There are answers. The Old Dad Mountain can continue to serve 

as a nursery for bighorn sheep. Such hunting can continue outside 

the park. Mter passage of the California Desert Protection Act the 

Bureau of Land Management will be managing 10.5 million acres 

of the California Desert, of which 4 million will be designated wilderness. If the BLM truly manages this vast land for wildlife, for 

protecting the springs and not allow the overgrazing that removes 

the protective cover, we can have twice as much hunting in the 

California Desert and still have a national park with no hunting. 
272 

I have been in every proposed wilderness area in the California 

Desert. I have been hiking for decades the area which will become 

the Mojave National Park. The California Desert Protection Act is 

a well-crafted law. It rightfully has the Mojave National Park as 

its centerpiece. It solves boundary problems and rounds out the ecological zones for Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments and makes them national parks. It designates 4 million 

acres of BLM wilderness spread across the entire 25 million acre 

California Desert. It ia a worthy answer to the management of very 

worthy resources. It is a proper mix of park, no hunting and BLM 

wilderness hunting. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:] 
273 

To safeguard for wise ami reverent use bv this and succeeding gem·r· 

ations those desert areas of unique scenic, scientific_ hist( 1rical. spintual 

and recreational vatu~ and to educate b~v all appropnate means chi/Jren 

and adults to a better understanding of the desert 

Testimony of Elden Hughes 

Director, Desert Protective council 

before the 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee 

of the 

House Natural Resources Committee 

June 15, 1992 

I am Elden Hughes, a director of the Desert Protective Council 

which is a 40 year old environmental organization focussed solely on desert issues. 

I am a third generation Californian. Six of my greatgrandparents were running cattle in California in the 1860's. I was raised on a cattle ranch and my father passed on to me a strong family tradition of 

hunting. I have been hunting in California and other Western states 

for 45 years. 

Yet, my first memory in life is the Yosemite Valley and a deer so tame my parents held me back. I was not quite three. 

There is a proper place for both: hunting and National Parks. It 

is just that both should not share the same piece of ground. When I 

hunt in a National Park it is with a camera and I do not want the 

animals to view me as a predator. When I hunt with my .257 Roberts I do not want the animals to be as tame as cows. 

I and my sons have taken the NRA (National Rifle Association) 

hunter safety course and I have been a member of the NRA much of my 

adult life. I quit when the NRA took policy positions against parks 

and designated wilderness. Shame on them! 

My favorite deer hunting area in Utah has been ruined by yahoos on ATV's (All Terrain Vehicles). Only wilderness designations will save Utah hunting. Sure, we'll all have to work harder to get where we want to go, but where we want to go will be worth going to! 

1 
274 

In California, the NRA is focusing on the Mojave National Park. 

They say, "There should be no loss of hunting opportunity." Ah, come on. One new rural road in Lassen County removes more hunting 

opportunity than all of Mojave National Park. 

Let's state the issues straight. The NRA wants to open all 

National Parks to hunting. That flat out should never be allowed to 

happen. Failing that, the NRA wants to kill the Mojave National Park. 

That too should not be allowed to happen. 

The resources of the East Mojave are park quality resources with 

vast vistas, extraordinary scenery, deep limestone caves, rare "singing" sand dunes which are the third highest in North America, and a treasury of natural biodiversity. 

The hunting resources of the East Mojave are poor deer hunting 

(about 25 per year), 4 or 5 permitted bighorn sheep per year, and for 

the last decade poor bird hunting. Yahoos on ATV's chasing rabbits 

don't count. 

The Old Dad Mountain can continue to serve as a nursery for bighorn sheep. Such hunting can continue outside the Park. 

After passage of the California Desert Protection Act, the Bureau 

of Land Management will be managing 10.5 million acres of the 

California Desert of which 4 million will be designated wilderness. If 

the BLM truly manages this vast land for wildlife by protecting the 

springs and not allowing the overgrazing that removes the protective 

cover, we can have twice as much hunting in the California Desert and 

still have a National Park with no hunting. 

I have been in every proposed wilderness area in the California 

Desert. I have been hiking for decades the area which will become the 

Mojave National Park. The California Desert Protection Act is a well 

crafted law. It rightfully has the Mojave National Park as its 

centerpiece. It solves boundary problems and rounds out ecological zones for Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments and m~kes 

them national parks. It designates 4 million acres of BLM wilderness 

spread across the entire 25,000,000 acz~ california Desert. It is a worthy answer to the management of very worthy resources. It is the 

proper mix of Park (no hunting) and BLM Wilderness (hunting). 
275 

Mr. VENTO. Next, we want to hear from David Simon from the 

National Parks and Conservation Association. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. SIMON 

Mr. SIMON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. On behalf of NPCA's 350,000 members I am privileged 

to appear here this afternoon. 

Of course you know of NCPA's strong support for H.R. 518, and 

we do urge Congress to enact the bill without delay. Given the extensive public hearing record on the legislation, I will just focus 

today on the portions of the bill that focus on the three park pro- posals. And I would like to just focus in specifics on why and who 

are affected in this legislation. 

I think we need note that the public demand for parks and recreation lands in this country is strong and still growing. I view H.R. 

518 as essential to the protection of America's heritage, and it really does reflect the wishes of the American people. Extensive 

amounts of polling data have shown us that over two-thirds of 

Americans clearly have stated their preference to set aside additional national park land. Support for this legislation in California 

amounts to some 19 million Californians, represented by some of 

the largest cities in California and I think it is quite clear from the 

three polls that have been in California as well as the tremendous 

benefits that will accrue to the megalopolis, really, between the Los 

Angeles area and the Las Vegas area, just what a significant recreational resource this will be and will continue to be for generations of Americans. 

In a sense, I really view this legislation as being pro-family 

recreation, better resource protection, more emphasis on interpreta- tion for visitors, instead of just managing the Mojave and other 

areas for commodity users. That is truly pro-family recreation. 

I think in terms of qualifications of the designations clearly 

Death Valley, Joshua Tree and the East Mojave fully qualify for 

national park and monument status. We strongly support the expansions of Joshua Tree and Death Valley. And in terms of the 

manageability question, I just have to go back to the fact that I believe cooperation between the agencies can resolve many of the conflicts and concerns that were raised by the other gentlemen who 

represent the desert region, and there is ample opportunity for 

transfer facilities, joint management, use of facilities, and I believe 

the Park Service when given adequate resources clearly has the resources and the expertise to do the job. These chan~es would make 

these two parks world-class parks with real ecologtcal boundaries. 

In terms of the Mojave, which is clearly a central portion of the 

bill, it seems problematic but really it should not be. Mojave clearly 

deserves National Park status. This has been stated by both BLM 

and Park Service planning teams. NPCA has come to this conclusion a little bit differently than other supporters of this legislation. 

We came to this conclusion after fully supporting the designation 

of the National Scenic Area and watching that attempt go forward 

for a decade. Many critics of this legislation also point to some of 

the "conflicting uses" in the East Mojave area that would perceive 

to disqualify it for park status, but I just have to point out that 

these uses, grazing, some of the mining concerns, utilities, really 
276 

are things that would be dealt with adequately over the long term. 

I just have to go back to point out the story, for example, of Shenandoah National Park, an area that is now congressionally designated wilderness that was reclaimed after a massive history of 

human use and abuse. I think it would be a real shame if we didn't 

seize the opportunity to secure this legacy for future generations 

over time, and Mojave would be a tremendous National Park resource for Americans. 

I want to touch for a moment on the hunting question. The details of hunting and the amount of it you have heard in adequate 

amounts. I do think, though, tb.at there are a couple other things 

to point out. First of all, issues like transplantation or use of park 

arumals for reintroduction in other areas, which is a concern to 

some members of the hunting public, are perfectly permissible 

under existing park regulations as are the continued maintenance 

of guzzlers. The Park Service has policies to continue those activities. 

Second of all, I think that there is a very, very clear difference 

between Park and Preserve designation, and I think the Preserve 

idea clearly is one idea that does deserve a bullet. Preserves have 

been shown over the past couple of decades or so in many respects 

have turned out to be "push me, pull yous." They build into these 

park areas difficult management questions that are often 

unresolvable. They may even increase costs to the Park Service in 

doing its job. And I think the/reponderance of evidence points that 

the Mojave is clearly qualifie and we should make no equivocation 

in designating that unit. 

Preserve designation often is the first step on a slippery slope 

that will lead to future concessions or future uses in this area that 

will only degrade its quality. 

In sum, I do believe on the hunting question this bill is balanced. 

There is ample hunting opportunity preserved elsewhere, and the 

preponderance of evidence shows that Americans would like their 

national park units free of hunting. A recent poll we conducted 

along with some of our fellow conservation organizations in February of this year showed that by a 4-to-1 margin Californians favored park status for the Mojave without hunting, and, in fact, 66 

percent of the households with hunters in them shared this view. 

And remarkably, Mr. Chairman, these figures were really consistent across all demographic groups that were sampled, including 

gender, age, political ideology, ethnic background, household income--if the blue collar vote is a concern here-educational levels, 

and even residence area in California. 

In conclusion, we urge the swift adoption of the Act. We all need 

the certainty of a comprehensive solution and the time for action 

is now. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Simon. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:] 
277 

National Parks 

and Conservation Association 

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. SIMON 

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBUC LANDS 

ONH.R.S18 

THE CAUFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT of 1993 

JUNE 15, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is David J. Simon. I am the 

Natural Resources Program Manager for the National Parks and Conservation Association 

(NPCA), a nonprofit citizens' organization dedicated to the protection and enhancement of 

the National Park System. On behalf of the National Parks and Conservation Association's 

350,000 members, I am pleased to present our views on H.R. 518, the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1993. 

Enactment of the California Desert Protection Act is a top priority for NPCA. 

Comprehensive measures to protect the finest lands in the California Desert are among the 

most significant pieces of public lands legislation to be debated since the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

NPCA commends Representatives Lehman and Miller, the 68 co-sponsors of H.R. 518, other 

public officials, and the thoosands of citizens who have actively promoted the California 

Desert Protection Act (CDPA). They have courageously advanced a vision for the California 

Desert that will preserve its fragile, irreplaceable qualities for generations to come. 

This legislation already has been the subject of numerous hearings and an enormous amount 

of scrutiny by Congress. The House of Representatives passed legislation similar to H.R. 518 

in 1991 by an overwhelming margin. We recommend that Congress move swiftly to enact 

H.R. 518. 

My testimony will focus on four important points concerning the portions of bill that pertain 

to the expansion of Joshua Tree and Death Valley national monuments, and the designation 

of Mojave National Monument. 

1. Enactment of H.R. 518 Is essential to the protection of America's heritage and 

renects the wishes of the American people. 

The California Desert Protection Act is absolutely vital to protecting one of the most diverse 

arid landscapes in the world, and for maximizing the opportunities for education, research, 

and public recreation. 

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-1904 

Telephone (202) 223-NPCA(6722) • Fax (202) 659-0650 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 2 of 11 

278 

The CDPA responds to a grave reality: There is a steadily accelerating degradation of the 

California Desert environment. There is an urgent need now for Congress to protect key 

areas that deserve National Park System status, and also to enhance protection of desert areas 

that remain under Bureau of Land Management (BLM) responsibility. 

Public Pemand for National Parks and Recreation Lands js Strong and Still Growing 

The National Park System constitutes an unrivaled legacy that is fundamental to the quality 

of American life. Parks preserve the best of our natural and cultural heritage and are the 

places for renewal and re-creation. Our parks reflect what is highest and best about America. 

In recent years, major reports from both inside and outside government have outlined the 

moral, social, and ecological imperatives of conserving a greater portion of the American 

landscape. The 1987 report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO), 

for example, underscored the basic observation that quality outdoor recreation depends on 

healthy resources. Protecting those resources must be our foremost task. The CDPA makes 

resource protection the top priority; H.R. 518 recognizes that our fragile desert lands are no 

longer protected by their remoteness. 

All indicators show that public demand for parkland and high-quality, outdoor recreation 

opportunities is growing. In the 75 years since the founding of the National Park Service 

(NPS), visitation to the parks has outstripped the growth in America's population. Since 

1950, visitation to the National Park System has increased tenfold. 

In 1990, the national parks received more than 250 million recreational visits. By 2000, this 

number is projected to rise to over 350 million, and by 2010 it will perhaps reach nearly a 

half-billion. A recent national poll conducted by Citicorp found that 68 percent of adult 

Americans surveyed had visited a national park, and 69 percent intended to go to one in the 

future. Total visitation to Joshua Tree National Monument, Death Valley National 

Monument, and the East Mojave already exceeds two million annually. 

One of the most logical ways of responding to the public's love affair with the national 

parks, and to the clear will of the American public to build our legacy of parks, is by 

designating new national parks. The same Citicorp poll showed that more than two-thirds (68 

percent) of Americans want •more land put aside" in the future for national parks. 

The 1986 PCAO report also concluded that our greatest recreation needs are near urban 

areas: "Increasingly, outdoor recreation occurs close to home, in or near towns and cities 

where 80 percent of us will soon live. So, more and more, the solutions must be found close 

to home.• 

The CDPA is an ideal opportunity to implement this strategy since the national parklands in 

H.R. 518 will serve and benefit large segments of the population. The California Desert is 

accessible by major interstate highways and road networks. The lands protected by H.R. 518 

are within a day's drive of California's 30 million people. To the west is the Los AngelesSan Diego megalopolis, one of the nation's largest urban areas. To the east is Las Vegas, 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1"3 

Page 3 of 11 

279 

the nation's fastest growing w:ban area. Establishing Mojave National Monument would also 

take some of the pressure off Joshua Tree, the most accessible of the park areas to urban 

populations. This proximity to so many Americans makes the California Desert both 

vulnerable and precious. 

2. Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and East Mojave fully qualify for national park and 

monument status. 

Assessments by both BLM and NPS professionals ("BLM Application of NPS Criteria to 

Lands in the California Desert, • 1979; "NPS Resource Assessment for Features Proposed in 

the California Desert Protection Act, • 1989) concluded that the proposed additions to Joshua 

Tree, Death Valley, and the Bast Mojave area, meet the criteria for national parklands, and 

that these areas would be desirable additions to the National Park System. 

Expansion of Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments 

H.R. 518 would enlarge Death Valley and Joshua Tree national monuments substantially by 

adding contiguous lands that have important scenic, geological, ecological, and cultural 

values. We support the additions proposed in H.R. 518. These additions will also create 

more manageable units by realigning boundaries based on ecological factors and identifiable 

features on the land, not straight section lines. Competing proposals that rely on BLM 

recommendations would make only minor boundary adjustments, would add only 7 percent 

of the qualified lands to these monuments, and would not designate them as national parks. 

Joshua Tree National Monument 

H.R 518 would expand the existing Joshua Tree National Monument by approximately 

245,000 acres and would upgrade this unit's classification from national monument to 

national park. With its size, wide diversity of ecosystems, outstanding scenery, and varied 

cultural and recreational values, the expanded Joshua Tree National Monument fully qualifies 

for national park status. 

Additions to Joshua Tree proposed in H.R. 518 include approximately 245,000 acres in four 

separate areas: the Coxcomb, Eagle, Little San Bernadino, and Pinto mountains. The 

proposed additions encompass wildlands that were formerly within the national monument, 

which was established in 1936. Those lands were deleted in 1950 under an assumption that 

they contained valuable mineral resources. Since this assumption has not proven to be true 

for lands in the Coxcomb and Eagle mountains, and mining operations there are now 

defunct, we believe that these scenic areas should be returned to the National Park System. 

Fortunately, most of the originally deleted lands were never mined and retain their pristine 

condition. 

One of the most dramatically beautiful of the proposed additions to Joshua Tree is an area of 

weather-sculpted rock fonnations in the Coxcomb Mountains. In addition, the proposed 

additions are extremely valuable habitat for bighorn sheep and other native wildlife. 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 4 of 11 

280 

The proposed Joshua Tree additions would generally follow natural ecological boundaries and 

include portions of mountain systems, such as the Coxcombs, which are already partially in 

the monument. The changes will enhance dramatically the manageability of boundaries by 

shifting them from straight section lines that have no relationship to on-the-ground 

management concerns and ecological realities, to identifiable features such as roads, 

powerline corridors, and other features. 

For example, the southwest corner of the monument is currently configured like a "stair 

step, • because it is based on township lines. The proposed addition of lands in the San 

Bernadino Mountains will align the park boundary along the Colorado River Aqueduct, a 

prominent landscape feature. This realignment will ease management in an area of the 

monument that is now difficult to patrol. 

Death Valley National Monument 

H.R. 518 upgrades the existing Death Valley National Monument to national park status and 

expands the park by approximately 1.3 million acres. Without question, Death Valley already 

qualifies for, and deserves, designation as a national park. The existing monument contains a 

vast array of scenic, biological, and cultural resources and encompasses lands of fantastic 

contrast. With expansion under H.R. 518, virtually all the dramatic features of Death Valley 

will be fully protected and the area will constitute a world-class natural area befitting the title 

"national park. • 

The expansion includes the northern end of Death Valley itself -- an important area that has 

been arbitrarily excluded from the monument since its establishment in 1933. Other 

outstanding and worthy additions include the southern end of Eureka Valley with its 

spectacular Eureka Dunes, the rugged Last Chance range, the awesome wilderness of Saline 

Valley, and the northern part of Panamint Valley and its beautiful, unspoiled Panamint 

Dunes; all of these lands located around the northern part of Death Valley National 

Monument. 

In its 1979 report, the BLM particularly acknowledged the qualification of the Eureka-Saline 

area for National Park System status: 

The Eureka-Saline complex contains an astounding variety and quality of 

natural and cultural resource values. Application of National Park Service 

criteria of park evaluation, and analyses of natural and cultural resource 

themes represented by the area lead one to the unavoidable conclusion that the 

area qualifies for inclusion into the National Park System as a National Park, 

or as an addition to Death Valley National Monument. 

The section of the Owlshead Mountains lying just outside the southern end of the monument, 

as well as partS of the Funeral and Greenwater mountains to the east, are also crucial 

additions. Some of these, and other key additions, would appropriately adjust stretches of the 

park's boundary away from straight section lines and onto identifiable topographical features 

of the land. 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 5 of ll 

281 

I would also like to respond to the opinion that the additions to Death Valley and Joshua 

Tree national monuments exceed the amount of land areas that can be effectively managed by 

the National Park Service. The National Park Service currently manages units ranging in size 

from less than one acre to the 13 million-acre Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. 

Tbe National Park System includes numerous units that are larger than the proposed parks 

for Joshua Tree and Death Valley. Tbe NPS has the professional experience to do the job 

that Congress asks of it, as long as the NPS is provided adequate resources. 

Mojave National Monument 

NPCA strongly endorses establishment of Mojave National Monument. Tbe California Desert 

Protection Act will give the area both the highest possible protective status, and the greatest 

national recognition of any IMd designation option. This action is urgently needed if the East 

Mojave is to be afforded the l~el of protection and resource stewardship that it deserves. 

Professionals within both the BLM and the NPS concluded in 1979 and 1987 that the ellisting 

1.5 million-acre East Mojave National Scenic Area (EMNSA) is worthy of national park 

status. Tbe BLM Desert Planning staff concluded in 1979 that 

[C]ultural and natural resources of the East Mojave Study Area are so diverse 

and outstanding that the area readily qualifies for National Park or Monument 

status. 

In 1987, the Western Region of the National Park Service concluded that 

rnhe proposed Mojave National Park meets the three new unit criteria 

specified in NPS Management Policies and would be a worthy and valuable 

addition to the National Park System .... We recommend its addition to the 

National Park System. 

The grand e~tpanse of desert combines a wide variety of natural assets -- notably an array of 

16 boldly upthrusting mountain ranges, the second highest sand dunes in the country (Kelso 

Dunes), and extensive areas of scenic geological formations and volcanic features. 

This ecologically unique area - at the juncture of the Sonoran Desert, the high elevation 

Mojave Desert, and the Great Basin - boasts the most extensive Joshua Tree forest in the 

Mojave Desert. Tbe East Mojave has a wide range of life zones and habitats supporting 

exceptional biological diversity (with over 700 plant species, including 25 rare or endangered 

plant species, and some 300 species of animals). The East Mojave bas excellent wildlife 

habitat for golden eagles, the endangered desert tortoise, and bighorn sheep, and many other 

animals. The area also contains a rich heritage of archaeological and historic resources, 

including Chemehuevi village sites, petroglyphs, and the remnants of 19th century Fort 

Piute, the Mojave (old military) road, several ghost towns from early mining days, and the 

historic Union Pacific depot at Kelso. 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 6 of ll 

282 

NPCA would like to underscore even further why it is that this superlative complex of 

resources deserves national park status more urgently than ever before. In 1981, in response 

to public pressure that part of the California Desert merited special management, the BLM 

designated the East Mojave National Scenic Area (EMNSA). Although we recognized the 

national park qualities of the area then, NPCA supported establishment of the EMNSA under 

the agency's California Desert Plan because, at that time, BLM indicated that ENMSA would 

be accorded a high priority and was to become •a model for multiple-use management. • 

While historic uses of the area, such as mineral development, utility facilities siting, livestock 

grazing, and a variety of recreational and educational pursuits were to continue, the agency 

stated it was setting out to "provide special emphasis in impact reductions." 

Although BLM has made some limited headway toward that goal, progress has been 

unsatisfactory. BLM has been handicapped in the East Mojave by a chronic shortage of funds 

and staffing, but even more so by an agency orientation that has failed to grant a higher 

priority to such vital aspects of land management as protection of critical natural and cultural 

resources. 

Consequently, the East Mojave has remained subject to resource abuse. Piecemeal 

destruction of the area continues. The public has witnessed a plethora of agency actions that 

have failed to remedy and, in some cases, have even worsened problems. For example, BLM 

has failed to make important mineral withdrawals to protect scenic and ecologically-sensitive 

lands and actually deleted 47,000 acres from EMNSA to accommodate mining interests. 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the EMNSA have not been protected according to legal 

mandates. Off-road vehicle use continues to scar large areas of the desert. Though canceled 

after the 1989 race, the BLM's past approval of the infamous Barstow-to-Vegas motorcycle 

race is convincing evidence of how, when given the choice between protection and 

destructive commercial or recreation use, the agency has nearly always chosen the latter. 

Grazing still competes with and threatens native plants and wildlife, and is still permitted 

even in the most marginal of desert environments, such as Kelso Dunes. BLM has failed to 

consistently screen mining claims and to establish and enforce stringent operating criteria for 

mine operators. In reality it has been private citizens who have been the last defense against 

continued resource degradation and who have pushed hardest to implement the "showcase" 

vision for the EMNSA promised by BLM. 

NPCA recognizes that there are significant land management and protection challenges in the 

East Mojave. Some critics of H.R. 518 have unfairly criticized conservation groups such as 

ours for supporting park status for an area with existing activities such as grazing, mining, 

utility corridors, rights-of-way, and other uses. Certainly we recognize that some existing 

activities are impairing what otherwise might be a truly pristine environment, but the current 

uses and developments in the East Mojave are resolvable, and their existence is not sufficient 

justification for denying this area national park or monument status. For example, while two 

existing highways do bisect the EMNSA, several huge tracts of undisturbed land remain 

which are larger than many national parks in the lower 48 states. 
Statement or David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 7 or 11 

283 

The railroad in the EMNSA is an oft-cited example of intrusion, yet its presence is 

substantially muted in the vast expanse of the desert. Moreover, the railroad can be viewed 

in another way - as a unique opportunity to develop a mass transit strategy to serve the 

park. National park system units such as Grand Canyon National Park, New River Gorge 

National River, Mt. Rainier National Park, and Denali National Park and Preserve all are 

crossed by railroads. 

Under H.R. 518, grazing would not be a permanent feature of Mojave National Park. 

Grazing would be phased out over a reasonable time period, as has been accomplished 

successfully at other parks. Many other parks have utilities and rights-of-ways present within 

them. The reality is that the NPS has ample experience in handling such matters. 

While there are a substantial number of mining claims in the East Mojave, mining is another 

activity that the National Park Service has the capability and experience to handle. There 

currently are over 2,000 mining claims within NPS units (affecting 130 parks), and active 

mining operations in 43 parks. The National Park Service operates a professional Mining and 

Minerals Branch that is already responsible for conducting validity exams, reviewing plans of 

operations, and monitoring reclamation projects under authority of the Mining in the Parks 

Act of 1976. 

We must think in terms of truly long-term protection, management, and enhancement of the 

East Mojave. Rather than admitting defeat before we start and withholding all of the future 

benefits of a Mojave National Monument based on present desert uses, we should simply 

recognize that a comprehensive desert rehabilitation program should be devised once the park 

is established. 

The NPS is demonstrating success in restoration all around the National Park System. For 

example, at Redwood National Park, the National Park Service is pioneering a world-renown 

effort to restore a watershed damaged by logging. At Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, 

the NPS is making progress toward reducing the impacts of powerlines. At Death Valley, the 

NPS has been reducing mining impacts and helping the desert recover. In fact, the NPS 

served as a consultant to Viceroy Gold Company on rehabilitation plans for the company's 

Castle Mountain project in the East Mojave. 

Finally, it is worth noting that while the East Mojave clearly bears the imprint of man's 

activities, this proposed park is not unique in this respect. Shenandoah National Park in 

Virginia, for example, is comprised of lands reclaimed after years of human use and abuse. 

Some fifty years after its establishment, Shenandoah is the jewel of the northern 

Appalachians and has nearly two million visitors annually. The park's forest has recovered to 

the point that it includes congressionally-designated wilderness. What folly it would have 

been to have been short-sighted and denied generations of Americans the benefits of this 

remarkable park treasure. 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 10 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 8 of 11 

Park develwment and concessions 

284 

NPCA particularly supports Section 412 of H.R. 518, which directs preparation of a 

comprehensive management plan for the East Mojave area. This section includes language 

restricting general park development and road improvements to those that are "essential and 

appropriate. • 

This section also encourages locating commercial servi~ and other park-related 

development outside the park. This approach will preserve the area's scenic beauty and 

ecological values and will promote economic benefits to nearby communities. This approach 

should be more commonly practiced at other National Park System areas, now and in the 

future. 

3. The National Park Service needs appropriate authority to protect land resources 

in the East Mojave 

As introduced, the CDPA already includes provisions that stipulate reasonable limits to NPS 

use of eminent domain authority to acquire private lands in the proposed Mojave National 

Park. [Section 415(2) of H.R. 518] NPCA believes that NPS land acquisition authority 

should not be diminished further from the standard that exists presently in H.R. 518. 

BLM's own approved plan for the East Mojave calls for acquisition of nearly 150,000 acres 

of private land, including nearly 33,000 acres of private lands not owned by Catellus 

Corporation or the state teachers retirement system. Failure to acquire certain private lands 

will leave open the possibility of incompatible development in sensitive areas. Development 

in areas such as the Lanfair Valley within the proposed Mojave National Park could seriously 

degrade what should be a protected landscape. 

4. Hunting should not be permitted under National Park Service management of the 

East Mojave 

NPCA is not opposed to hunting as a recreational sport, but does oppose sport hunting in the 

National Park System and hunting in the East Mojave under NPS management. Fifty of 51 

national parks, and 78 of 79 national monuments are closed to sport hunting. This policy 

rests on 99 years of legal and administrative precedent in national park management, 

and has been affirmed by the courts in National Rjfle Association v Potter (1986) and 

reaffirmed in 1991 by Michigan's 6th Circuit COurt of Appeals. The exemptions to the policy 

were established for very special situations and do not open either Grand Teton National 

Park or Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument to general sport hunting. 

Huntin& js incompatible with purpo:;es of parks. 

The principal purpose of the National Park System, more than any other category of 

protected lands, is to preserve ecological resources in a natural and healthy state, 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June IS, 1993 

Page 9 of 11 

285 

with as little interference from humans as possible. Sport hunting is incompatible with the 

resource preservation goals of the National Park System and interferes with the legitimate 

pursuits of other visitors. Sport hunting conflicts with: 

t visitor expectations of a national park being a safe haven for recreation and 

wildlife; 

t preservation of biological diversity and naturally functioning ecosystems, 

because hunting artificially changes ecosystem relationships and stresses 

conservation of only a few species for narrow special interests; 

t visitor activities such as hiking, camping, and sight-seeing. It also threatens 

visitor safety and requires closing areas to visitors; 

t wildlife viewing opportunities -- hunted animals are wary of humans; 

t maintenance of natural age distribution and genetic viability of species 

populations, because hunting targets the biggest animals; and 

t scientific research that depends on baseline data from non-manipulated 

ecosystems. 

Only limited huntin& currently occurs in the East Mojave. 

Hunting is currently permitted in some portions of the proposed Mojave National Monument. 

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) currently permits a total of ten 

wildlife species to be hunted in the East Mojave. These species include deer, bighorn sheep, 

quail, dove, chukar, and rabbit. 

Hunting, however, is a relatively minor activity in the East Mojave. According to CDFG 

data, hunters killed only 28 deer during 1992 in the area proposed as Mojave National 

Monument. This take represents less than 0.1 percent of the 30,000 deer killed by hunters in 

California annually. 

Because bighorn sheep populations in the Mojave have only recently begun to recover from 

overhunting, habitat destruction, and disease, hunting of this species is also minimal. In 

1992, five bighorn sheep were killed in the area proposed for Mojave National Monument. 

One of the three state-designated zones for hunting bighorn sheep is completely outside the 

proposed monument. Another lies only partially within the proposed monument. There are 

some 50 herds of bighorn sheep in California. In addition, both the neighboring states of 

Nevada and Arizona have plentiful bighorn sheep populations that continue to recover, and 

extensive hunting opportunities exist within areas easily accessible from southern California. 

In addition to its minor yield, CDFG statistics also show that the East Mojave area is of 

relatively marginal importance even for recreational hunting opportunity. The often-cited 

figure that the East Mojave provides in excess of 100,000 hunter-days annually is false and 

based on unreliable, misleading surveys. 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 10 of 11 

286 

The survey on which the 100,000 hunter-days figure is based was conducted in 1989 by 

CDFG. The survey covered all of San Bernadino County, of which the proposed Mojave 

National Monument comprises just 12 percent. San Bernadino County is very rural and 

hunting occurs throughout the county. The San Bernadino National Forest, located in the 

western portion of the county, is a popular area that offers hunting for many of the same 

species found in the East Mojave. Moreover, the CDFG survey counts hunter-days by 

species hunted, resulting in multiple counting (overcounting) of hunter-days. For example, if 

a hunter reports hunting both quail and chukar during one day, two hunter-days are counted. 

Hunting is a declining activity in California. In 1991, only 1.3 percent of Californians were 

licensed to hunt. Only Hawaii, which has no native big game species, had fewer hunters as a 

percentage of the population, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data. 

The California Desert Protection Act protects hunting owortunity 

CDPA will help protect wildlife habitat and permit continued hunting on nearly 10 million 

acres of federal land, including 4 million acres of wilderness. Portions of the 7 million acres 

of private and state lands in the desert region also will remain available for hunting. Some 

hunting also occurs on the region's military reservations. 

The wilderness designated by the legislation will not only protect habitat for wildlife, but 

protect hunting opportunities from being degraded by development activities. Each of the 

proposed wilderness units are accessible by roads, so vehicle access for hunters will be 

maintained. 

National Monument status for the Mojave will not limit wildlife management 

Designation of Mojave National Monument will not prohibit effective management to benefit 

wildlife in the desert. NPS policies, for example, permit the development and maintenance of 

water •guzzlers" for wildlife within parks and wilderness areas. Five such wildlife water 

facilities have been placed and maintained within Joshua Tree National Monument. 

NPS policies also clearly permit capture of animals for research purposes and translocation 

of animals (such as bighorn sheep) to repopulate other areas. Both the NPS Management 

~ [NPS Manaeemeot Policies, Chapter 4:6] and the NPS "Natural Resources 

Management Guideline" [Natural Resources Management Guideline, NPS-77, Chapter 2, pp. 

36-37] include detailed guidelines on this subject. 

Removing surplus bighorn sheep from large, protected herds for reintroduction elsewhere is 

far more valuable to hunters than the half-dozen hunting tags currently issued for bighorns in 

the proposed Mojave National Monument area. Over the past decade, NPS-managed Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area (NV I AZ) has provided over 600 bighorn sheep for 

transplantation programs in Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, and Arizona. 

The NPS is the biggest source of bighorn sheep for reintroduction programs in the West. 
Statement of David J. Simon 

June 15, 1993 

Page 11 of 11 

287 

Americans -- and Californians particularly -- want national oorks closed to hunting. 

A Field Institute poll conducted in February 1993 found the following: 

+ 84 percent of Californians oppose hunting on newly created national park lands 

+ 75 percent of Californians favor national park status for the East Mojave even 

knowing that hunting would be forbidden in the area 

+ 69 percent of respondents living in California's desert counties support park 

status for the East Mojave without hunting 

+ 66 percent of households with hunters support the Mojave park proposal, even 

knowing hunting would be eliminated. 

These figures were remarkably consistent across all major demographic groups including: 

gender, age, political ideology, ethnic background, household income, education levels, and 

residence area in California. 

Conclusion 

NPCA urges the Congress to swiftly pass the California Desert Protection Act. The fragile 

and beautiful lands of the California Desert need the solid, long-term protection that national 

park and wilderness designations provide. The Desert Protection Act has broad public 

support. Citizens, the agencies, and business interests in the region all need the certainty of a 

comprehensive solution. The time for action is now. 
288 

Mr. VENTO. Finally on this panel we have Aaron Medlock, with 

The Fund for Animals. Welcome, Aaron. 

STATEMENT OF A. AARON MEDLOCK 

Mr. MEDLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Aaron 

Medlock. I am director of legal and legislative affairs for The Fund 

for Animals, and we aJ?preciate having this opportunity today to 

talk about the Califorma Desert Protection Act. We fully support 

the California Desert Protection Act, and I am here today specifically to urge you to maintain the integrity of our national parks 

and our national monument by not amending this legislation to 

permit sport hunting in the Mojave National Monument and by not 

accepting a Mojave National Preserve in place of a monument. 

Now, I think for this committee to abandon the 99-year standard 

that we have for no hunting in National Parks and Monuments 

there should be a compelling reason, and quite frankly the hunting 

that does go on in the California Desert does not provide this compelling reason. We have heard a lot of information in the past and 

today about the number of hunters who use the desert and the 

number of hunting days that go on there, and quite frankly that 

information is greatly exaggerated. 

The figure has been used that 20,000 to 22,000 hunters use the 

area every year. That figure is taken from the 1991 California 

Game Hunters Survey, and that is the figure for all of San 

Bernardino County, not the East Mojave National Scenic Area. To 

put it in perspective, the county itself is about the size of the State 

of West Virginia and the East Mojave represents probably 10 or 11 

percent of that land. So to use that figure and say that all of those 

hunters go to the East Mojave is really an exaggeration. There is 

hunting throughout the county. The San Bernardino National Forest is a major hunting designation as well as hunting along the 

Colorado River. 

Also, when you look at the 22,000 hunter figure, it is clear from 

the survey that there is a built-in overcompensation there. What 

happens is the California Department of Fish and Game ask hunters to respond to a questionnaire. In 1991, 2.4 percent of the hunters did so. When asked "What species do you hunt?" If they say, "Deer and quail," they are counted as two hunters. So if you look 

at the figures you can see that the total number of hunters that 

they come up with in the survey more than doubles the total number of hunters licensed in the State of California. So easily you can 

take the 20,000 or 22,000 figure and cut it right in half, just because of the methodology of the survey. 

The same holds true for the number of hunting days. The latest 

figure, 1991, is 169,000 hunting days, and once again that is for 

all of San Bernardino County. That is not for the East Mojave National Scenic Area. And there too you have a built-in bias. If a hunter on one day says that he hunted quail and partridge, two hunting days are counted. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot but, for 

instance, if a hunter says he hunted 20 days for two species 40 

days are counted. Now because that hunter is only a small percentage of the number of hunters in the State he is actually speaking 

for 42 other hunters, and right away you have 800 hunting days 

that never really existed. 
289 

So I would urge you to look at these figures closely. I will include 

a copy of the 1991 survey for the record, and I think you will realize that we are dealing really with a much different picture here 

than what has been presented in the past. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The survey may be found on page 455 in the 

appendix.] 

Mr. MEDLOCK. Now, also I am concerned about something that 

was said earlier today. This is not anti-hunting legislation. I don't 

think anyone who has ever sponsored a bill has intended for it to 

be. It is no more an anti-hunting bill than legislation that created 

Yellowstone, the Great Smokies, Acadia, any of our national parks 

and monuments. It is not anti-hunting legislation. But the fact of 

the matter is that we do have a standard of management for our 

National Parks and our National Monuments that precludes hunting in these areas. Now, if the subcommittee chooses to abandon 

that standard, that is one thing. I hope and I urge you not to do 

that. 

This is a standard that has served us well. We have created one 

of the greatest National Park systems in the world. It is the envy 

of other countries and a model to other countries who are seeking 

to preserve areas of biodiversity and natural resources, and I certainly urge you to keep that in mind when this issue of hunting 

comes up. 

In closing, I thank you for your time today and I will be glad to 

answer any questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your response, Mr. Medlock. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Medlock follows:] 
290 

850 SLIGO AVENUE, SUITE 300. SIL'·/ER SPRING. MD 209' 0 

Telephone: :3C1i 585-2591 

FAXc (301) 585-2595 

Cleveland Amory Wayne Pacelle 

-~· 

TESTIMOl'o'Y OF A. AARON MEDLOCK, ESQ. 

DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 

FOR THE FUND FOR ANIMALS 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITfEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

CONCERNING H.R. 518, THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT 

JUNE 15, 1993 

n.IIOO'!all);r.,;:tor 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 

Lands, I am Aaron Medlock, an attorney with The Fund For Animals, an animal protection 

organization with 150,000 members nationwide. I am here today to thank the sponsors for 

introducing H.R. 518, to express The Fund's strong support for this legislation, and to urge you 

to maintain the integrity of our national parks and national monuments by not amending this 

legislation to perntit sport hunting in the proposed Mojave National Monument and by not 

accepting a Mojave National Preserve in place of a Mojave National Monument. 

H.R. 518 is a visionary wildlands and wildlife protection bill that will safeguard a sizeable 

portion of the most remarkable lands within the California desert for present and future 

generations of Americans to enjoy. Only a few hours by automobile from anywhere in southern 

California, the lands to be protected under the provisions of the California Desert Protection Act 

will provide ineomparable recreational opportunities within a desert wonderland for many of the 

20 million people inhabiting southern California. 

Of all the public lands designated for enhanced federal protection under the provisions of 

this legislation, the creation of the Mojave National Monument is surely the most significant. A 

convergence zone for three distinct desert types, the proposed Mojave National Monument boasts 

1 00-mile vistas, the Cindercones National Natural Landmark, the world's largest Joshua tree 

fOrest, remarkable sand dunes, Southern California's largest limestone caverns, and thousands of 

ancient Indian petroglyphs. As you know, both the National Parle Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management, in separate agency reviews, have determined that lands now designated as the 

East Mojave National Scenic Area warrant national park or national monument status. While we 

would like to see it designated as our nation's 52nd national park, we welcome the addition of 

the Mojave National Monument as our nation's 80th national monument. 

Sadly, the opponents of this legislation are sniping at the creation of a Mojave National 

Monument. In particular, the National Rifle Association and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of 

N"'TIONAL HEADQUARTERS 200 WEST 57TH STREET. NEW YORK. NY 10019 
291 

America intend to advance an amendment to designate the area as a national preserve where sport 

hunting would be permitted. 

This would be a grave mistake -- a mistake with enormous precedential significance. 

Contrary to the assettions of opponents, this bill was never intended as an anti-hunting measure 

designed to lock out hunters from the desert. National park designation for the Mojave was 

conceived more than 16 years ago as a vehicle to safeguard the most unique and distinctive desert 

lands in the country for all Americans, and indeed all the world, to enjoy. 

Under the provisions of the Wildetness Act of 1964, sport hunting will continue to be 

allowed on the 4 million acres of BLM lands to be designated as wildetness. Also, H.R. 518 

does not interfere with the existing state and federal management of another I 0 million acres of 

California desert lands which would continue to be open to hunting when this legislation )s 

enacted. / 

The position that more than I 00 organizations have taken in support of thi~~on and 

in opposition to hunting in the proposed Mojave National Monument does not derive from an 

interest in locking hunters out of the desert. The opposition to sport hunting is a derivative of 

the fact -- supported by the NPS and BLM -- that the Mojave area is national park or national 

monument quality. 

Once the premise that the Mojave warrants park or monument status is accepted, it is clear 

that sport hunting should be prohibited. Hunting is simply not appropriate within our country's 

national parks and national monuments. As you know, 50 of 51 national parks and 78 of 79 

national monuments are closed to hunting. The exceptions are very narrowly tailored and apply 

to a very limited number of species; in Grand Teton National Park, deputized hunters are allowed 

to kill winter-fed elk in years of ovetpapulation, and in Hagerman Fossil Beds National 

Monument hunters are allowed access in order to shoot waterfowl flying over the adjacent Snake 

Rivet. 

National parks and national monuments are created, according to the 1916 Organic Act, 

"to conserve the scenery and the natural ... objects and the wild life therein ... unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations." 16 U.S.C. §I. Congress and the courts have consistently 

found that hunting is incompatible in national parks and monuments. 

Although hunting would be prohibited in the Mojave National Monument, H.R. 518 is no 

more an attack on hunting than was legislation that created Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand 

Canyon and other national parks and monuments. 

We should be aware of the true terms of this dehate over sport hunting in the Mojave. 

By its actions in the courts and in the Congress over the last 15 years, the NRA has attempted 

to destroy the no-hunting standard of management in national parks and national monuments. 

In the mid-1980's, the NRA filed a lawsuit to open to hunting and trapping those units of the 

national park system where Congress had not expressly forbidden those activities. In a sweeping 

2 
292 

decision. a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the 1916 Organic Act prohibited hunting and 

trapping except where Congress specifically authorized the activity. NRA v. Patter, 628 F.Supp. 

903 (D.D.C. 1986). 

Having failed in the courts, the pro-hunting groups have shifted their attention to 

Congress. Here, they ask Congress to eviscerate the California Desert Protection Act by rejecting 

the proposed Mojave National Monument and by substituting a proposed Mojave National 

Preserve, where sport hunting and a range of other abusive and incompatible activities would be 

permitted. If the Congress accedes to this tremendously significant change, it will guarantee a 

similar attack on every future national park or monument proposal. In fact, the NRA made it 

clear in its testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and 

Forests in April 1992 that it will oppose the creation of any new national park or monument or 

wilderness area if hunting opportunities or access are restricted in any way. The NRA also stated 

that it would like to see other restrictions or prohibitions on hunting on public lands lifted. 

The NRA has said, in unmistakable terms, that the Congress must discard the 99-year 

standard of no hunting in ai:eas that legitimately qualify as national parks or monuments. In fact, 

it is even opposed to wilderness designations even when hunting is permitted. Tiris represents 

an extreme anti-conservation ethic. 

From the statements of those who seek hunting in the Mojave, it is crystal clear that this 

debate is not about hunting jackrabbits, coyotes, and bighorn sheep in the California desert. It 

is about the integrity of the entire National Park System and whether or not Congress will ever 

again create a national park or monument where the land and the wildlife is not managed for 

hunting and where the natural objects and the wildlife therein are unimpaired for the enjoyment 

of future generations. 

I urge the members of this subcommittee to say no to this assault on the resource 

protection standard that has governed park and monument management for nearly a century. 

Enact the California Desert Protection Act in its present form and reject the amendment to create 

a Mojave National Preserve. 

Hunting Is An Incompatible Use In The Mojave Area 

There are compelling reasons - such as public attitudes, visitor safety, and the fragility 

of the desert's lands and the susceptibility of its wildlife to hunting impacts -- for excluding sport 

hunting from .the Mojave area 

A February 1993 Field Institute poD found that 75 percent of CaHfornians favor 

national park status for the Mojave knowing that hunting would be forbidden in the area. 

In general, 84 percent of Californians oppose hunting on newly created national park lands. Even 

in households with hunters, respondents favored a prohibition on hunting by a margin of two to 

one. 

3 
293 

The trend is clear in California -- spon hunting is tapidly declining. Only 1.3 percent of 

Californians hunt, while almost 30 percent engage in non-consumptive wildlife recreation. In the 

past 20 years, the number of hunters in California has declined by nearly 50 percent. 

In 1991, only 9,000 visitors went to California to hunt. By contrast, 640,000 people 

visited the state that year for the primary purpose of nonconsumptive wildlife activities such as 

observing, photographing, or feeding wildlife, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Hunting animals like the Mojave's desert bighorn sheep makes them skittish and causes them to 

avoid humans, thereby diminishing wildlife viewing and photography opportunities. 

It is not surprising that Californians would want to prohibit hunting in a new national park 

or monument. Hunting in a national monument or park would raise serious safety issues 

for other visitors. Hunting is not a benign activity. The discharge of firearms can result in 

human injury or death. As a result the Park Service may close certain areas to the public during 

hunting seasons. Even if there are no official closures, many people will avoid areas where 

hunting occurs - a de fucto form of exclusion. In the California desert, closures could last yearround since one species or another is hunted every day of the year. It is difficult to imagine that 

hunting could comfortably coexist with the visitors who will be dtawn to America's newest 

national monument. 

The Hunter Education Association reported 146 fatal and I ,418 non-fatal hunting accidents 

in the United States and Canada during 1990, with more than 95 percent of these accidents 

occurring in the United States. Fifty-six of the fatal accidents and 486 of the non-fatal accidents 

occurred when the hunter mistook the victim for a game animal or did not see the victim. 

Allowing hunting firearms in the national monument will lead to destruction of plant 

and animal life. It has been documented in the Mojave that some people with guns (whether 

or not they are otherwise legal hunters is unknown) shoot and kill threatened desert to noises and 

vandalize tare cacti, Joshua trees, and ancient Indian rock drawings called petroglyphs, just for 

thrills or perhaps for target practice. 

In listing the desert tortoise as threatened, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that 

vandalism, principally shooting, was a major threat to the species' survival. 

Tbe Facts About Hunting In The Mojave 

The present level of hunting activity in the proposed Mojave National Monument provides 

no compelling reason to accept the national preserve proposal. The proposed Mojave National 

Monument is arguably one of the least productive hunting areas, acre for acre, in the entire 

nation. 

By stating that 20,000 families hunt in the Mojave and annually accumulate 169,000 

hunting days, the hunting lobby has wildly exaggerated the level of hunting activity in the 

proposed Mojave National Monument. 

4 
294 

The statement that 20,000 families hunt in the Mojave is false. 

-- that figure is for all of San Bernardino County and is provided by the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG} as the estimate of hunters of key species based on its 

annual Game Take Hunter Survey; 

-- the CDFG actually counts hunters by tbe species hunted resulting in multiplecounting of hunters. For instance, a survey respondent who reports hunting both quail and 

jackrabbit is counted two times. The same figures that produce the San Bernardino County count 

of 20,000 hunters, produces a statewide count that more than doubles the actual number of 

licensed hunters in California. 

-- the CDFG survey attempts to count hunters, and does not count families; 

Therefore, total hunters for all of San Bernardino County may number as few as 10,000 

because of the inaccurate counting methodology. That figure should be further reduced --

perhaps to 12 percent of 10,000, or 1,200 hunters- to account for the fact that the Mojave 

National Park would encompass only 12 percent of the land in San Bernardino County. 

The statement that the Mojave provides 169,000 hunting days is false. 

-- that figure is taken from the CDFG's 1991 survey and is again for all of San 

Bernardino County, not just the Mojave; 

-- the CDFG counts hunting days by species bunted, resulting in multiple counting 

of days. If a hunter reports hunting both quail and chukar during one day, two hunting days are 

counted. 

The CDFG Game Take Hunter Survey is unreliable. For instance, only 2.4 percent 

of all licensed hunters provided information for the 1991 survey and survey results are based on 

hunters' recollections of hunting as long ago as 18 months. The CDFG admits that the survey 

is biased as a result of "the phenomenon of more successful individuals (e.g., hunters) being more 

inclined to return a questionnaire.~ This "nonresponse bias is one of the principle causes of 

inflated bag and hunter-use figures, • CDFG concedes. 

The Mojave Is Not A Hunter's Paradise 

Deer hunting in San Bernardino County is concentrated not in the desert, but in the San 

Bernardino National Forest which is also a popular place to hunt bear, coyote, dove, quail, chukar 

partridge, turkey, jackrabbits and cottontails. Waterfowl hunting occurs on Baldwin Lake and 

on the Colorado River. The San Bernardino National Forest is located in the very western part 

of the county and is probably the major destination for hunters from the coast. H.R. 518 has 

nothing to do with these areas. 

5 
295 

For almost all of the species hunted in the Mojave, accurate kill records are not kept. 

Exceptions would be data on the 4 or 5 bighorn sheep killed each year and perhaps the 25 to 30 

deer killed. Other figures reported below are based on the CDFG 1991 r.,nual survey which 

CDFG admits may produce inflated bag numbers. Furthermore, figures are not reported 

specifically for the Mojave, but for all of San Bernardino County. 

Desert bighorn sheep -- The CDFG permits II or I2 desert bighorn sheep to be killed 

by hunters each year. Perhaps 4 or 5 are taken out of the Mojave Desert. 

At present, bighorn sheep hunting is allowed in three zones in California -- the Marble 

Mountains, Kelso Peak/Old Dad Mountains, and Clark/Kingston mountain ranges. 

The Marble Mountains zone is completely outside of the proposed Mojave National 

Monument. 

The Kelso Peak/Old Dad Mountains zone is completely inside the proposed Mojave 

National Monument. 

The Clark/Kingston zone is mostly outside and north of the proposed Mojave National 

Park. However, the Clark Mountain Range would be partially inside the monument. 

Permits issued in 1992 and proposed for 1993 are as follows: 

Zone 1992 1993 

Marble Mountains 3 3 

Kelso Peak/Old Dad 5 4 

Clark/Kingston 3 3 

Any Zone I I (Fund-raising tag) 

The auctioning of one desert bighorn sheep hunting tag which provides up to $IOO,OOO 

for sheep conservation would not be affected by this legislation. In fact, the fund-raising tag 

could auction for a higher price in 1994 if fewer tags are available. Furthermore, the state 

legislature has authorized the issuance of up to three fund-raising tags. 

The maintenance of water guzzlers that benefit wildlife such as the bighorn during times 

of drought would not be prohibited by National Park Service regulations. In fact, wildlife 

guzzlers have been maintained in Joshua Tree National Monument since the 1950's. 

On occasion, animals from national parks have been removed for a number of reasons, 

including translocating for wildlife repopulation. In fact, federal regulations provide for the 

removal of surplus live elk, bison, and bears from Yellowstone National Park and live bison from 

Wind Cave National Park for preserves, zoos, zoological gardens and parks. 36 C.F.R. §10.1 et 

seq. Similar regulations could be adopted for the Mojave National Monument bighorn sheep. 

6 
296 

The herds within the proposed boundaries of the Mojave National Monument have been 

a valuable source for translocation. To date, 222 sheep have been removed including 45 in 1992 

airlifted to other mountain ranges to help reestablish populations in the historic range. 

Removing sheep from large, protected herds in the Mojave for repopulation elsewhere is 

far more valuable to hunters than the four or five hunting tags that are issued for such herds each 

year. As the desert bighorn sheep population grows and individual herd populations stabilize, 

more hunting opportunities will be created. Already, there are 50 herds of bighorn sheep in 

California. 

Mule Deer -- The Mojave is an extraordinarily poor deer hunting area. The CDFG 

reports that an average of 26 mule deer are killed annually in the Mojave, an area of 1.5 million 

acres. Most deer in the county are found in the San Bernardino National Forest, not the desert. 

Coyote-- Hunters may have killed an estimated 3,738 coyotes in San Bernardino County 

in 1991, many in the National Forest. 

Jackrabbit-- The San Bernardino County kill for 1991 may have been 24,486, much of 

it in the National Forest. The estimated statewide bag was down 23 percent from 1990. 

Cottontail Rabbit-- The San Bernardino County kill for 1991 may have been 19,068, 

much of it in the National Forest. The estimated statewide bag was down 32 percent from 1990. 

Tree Squirrel-- The San Bernardino County kill for 1991 may have been 168, perhaps 

none in the proposed Mojave National Monument. The state is proposing that there be no 

hunting season for tree squirrels for 1993 in San Bernardino County. 

Birds - CDFG reports that 73,000 doves, 1,134 band-tailed pigeons, 42 turkeys, 168 

pheasants, 85,000 quail, 6,000 chu.kar partridge, 9,786 crows, 8,190 ducks, and 1,932 geese were 

killed in all of San Bernardino County in 1991. Again, these figures are taken not from actual 

counts, but from the annual hunter survey. 

Waterfowl hunting in the county -occurs mostly on Baldwin Lake or the Colorado River, 

many miles from the Mojave Desert. Almost all turkey hunting occurs in the San Bernardino 

National Forest, as does a great deal of the quail, partridge, pigeon and dove hunting. 

The CDFG notes that resident game bird hunting "ha[s] been steadily declining since 

peaking in the 1960's." The number of quail hunters has declined by 62 percent since 1967, 

while the number of quail harvested declined by 69 perceot. 

As the above information indicates, there is no compelling reason to discard the 99-year, 

no-hunting standard in national parks and national monuments, as evidenced by the unproductive 

hunting activity in the proposed Mojave National Monument. 

7 
297 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, for 99 years Congress has prohibited hunting in our national parks and 

monuments. This subcommittee may choose to abandon that management standard by allowing 

hunting in the Mojave National Monument. Or, this subcommittee may choose to designate the 

Mojave as a unit other than a national park or national monument where hunting would be 

allowed. In doing so, this subcommittee will have brought to an end an era that began in 1894 

with the protection of wildlife in Yellowstone National Park and that eventually created a 

National Park System that is the envy of the world, and a model for countries trying to preserve 

their own natural ecosystems. There is no compelling reason to abandon that management 

standard. 

8 
298 

Mr. VENTO. I guess nobody has put in the record the survey that 

San Bernardino County has-do you have it with you to put in the 

record? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. Yes, I do. 

Mr. VENTO. So if you would submit it, it will be included. I guess 

that is the same survey that has been referred to by Mr. Hom and 

by others earlier today in the discussion. So perhaps this is the appropriate time to put it in the record, the information from San 

Bernardino County. 

[The summary of Wildlife Management Related Data for the East 

Mojave Desert follows:] 
299 

SUMMARY OF WILDUFE MANAGEMENT RELATED DA'"' FOR 

THE FAST MOJAVE DESERT 

It should be noted that largely because of the effect. of the ongoing drought in this area, the following 

,unter numbers and effort are currently well below long term averages. With the recent rains, we should 

~xpect a stable, if not increased, number of hunters and days. 

HuRler Numbers and Elrort Cor 1,1 !g Eut Mo!ave Dmrt 

Game Hunter Hunter 

Animal ~ Effon CDm) f!l!& 

Dove s.ooo 20,000 73,000 

Quail 7,000 54,000 87,000 

Chuckar 2,000 9,000 6,000 

Jackrabbit 3,000 30,000 24,000 

Cottontail 3,000 24,000 19,000 

Coyotes 1,300 32,000 4,000 

Bobcat ......uJ! ~ _.1_ 

21,430 169,300 213,000 

l!m: !ll!llllo& Ia Z!me !HZ £all !!lllllo & Mlllo•~l 

#of 

Yl:!!r f!limili lil1lmt ~ 

1987 • soo IS 3 

1988 • 500 29 6 

1989 • 500 29 6 

1990 • 500 26 5 

1991 soo 31 6 

1992 soo 45 9 

:• the lnyo Mountains were included in Zone D-17 prior to the 1991 season. It was estimated that 

1pproximately half of the totall,OOO permits bunted in the current boundaries) 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

BlcJwm sl!W' buptlnc IR the E. Molts !Marble yd Kington) 

#of 

f!limili ~ 

s s 

s s 6 6 

4 4 

5 s 7 7 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Permits are required for the pursuit of deer, bighorn sheep and bobcats. The money generated from the $5 

non-refundable application fee and the tag auctioned each year ($70K, $S9K, $40K, $37K, $42K, $61K 

rcspcctiv<:ly and $lOOK for next year) is placed in a dedicated account to be used exclusiv<:ly for the 

research and management of bighorn sheep in California. 

Designation or the East Mojave area aJ a park would eliminate aU the hunter use of this area. In addition, 

it would prevent maintenance of critical wildlife water development. (guzzle II) that currently number more 

than 300. 

Wilderness designation wiD nOI necessarily eliminate hunting, but due to the physiogeogmphical nature of 

the area, it would effectiv<:ly restrict hunting to a very small part of the area. Current wildlife management 

efforts in this general area total approximately 35,000 man·bours annually. The bulk of this effort is 

provided by volunteers in coordination with the Department. This management work comprises largely 

habitat maintenance/improvement and wHdlifc inventory projects. Because of vehicle restrictions associated 

.vith wilderness designation, these effort. would for the lllOI'It park cease. 

Both wilderness and park designation would effectively (if not directly) eliminate efforts to restore wildlife 

populations. 
300 

Mr. VENTO. Now you are saying that in San Bernardino County, 

the East Mojave only makes up about 11 or 12 percent of that area; 

is that correct? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. That is my understanding, yes. And actually this 

is the California State survey, it is not a San Bernardino County 

survey. 

Mr. VENTO. But it is of the county? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. It breaks it out by county; yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course a further assumption might be that only 

people from San Bernardino County hunt in this area; is that correct? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. No. Actually, the survey says, Where did you 

hunt? 

Mr. VENTO. I see. 

Mr. MEDLOCK. And then it is put into the appropriate county category. 

Mr. VENTO. But you are suggesting that there are other areas 

that are much more likely as hunting areas in that area; that is, 

some national forest areas? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. Well, certainly if I lived in Los Angeles or San 

Diego I would rather spend an hour and a half driving to the San 

Bernardino National Forest, which has a lot of hunting opportunities, than going another hour or two into the desert with very little 

hope of sighting an animal or, if I am a hunter, killing the animal. 

Mr. VENTO. What you are suggesting is that maybe those figures 

for that county-now, there is some suggestion in some of the summary materials that I saw that only part of the area, D-17, which 

is a deer area, should be attributed to the East Mojave. But less 

than half of it, I guess, would be the estimates based on your observations that there is some double-counting going on here. That is 

to say, if somebody goes out hunting jackrabbits and say they were 

hunting jackrabbits and cottontails, they are getting scored for two 

hunter days. Is that correct? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. They are not only getting scored for two hunter 

days, they are also being counted as two hunters. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. That is interesting. Very often, I suppose. I 

don't know if people when they go deer hunting are going to be 

hunting rabbits at the same time. It is a little unlikely, but I suppose some people may, I don't know. 

Mr. Hom, do you have any response to this analysis? 

Mr. HoRN. We have basically relied on the figures from the California Department of Fish and Game. I think we would essentially 

conclude that 170,000 hunter days, no matter how you count it, is 

a very substantial effort. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. HORN. More than half of the effort is directed at bird hunting. One goes out hunting birds generally with shotguns. One is 

out generally pursuing deer with a rifle. There may be some modest degree of double counting, but I think it would be modest. 

We want the committee to deal with the policy question. 

Mr. VENTO. So you are not trying to say these numbers absolutely reflect the numbers at all. So you are really not concerned 

about the amount of hunting or the success in terms of hunting 
301 

here so much as you are the policy question, is that what you are 

telling me? 

Mr. HORN. It is the fundamental policy question, and that the 

numbers and the statistics that have been generated are sufficient 

to create an area where we have significant hunting opportunities 

that exist today that we don't think should be diminished. 

Mr. VENTO. So your position is not based on the specific characteristics of the East Mojave, is that right? 

Mr. HoRN. No. It is based on the fact that this is an important 

hunting area. We expect the hunting activity to increase in the 

area. We think that the activity has been depressed in the large 

decade, largely as a result of the persistent drought, and that it is 

inappropriate as a matter of policy to erode further hunting opportunities on public lands in Southern California. 

Mr. VENTO. Are you arguing, Mr. Horn, that all national parks 

or a goodly number of them should be open to sport hunting? 

Mr. HORN. No. There have been very consistent decisions made. 

That in some cases where you had significant hunting opportunities in existence this committee made decisions. Just last year you 

created the Little River Canyon Preserve in Alabama. The determination was that that was an important wildlife area, hunting 

was an important activity, and notwithstanding the fact that it had 

"park quality resources," Preserve designation was the appropriate 

designation in that case. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, there is a State Park included in that in which 

there won't be hunting, I presume-the DeSoto State Park. But in 

any case, we didn't refer to it as a National Park. 

Mr. HoRN. No. You designated it a preserve, and you have similar language which permits the Alabama Department of Fish and 

Game to continue to regulate. AB I indicated, this is consistent, and 

the amendment that we are asking the committee to consider and 

adopt is consistent with 20 years of legislative precedent dating 

back to the original enactments of Big Cypress and Big Thicket. 

You did this 10 times in Alaska, covering nearly 20 million acres 

of land, in the 1980 Alaska Lands Act, and you just reiterated that 

precedent last year with the Little River Canyon Preserve in Alabama. 

So in deference to all this discussion of precedent, we think you have got a pretty good 20-year track record that ought to be continued with the one and a half million acres in the East Mojave. 

Mr. VENTO. But the point is that in these instances there are 

probably substantial opportunities for sport hunting, whereas the 

concern here is that there is a pretty depressed area in terms of 

the availability of most game. 

Mr. HORN. I disagree, Mr. Chairman. I think that we do have a 

very significant area. We have got 170,000 days of hunter use, 

most of it, as I said, dedicated and directed toward bird hunting. 

By my lights and I think our coalition's lights, that is a very significant opportunity that we don't want to see eroded. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that figure has been challenged. You said that 

it was a matter of principle based on the fact that you didn't think 

it ought to be closed to hunting, not necessarily the quality of it. 

But now you have, of course-maybe I misunderstood you. 
302 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I think we can sit here and argue numbers and we can bring in the statisticians to go through it. If 

the number were 100,000 hunter days or 150,000 hunter days, by 

our lights that is a significant effort, and that is a significant recreational opportunity that should not be denied to a very significant element of the recreational public, coupled with the fact that 

hunting does not degrade the environment, it does not interfere 

with other users of this area, and there is no good reason to deny 

hunting_ in this important area. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that it has got a conflict with other 

uses. Very often, in terms of individuals, when an area is open to 

hunting, obviously, there are safety questions and so forth that are 

involved. 

Mr. HoRN. There are clearly time and space zoning arrangements that have been taken into account on public lands across the 

Nation, be it our Wildlife Refuge System, National Preserve units, 

State Parks, wild rivers, forest areas, BLM lands, and we have 

competent agencies both within States and the Federal Government to deal with those public health and safety issues, which they 

deal with quite effectively. 

Mr. VENTO. But the point is they are not necessarily compatible. 

Mr. Hughes raised the point of the different behavior of wildlife in 

parks where they are hunted as opposed to areas where they are 

not hunted. Mr. Hughes, did you not raise that point? 

Mr. HUGHES. I certainly did. I also speak to a different behavior 

of people. My wife doesn't like to go to the East Mojave in October 

when it is open to hunting. 

Particularly, hunters I am not concerned with. Hunters when 

they don't find anything tend to turn into shooters, and I get very 

nervous around shooters. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I mean we have all seen the evidence of damage in some areas to road signs and to vegetation and other things, 

unfortunately. Nobody would endorse that type of activity, but it 

does occur. Obviously it is, I suppose, a clearer matter in terms of 

regulating to forbid having in your possession firearms, or at least 

not having them available in these areas when they are closed. 

In any case, let me-Mr. Simons, did you want to comment? 

Mr. SIMON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. If I could just comment quickly on a couple of points. 

The drought issue is one that I find sometimes very interesting. 

We simply need to remind ourselves that there is a drought, but 

this is desert. We may be misleading ourselves in terms of the impression that we should be expecting more rainfall in the first 

place. These cycles of rainfall are quite long and we may be experiencing something more akin to normal conditions right now. 

Second of all, in terms of conflicts with hunting, both the chairman and, of course, Mr. Horn in his previous capacities are well 

aware of the situations in Big Cypress National Preserve, for example, where hunting has been a concern that has held us back, I 

think, from taking some additional steps to protect the endangered 

Florida panther. 

In sum, I think the question here is one of balance, one that the 

committee and the Congress is faced with continually. We have 

heard a lot about cost of this bill, and hunting is part of this, but 
303 

we need to look at the overall weight of benefits and cost to the 

American public. Clearly, I think the economic benefits of hunting will be far outweighed by the increased tourism benefits, some of 

which we have heard about today. But that is just part of it. 

I think overall when we weigh these issues having some area 

free from this activity and other areas still open will be in the best 

interest of the American public. Thanks. 

Mr. VENTO. I find that my time has expired. Mr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we can get 

into this fight and arm wrestle over what these correct figures are 

on this, but from the information we have been given on our side 

these figures are pretty correct that we got. You mentioned the 

idea of rabbit hunting. Jack or cottontail, they are rabbit hunting. 

I don't think they make a distinction between jackrabbits and others, do they? · Mr. VENTO. The survey does that you are using. The information 

does indicate that they give a separate category. Incidentally, it is 

about the same numbers, 3,000 per group. I suspect those are 

mostly the same 3,000 people. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am sure they are. But you get into it, I don't 

think when the rabbit hunter is out there he draws a distinction. 

Mr. VENTO. No. I agree. I agree with the gentleman. That is the 

point-if the gentleman would yield-that we are getting numbers 

that probably need to be qualified on that basis. That is all. 

Mr. HANSEN. And then on the other side, a point that I think 

was missed by the panel, is seasons don't overlap. I mean many 

times you have got a season of one and a season of another thing, 

and I think that is something to take into consideration. 

Mr. VENTO. But I expect that a quail and chukar overlap. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am sure they would. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. HANsEN. Well, not necessarily. In the State of Utah they 

don't. 

Mr. VENTO. Not perfectly probably. 

Mr. HANSEN. Chukar starts in September and quail starts the 

first week of November in Utah, and I would assume the same 

thing would apply in these other Western States. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I hunt them extensively. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I can tell you about use and pheasant in 

Minnesota. I can't tell you what you do in . Mr. MEDLOCK. May I address that point, please? I would like to 

point out that in the California Desert at present there is hunting 

every day of the year. The jackrabbit season is year-round, as is 

the coyote season. The cottontail season is 6 months, and the other 

seasons are shorter. There is a great deal of overlapping of seasons. 

Mr. HANsEN. That may be true, but you can't turn a cottontail 

into a jackrabbit no matter how hard you try. 

Mr. MEDLOCK. I wouldn't want to. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me go on and point out something, if I may. 

You know, I think the Park Service, and I don't mean to be critical 

of them, are always taking a rather narrow view of this hunting issue. I think it should be on a retail basis. If you look at the size 

of Yellowstone, it is absolutely huge, and I have spent hundreds of 
304 

hours in Yellowstone in my life. And actually, what really happens there, if you check up on it, most of those things die of starvation. 

They get too big, the bison herd or the elk herd or the moose herd, 

and they die. 

So hunting is like grazing. It is a tool that can be used. In the 

State of Utah when I was a young man in the days that I used to 

really enjoy horses we used to ride and do the deer count every 

spring for the Fish and Game. A whole bunch of volunteers did it. 

They probably do it up in Idaho the same way, Larry. Most deer 

in Utah die of starvation. Second is cars. Cars get a lot more deer 

than hunters will ever get. 

So using the hunter as a tool, a management tool to keep the 

herd down and determine where you can-you know, sometimes we 

have an "either sex" hunt, which is probably appropriate, to thin 

it out just a little bit. If not, you are just overrun with the things. 

Mr. VENTO. If we could introduce these northern timber wolf 

hunters. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am afraid everyone would break the law and kill 

them in a hurry. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I am afraid that is a problem. 

Mr. HANSEN. I could probably kill more deer in my backyard 

than most of these people kill. Looking at the deer count here, it 

is pretty bad in the Mojave area. I have to take out all my shrubs 

every year. But I don't mean to get into that. 

I just really think it is kind of foolish to make absolute statements. Absolutely we don't hunt in parks. My gosh, what are we 

going to do, kill off all these-let these things die when we can take 

advantage of it? And I am speaking of the Tetons. We hunt in the 

Tetons. I have hunted in the Tetons. You have to have a special permit to hunt in that area. We hunt in some parks, and it is a 

reasonable, rational thing to do. 

So I don't find it offensive, but I just find it a little hard to understand the rationale of saying we do not hunt in parks, period. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we don't treat them the same way. But I would 

just suggest I don't find it altogether offensive that things die of 

natural causes, or the animals do, and the way that that works. I 

don't look at it as being wasted. You know much of that really is 

not wasted. There is a pretty good cycle there that goes on in terms 

of its after-effects. 

Mr. HANSEN. I surely agree that things can die of natural causes. 

I wouldn't want to get into an argument with the chairman over 

that. But'I would point out that when they overgraze an area and 

they take it to the point down to nothing and get fires and all those 

things it is a good management tool. 

And if I may continue on just a w~ bit.- Mr. Simon, I would like 

to ask you a question, if I could. The proposed East Mojave National Monument has an extensive infrastructure that includes 

2,500 miles of roads, 55 miles of transcontinental railroads, several 

high voltage transmission lines, a pipeline, 120 miles of telephone 

lines, and over 10,000 mining claims. How does this area meet the 

standard normally associated with a national monument? 

Mr. SIMON. Well, that is a mouthful, Mr. Hansen. I think when 

you look at these things you first of all have to look at those intrusions, if you refer to them as intrusions, in the scope of this land-
305 

scape, which is vast. Many of those features on the land fade into 

the landscape from very short distances away from them. 

The second thing I would say to you is that this situation is not 

necessarily unique in the National Park System. Other units such 

as Denali National Park in Alaska, New River Gorge in West Virginia, also have railroads through them. In this respect, I think the 

roads and the railroad even probably represent one of the most incredible opportunities for mass public access and interpretation of 

this region that we have ever faced before, and with some kind of 

creative management we can really make this place meaningful to 

millions of Americans. 

Lastly, in terms of utility corridors, I may be exaggerating slightly, Mr. Congressman, but virtually every national park unit has 

some form of some utility corridor through it. In discussion of the 

reconciliation bill this year the committee dealt with some of these 

issues and I believe that did come to light. 

Mr. HANsEN. I would agree with that statement. As far as the 

utility corridor, I am sure you are absolutely correct. But I have 

never seen one this extensive. I think this will be the leader of the 

pack. 

Mr. SIMON. Well, the resources that, of course, surrounds these 

features are really the ones that the Park Service and the BLM in 

doing their studies have determined to be of National Park caliber. 

You are talking about 16 mountain ranges, thousands of 

petroglyphs, some of the best collections of Indian rock art in the 

world, 700 plant species, hundreds of animal and fauna species, 

tremendous historic resources. In the context of the standards for 

the Park System, and these areas being large areas with diverse 

resources of national significance-those are basically the criteriathis area clearly meets those tests. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Medlock, your testimony was basically against 

hunting in the park there. Just out of curiosity, looking at the head 

of your statement here, does your organization support hunting an~here? Private. public, any gro~d anywhere? Mr. MEDLOCK. Well, I can't think of a time when that has hap- pened; no, sir. We do a lot of animal protection work, ranging from 

protecting endangered species to spaying and neutering cats; and 

yes, it often involves working to stop certain hunting practices and 

certain hunts. 

Mr. HANSEN. But you basically oppose hunting wherever it is 

found? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. My organization does; yes. 

Mr. HANsEN. No exceJ!tions to that? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. I will JUSt say that we haven't seen the exception 

yet. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, that is pretty clear. 

Mr. MEDLOCK. But I also-this is not a bill that we think is an 

anti-hunting bill. We were brought into this bill primarily when the 

hunting community attacked the National Park System. It is not 

something that we set out to do, to take away hunting in the East 

Mojave Desert. 

Mr. HANSEN. What is your rationale on no hunting, may I ask? 

I don't mean to be unkind. I was just curious what the rationale 

is. 
306 

Mr. MEDLOCK. Actually, it is odd because I grew up in a family of hunters. In fact, if my father hadn't hunted there would be many times we probably would not have had enough to eat. So I am prob- ably a little more sensitive to the issue than some people. 

I take great offense, though, at people who shoot animals basically for a thrill. I take less offense at people who really need to 

do what we call subsistence hunting. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is kind of a hard line sometimes to draw-that 

line. 

Mr. MEDLOCK. It is. But also we seldom get into the debate because, quite frankly, it is not on the agenda to end hunting. It seldom comes up. 

Mr. HANSEN. You don't look at it as a game mana~ement tool? 

Mr. MEDLOCK. Actually, what you were saying earlier was very 

interesting. I did want to point out that, first of all, there has been 

no suggestion of any overpopulation problems in the California 

Desert, so that a management tool is not needed. We find more 

times than not that when the management tool is actually used to 

inflate herd numbers of deer and elk, for instance, so that you have 

these problems of what some would call overpopulation. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. MEDLOCK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANsEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTo. Thank you. Mr. LaRocco? 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this discussion on hunting and monuments versus preserves. I would pay 

particular attention, however, to the letter that the State of California Department of Fish and Game sent to Senator Feinstein, 

which I believe has been entered into the record, because there is 

some information in here that I think is a little bit different than 

the focus of our discussion over the last few minutes with regard 

to scientific research. 

And really, the question that my colleague from Utah just brou~ht up ii). terms of managing wildlife is what in this letter they call ' active management," which they feel they would give up that 

opportunity in that region. The Director, Boyd Gibbons, says that 

"I am concerned that neither our department's important efforts at 

scientific research in managing wildlife be foreclosed nor the hunting public be shut out of this region we have historically used." 

I know in legislation I have tried to fashion in Idaho that we always look at the historical uses. That is a big thing to me. In 

checking with my staff here, I think we had a minimum of 90,000 

hunting licenses in my district alone, a normal district of a half 

million people. So, you know, the historical uses in that area. I 

guess we could quibble over these figures, but, you know, Mr. Gibbons does say "In the East Mojave, for example, upland game hunters have spent more than 110,000 recreation days annually. Because our management has helped bring back bighorn sheep, we 

have been able to offer some limited sheep hunting, the permits for 

which have produced more than $500,000, all used to expand populations of bighorn sheep." Then he goes on to say, "* * * certainly the more difficult hurdle both for hunting and our department's ability to continue scientific study and manage wildlife." So at least 

Mr. Gibbons wants us to investigate this idea of a preserve. 
307 

I brought this question up with the Secretary, and maybe you 

were in the hearing room earlier. I direct this at Mr. Simon because I think this is an important policy question. 

Last year the House of Representatives passed a bill which was 

precedent-setting. It said that hunting should go on in the East 

Mojave Park. And the Secretary said there is no way that he would 

want that type of direction from the Congress. 

Now, I would grant you that this is before it was passed by the 

Senate. This is not a conference. But nevertheless, the House of 

Representatives spoke on this. I had been looking for some way to 

protect historical uses, to protect the area, and to manage actively 

the game in that area as indicated by Mr. Gibbons. 

So my question to you would be what is your position on the legislation passed last year by the full House? Is that acceptable to 

your organization? 

Mr. SIMON. The H.R. 2929, which you are referring to, no, it was 

not acceptable, simply because of the fact it did authorize hunting 

in a National Monument, which would have violated 99 years of 

National Park policy precedent. 

Let me try and respond to your real honest, intellectual turning 

over of these issues. First of all, in response to the State's concerns 

I can only say that I don't think we are giving up active management of wildlife. As I eointed out, the Park Service has wide latitude still to manage wildlife. The Park Service has been the single 

largest donor agency of bifhom sheep in the entire West. That will 

continue under this bill. think there is great value in having a 

protected herd. Hunting opportunities will even continue in these 

areas surrounding the East Mojave. 

In addition, there is great value in having non-hunted populations. Active management also means scientific research. It is 

often not a feature that is included in that. 

In terms of the vote, Congressman LaRocco--

Mr. LARocco. Yes? 

Mr. SIMON [continuing]. You were here in Congress during the 

102d Congress. There were a set of interesting circumstances surrounding that vote. Other votes bore on that vote that had to do 

with gun questions. And I would only say to you that hope springs 

eternal and change seems to be the big word of the day in America, 

and we feel that we can successfully bring our case before Congress again. 

Mr. LARocco. Well, I think that was a common sense vote. I 

think that what was in there stated that the Secretary "shall" be 

directed, but in conjunction with the State Department of Fish and 

Game. I think when people turn that over in their mind they decided, ''Well, the State is still involved and this is a State's rights 

issue. That this is okay. That is right. I remember now. State Departments of Fish and Game do have a say in the bag limits and 

the season and the setting of that and whether there are permits 

and access and hunting seasons" and so forth. 

So, when you tum that over in your mind it seems to make 

sense, and maybe there is a time factor there and so forth. But the 

rubber is hitting the road here and we have a great opportunity for 

this bill to actually make it to the President's desk and to find a 

sympathetic pen there, the President is like to sign this, because 
308 

of certain political chan~es that I think make this a political reality. In a sense, this tram is on the track. 

So I am concerned about the precedent, and the Preserve idea 

seems a logical solution. We are talking about my amendment here 

that I intend to offer in the committee, and I think that the votes 

are here. I think that last year's language passed the House because we weren't willing to deal openly with this precedent question. Now I think that we are having a necessary discussion about 

it. 

And, you know, I understand Mr. Hughes' position, but there are 

lots of concerns about uses. Let's face it. I was in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness last week during the break, and you know that 

is a narrow trail. So when you step in horse stuff, left behind by 

a string of pack mules, somebody will say, You know, I don't like 

allowing those horses in here. It ought to be just open for backpackers. Then you go up to Moose Creek and they got planes that 

land in there. Then you have got inholdings and you have got permit systems. You know, these are fine balances of uses, and I guess 

that is what we are searching for here. 

Mr. LARocco. Right. And I think we are trying to, hopefully, 

eliminate some of the things that will create internal tensions in 

the management of this area that would otherwise continue to 

plague us down the road. 

Mr. SIMON. And before I close, I appreciate the opportunity torespond, Congressman LaRocco. I have to also thank you for your involvement and your interest in the hunting question. Without belaboring the point, I am just delighted that some of the groups that 

Bill Hom is representing here today have changed their tune with 

respect to this bilL Just a little over a year ago, we were talking 

about testifying against not only the California Desert Protection 

Act, but some of the groups that Mr. Hom represents here today 

also stated their opposition to Mr. Lewis' bill. So I am delighted 

that we have some of our friends and their hunting constituencies 

who have now come around to supporting parks and wilderness. 

I respect your opinion on this topic. I respectfully disagree about 

the validity of the activity in the park. 

Mr. LARocco. You know, Mr. Gibbons goes on to say, "I am also 

deeply concerned with preserving hunting in the East Mojave and 

elsewhere. Hunters in California may appear to have huge territories in which to hunt but the reality of population growth and 

recreation demands in the State make it increasingly more difficult 

for the hunting public to enjoy a day in the field." 

That is why I want to brmg the committee's attention to this letter. I think I know Mr. Hom's position on this, and I commend 

them too. Because I think Mr. Hughes' statement is that the NRA 

and hunting groups are just trying to open the parks up, and I 

think that their position on this is that they are not. They are instead trying to find a way through this dilemma, and it is not easy. 

But I know in the National Conservation Area that I think we are 

about ready to have signed into law in Idaho, the Snake River 

Birds of Prey--

Mr. SIMON. I hope. 

Mr. LP..Rocco. I am hopeful too. In fact, the Senate is having a 

hearing day after tomorrow on that. 
309 

But, you know, we had historical uses of a¢ cultural practices, the training of the military, water rights, grazmg, all of which was 

prescriptive in nature, and we found that the NCA route was the 

way to go about that protection. So I just think that this Preserve 

idea, if written correctly, and drawn properly gets us down the 

road and recognizes the political realities of this. 

I appreciate your comments. Your views on hunting, Mr. 

Medlock, are out of sync with just about every one of my constituents, but I appreciate your comments. And, Mr. Hughes, I have 

read your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you. If there aren't enough things to 

hunt in California they can always come to Minnesota or Utah or 

Idaho, I guess, for that matter. We have got plenty of hunter days 

and some degree of success. I think Mr. Hughes was right when 

he said there isn't a county in Minnesota where we don't have more 

deer that probably get hit accidentally in a year than what they get 

all year at the East Mojave, which is the size of West Virginia, I 

guess, just for comparison purposes. The county is the size of West 

Virginia, not the park. 

The United States, like any landowner, can close some of its 

lands or all of them to hunting under many circumstances. So the 

decision really isn't a State decision. I know that they don't advocate or follow a policy like that unless they have got a reason, and 

setting in place or the designation of this as a National Park under 

the law would be such a reason. 

Well, I want to thank this panel very much for their participation. The hunting issue seems to be getting a lot of attention. I 

think that the whole park issue in terms of its suitability, its features, its administrative ability and other factors are probably really the key factors. I, in a sense, regret that it has come down to 

that particular discussion because it really didn't receive, and 

shouldn't receive I don't think, that much attention. It is just simP.ly, I think, a question of designation. The end effect I fear is that 

if amendments pass that do that, you will effectively prevent this 

from being designated, which is, perhaps, what the real goal is in 

any case in some people's intent. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF ROB BLAIR, CALIFORNIA CATI'LEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; KURT HATHAWAY, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION; JAMES REDDY, PRESIDENT, PLEUSSSTAUFER, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA MINING ASSO· 

CIATION; NORBERT RIEDY, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CALI· 

FORNIA REGION, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; AND WILLIAM 

C. MATHESON, VICE PRESIDENT, SALES AND LAND MANAGE· 

MENT, CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. 

Mr. VENTO. We have the third and final panel of five witnesses 

that have been very patient today, and we appreciate that. Hopefully, we can conclude after hearing their test1mony with just a few 

brief questions. 

Mr. Rob Blair, who is with the California Minin~ Association; 

Kurt Hathaway, the American Motorcyclist Assoe1ation; James 

Reddy, with the California Mining Association; Mr. Norbert Riedy, 
310 

The Wilderness Society; and finally, Mr. William C. Matheson, the 

Catellus Development Corporation. In recognizing Mr. Blair-Mr. Blair is here-! want to comment 

that we were, obviously, interested in your views on the issues before us. 

Your statements have all been made a part of the record. If you 

can kind of summarize in about 5 minutes, I would appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF ROB BLAIR 

Mr. BLAIR. Okay. Thank you. I sure appreciate the opportunity 

to come back here and speak to you in the great halls of our N ation. My name is Rob Blair, and I represent my family, the High 

Desert Cattlemen's, the California Cattlemen's and the National 

Cattlemen's Association, and thank you for the opportunity to 

share with you how H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act, 

will affect me, my family, my industry, and the California Desert 

as I have known it. 

First of all, it affects my heritage. Like many other ranchers to 

be affected by this bill, my roots are buried deep within this desert 

soil. In 1914, my people came to this desert. Now my children are 

the fifth generation to live and to work on the same piece of land. 

H.R. 518 will eventually terminate grazing. It will deprive me of 

my home, my way of life, and not only my heritage but my children's inheritance. This bill does not address my inholdings, water 

and grazing rights. 

Second of all, we maintain the water. Water is the most important resource in the desert. It is important to realize that most of 

the water that is accessible to wildlife is developed and maintained 

by ranchers. We own the water rights to many of the sources. We 

maintain hundreds of miles of water distribution pipeline, maintain 

wells and develoP. the few springs that are there. If we leave this 

desert, the wildlife that depends on our water will surely die off 

and the biodiversity of the Mojave Desert as we know it today will 

cease to exist. 

Third, grazing benefits the desert. Cattle can convert forage, a 

renewable resource, into food and fiber for the American public. Through this process we have an effective pruning method which 

allows the roots to develop and make new room for growth. Desert 

grazing provides a natural process of fertilizer, reseeding and fire 

controL The East Mojave is an example of how grazing and range 

management improve the range conditions. The range in the East 

Mojave is in better shape now than 150 years ago. Photographs 

support this trend and my father was a witness to it for the last 

50 years. It is ironic now that the range looks so good that this bill 

proposes to remove the stewardship that nurtured it. 

Ranchers contribute to the local economy. Virtually all the local 

communities oppose this bilL Ranchers and other multiple users 

contribute significantly to the local economy and tax base. 

Lastly, this desert is already protected. We have the 1980 Desert 

Plan which provides protection for the desert resources. Ranching 

activities are regulated by Bureau of Land Management. All range 

projects such as pipelines, water development and maintenance 

projects have extensive impact studies before they can be approved. 

Allotment management plans regulate the number of cattle on the 
311 

range. H.R. 518 seeks to protect the desert from the cattle. In 

truth, removing the cattle is trying to fix something that is not broken. 

In conclusion, grazing has benefited the desert range, the wildlife, local economy, and the American public. The California Desert 

is already protected by the 1980 Desert Plan. If this bill passes, I 

will lose my home, my inholdings, my way of life, and my inalienable rights, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Please give me the consideration of coming to the desert and seeing it for yourself before you decide on this vote. 

And again, I want to thank you, and I represent my family, the 

High Desert Cattlemen's Association, the California Cattlemen's 

Association and the National Cattlemen's Association and we support H.R. 2379, Mr. Lewis' desert bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared of Mr. Blair follows:] 
312 

CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 1221 H STREET 

~ 

• SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA • 95814-1910 

STATEMENT PRESENTED BY 

THE 

mGH DESERT CATILEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL 

CALIFORNIA WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

and supported by the 

AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORl'IIA 

to !he 

National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee 

of the 

Natural Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

Regarding H.R. 518 

cited as the 

"California Desert Protection Act of 1993" 

June 15, 1993 

The High Desert Cattlemen's Association. the California Cattlemen's Association and 

the National Cattlemen's Association represent beef cattle producers on the local, state and 

national levels. Combined, members of these organizations produce over 75% of the cattle in 

the United States. The Public Lands Council represents the 3!,000 ranchers who graze sheep 

and cattle in the fourteen western states. 

STUAIIIIT INIIOWM 

PRESIDENT 

SACRAMENTO 

MAROC" Wll.aUI, Jft. 

FIRST VICE PFI:ES,OENT 

CI.EMEHTS 

GE~QI SCOVIL TAEA$0AER 

GilROY 

FE!tl£R 

·--

COUNCIL CHAIRMAN 

El.CENTOO 

NATlONAl.CA'!TlEMEN'S 

ASSOCIATION 

JOMIIL.uL.Y 

EXECU'TWE VICE PRE510£NT 

SACAAM£NTO 

SECONOV!CE 

JAC.t( KANSOH 

pqESfOENT SECOND 

JAOC 

\liCE 

~ 

PRESIDENT 

SUSANVIllE PORratvlllE 

tAM AYIU DA.YIO WOOD SECOND VtC£ f'qE$10ENT FEEDER COUNCil vtCE CHAIMMAH 

SM1 AAOO COALINGA 
813 

CA\.IFORNIA CATT\.EMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page I 

The High Desert Cattlemen's Association, California Cattlemen's Association, National 

Cattlemen's Association, Public Lands Council, California Wool Growers Association, and the 

Agricultural Council of California are opposed to H.R. 518 as it is presently drafted. This 

legislation will harm all of the beef cattle ranchers operating on the California desert, and is 

unlikely to achieve the goals publicly claimed by proponents of the bill. 

The California Desert Protection Act as introduced Congressman Lehman, states that 

its purpose is to "protect and preserve historical and cultural values of the California desert 

associated with ancient Indian cultures, patterns of western exploration and settlement, and sites 

exemplifying the mining, ranehing and railroading historv of the Old West...." However, as 

currently \vritten, this legislation would virtually wipe out the ranching tradition in the 

California desert that the proponents are proclaiming to protect. 

There are over 200 ranching families with operations in the California desert, converting 

renewable resources into consumable human products. Continuity of their operations and their 

livelihoods depends upon respect for and careful management of the desert resources. One 

testament to their success is that many of the operations have been in the same family for 

decades (some even for a century) -- surviving through some very adverse times for the beef 

cattle industry. 

The families who operate ranches in the California desert contribute significantly to the 

local economy. According to Jim Sullins, University of California Cooperative Extension 

Livestock and Range Advisor. operating expenses for these ranches account for roughly 

$630.000 in local expenditures annually. The industry also contributes to the state and county 

tax base. paying state and school taxes on 103,810 acres of private land, county possessory tax 
314 

CAL.lF'C~NtA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page 2 

on 1, 733,000 acres of federal land, and income taxes on a gross of over $1.1 million annually. 

The ranches in this area produce enough beef to satisfy the recommended daily allowance for 

red meat for 8,577 people each year. The loss of these ranches and other economically viable 

enterprises would devastate desert communities. 

A stronger testament to the success of desert ranchers, and to their commitment to 

careful stewardship of desert resources. is 1990 data on grazing land condition from the Bureau 

of Land Management. Of the 5.2 million acres of land suitable for grazing in the California 

desert, 3.2 million acres are in good condition. 1.8 million acres are in fair condition and less 

than 24,000 acres are in poor condition. This is all the more remarkable considering that a 

range in "good" condition is near its theoretical optimal state; even without human or livestock 

influence, rangeland often does not achieve this potential. In addition. this data was collected 

during one of the most severe droughts in California history. 

We are often frustrated that the contributions of these ranchers are overshadowed by 

a campaign of rhetoric and misinformation by some who either oppose livestock grazing on 

principle or are motivated by a desire to impose vegetarianism on other people. However, the 

ranchers' contributions arc very significant and will not be replaced if H.R. 518 is approved. 

These contributions include water development, which directly benefits wildlife as well 

as livestock. Hundreds of thousands of acres of land are now available for wildlife only 

because ranchers develop, maintain and distribute water which is utilized by livestock as well 

as wildlife. Many of the water sites thus developed and maintained by ranchers have been 

adapted to ensure easier use by wildlife. 

Water development work by desert ranching families is under-estimated by proponents 
315 

CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page3 

of H.R. 518 and opponents of livestock grazing -- but few of them have ever had to maintain 

as much as thirty miles of half-inch pipeline, dig out springs to assure that the water can come 

to the surface, or repair a windmill damaged by vandals (or worse, replace a windmill 

destroyed by violent ceo-terrorist groups). Maintaining the water for a hundred square mile 

area is expensive and time-consuming, but it is an integral part of a successful desert cattle 

ranching operation. 

Livestock are compatible with and even complementary to the rare and endangered 

species of the. desert. For example, the desert tortoise was at its highest population when sheep 

grazing was a dominant use of the desert. The number of domestic sheep grazed on the desert 

has declined far more rapidly than has the population of desert tortoises (sheep numbers have 

dropped from over I million head in the I 870's to under 50,000 head presently; tortoises have 

declined from over 750,000 to about 500,000 now). 

In fact, activities of ranchers. in water development and grazing management, have 

allowed many rare and endangered species to live. Were it not for the ranchers, these species 

may have been overwhelmed by loss of habitat and urban encroachment far sooner. After 

decades of preserving these species in the natural course of our business. and with a good 

record of protection. we are now challenged by many who wish to "save" these species -- we 

have been saving them for decades at our own expense and on our own private, as well as 

federal, property! 

The enactment of H.R. 518, on the other hand, would harm wildlife populations on the 

desert. The wild burro population in the desert would lose five herd areas or a total of 620 

animals. Such a loss would seriously jeopardize the remaining wild burro populations. We 

72-354 0 - 93 - 11 
316 

CALII'ORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page 4 

believe. after some investigation, that management of these lands by the National Park Service 

would eliminate the access and artificial management methods required to maintain the viable 

wildlife populations already on the desert. The deer, bighorn sheep, chukar and quail 

populations, which depend heavily upon the improvements made by ranchers and the 

management provided by the California Department of Fish and Game, would be adversely 

affected by Park Service management. Such management prohibits development of water and 

other "artificial" management strategies. Southern California's best hunting areas would be 

jeopardized. 

Ranchers often serve as another set of eyes and ears for the agencies charged with 

management of the desert. Ranchers are on the desert nearly full time, and work with the 

agencies on problems that they see as they work their cattle or maintain their ranches. 

Ranchers do recognize a mutual interest in protecting the resources of the desert. We want to 

preserve the desert, too, but in a way that allows for multiple uses of the diverse resources of 

the desert. 

Grazing is a management tool to control wildfires (which are a problem even on the 

desert). In fact, gru.ing is one of the few natural tools for fire control available to government 

agencies. A well-martaged grazing program can significantly minimize fire danger, while also 

protecting rare plants and wildlife. 

The establishment of an East Mojave National Park would result in the duplication of 

administration of desert lands by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park 

Service. The cost of developing an additional layer of infrastructure and management would 

place further fiscal strain on the already under-funded National Park System. The 
317 

CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page 5 

establishment of these new parks in the California desert would very likely drain money from 

the budgets of other national parks in California and throughout the West, including Yosemite 

and Yellowstone. In a time of fiscal constraint, additional outlays for duplicative management 

is unwise. 

That ranchers and others hold private property in the desert comes as a surprise to 

some; however, the desert is not a single block of contiguous federal lands. Rather, it is a 

checkerboard of intermixed private. state and federal lands. 

Ranchers' holdings are special in and of themselves, as they are often based upon 

ownership of the water rights. earned by developing the water for livestock and wildlife use 

(i.e. beneficial use). These property rights have a significant value above and beyond the value 

of the land alone -- they are the heart of a successful desert ranching operation (and the heart 

of maintaining a diversity of wildlife on the desert). 

Ranchers have significant financial investments in the California desert -- over $5 

million in direct range improvements (including water sites and fences) on the federal and state 

lands alone. On top of that. the investment in their private lands will be jeopardized by the 

loss of grazing on all or part of their BLM allotments -- amounting to tens of millions of 

dollars. 

In fact, we have seen the impact of debate over H.R. 518 on how agricultural lenders 

value desert ranching operations and operating lines of credit. Lenders are getting more 

restrictive. even with operations that have adequate cash flow, simply because of the 

uncertainty created by this legislation. 

H.R. 518 does address the disposition of lands owned by the Catellus Corporation and 
318 

CALIFORNIA CATTl.EMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page 6 

the State of California. ~atellus will be allowed to exchange its lands in the desert for land 

located anywhere in the United States. Any land which is not exchanged by October I, 1996 

will be exchanged for credits which Catellus may use to purchase real and/or personal property 

owned or controlled by the United States. Similar provisions exist for California State School 

Lands for exchanges within the state. Such a land exchange program will most likely require 

additional legislation in Congress and will drastically change the manner in which future 

\\>ildemess legislation is implemented. 

This legislation, however. offers no compensation for the loss of value and future 

earnings potential for those who rely upon the desert for their livelihood. The more than 

170,000 acres of additional land owned by private parties is not addressed in the legislation. 

In fact. the twenty five year sunset clause on grazing is of no value to the family ranchers. If 

H.R. 518 were to become law. ranchers would immediately lose all collateral and therefore any 

financial support that was previously available from financial institutions. 

What is worse about the twenty five year grazing sunset is that it slams the door on the 

family rancher. The desert rancher is being told that his entire means of creating the worth. 

tradition. heritage and way of life that have been passed down through the generations will be 

taken by the Federal Government in the year 2016. or sooner if the Director of the National 

Park Service so desires. And, because all value has been taken. the ranchers are left with 

nothing. 

However, desert ranchers are not asking for compensation -- they just want to continue 

ranching in the area they love and where they expect to live their lives. They want to live in 

an environment where they have an opportunity to interact with the decision-makers. where 
319 

CALII'ORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page 7 

they can be a part of the process, seeing their lives ruled by fairness and hard work, not by the 

political agendas of those who do not live on the desert. 

We are also frustrated at the abrogation of the California Desert Conservation Area 

planning process -- a process that ensured a broad range of public input and consideration of 

every interest in the desert. We have been disappointed from time to time with how our use 

of the desert has fared under the recommendations of the Desert Conservation Advisory 

Committee, but we do wholeheartedly support the process. Every interest has an opportunity 

to be heard, unlike with H.R. 518, where a single political agenda dominates. 

Finally, we object to the fact that no field hearings have been scheduled in California 

to obtain input from the people most directly affected. H.R. 518, as it is now written, will 

have a significant devastating impact on the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of 

Californians -- and the Congress will not hear of their concerns unless they are afforded an 

opportunity to testify at field hearings. We urge the subcommittee to delay any action on H.R. 

518 until such time as field hearings can be scheduled. In addition, we object to the fact that 

we were not invited to take part in this subcommittee hearing. We also regret that neither of 

California's senators nor the Secretary of Interior have afforded time to meet with ranchers on 

the desert. 

Over a century has passed since the United States government began eradicating an 

"uncivilized" culture which it did not understand. Native Americans lost their lands. their way 

of life, and everything that was sacred to them. The California Desert Protection Act will be 

a repeat of history, only this time the desert ranching tradition and culture will be lost. 

Again, the High Desert Cattlemen's Association, California Cattlemen's Association, 
320 

CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Page 8 

National Cattlemen's Association, Public Lands Council, California Wool Growers Association, 

and the Agricultural Council of California officially are opposed to H.R. 518. 
321 

Mr. VENTO. The next witness is Mr. Kurt Hathaway, with the 

American Motorcyclist Association. 

Mr. Hathaway? 

STATEMENT OF KURT HATHAWAY 

Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

today to share our concerns with you in regard to H.R. 518. My 

name is Kurt Hathaway and I am a professional family man from 

the Los Angeles area, and I represent a variety of off-highway vehicle enthusiasts who believe they have not been heard in the process 

of considering this bill and its Senate counterpart S. 21. 

As you know, we have been intimately involved in the California 

Desert for some time. On behalf of our 200,000 members nationwide, 29,000 of whom reside in California, we have played an active role in the formulation of the California Desert Plan. We continue to support that plan and are therefore opposed to H.R. 518, 

because we believe it circumvents a congressionally mandated plan 

to involve all the affected parties who wish to access the vast areas 

we call, collectively, the California Desert. 

Conversely, we support H.R. 2379 by Representative Lewis which 

mirrors the public planning process envisioned in the Federal Land 

Policy Management Act. 

Certainly no group has an exclusive franchise on the term "conservationist." We fully recognize the need for preservation of fragile 

wilderness areas, as well as providing for multiple-use trails and 

corridors for all outdoor recreation enthusiasts to use. Without 

roadways and trail systems, not one among us could access the 

pristine areas we strive to protect. Without access, there could be 

no enjoyment of the natural resources which abound in the vast 

areas of the California Desert. Even hiking trails limited to foot 

travel represent some environmental degradation. We view properly maintained trails and access corridors not as environmental 

hazards, but rather as avenues to explore the natural wonders of 

the desert. 

As off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, we too appreciate the wilderness, and we support the professional land managers who are 

charged with protecting both wilderness and recreational access. 

All we are asking today, Mr. Chairman, consistent with our involvement in this issue for the previous two decades is to keep long 

traveled historic and traditional OHV routes and recreational areas 

open for OHV recreation and access. 

It is being argued that the Desert Plan is not working. The plan 

does work and allows all a say in that process. Take, for example, 

the Rand-Fremond area of critical environmental concern. Tortoise 

live here and the OHV community voluntarily reduced the OHV 

trail mileage from a formerly unrestricted 800 miles down to a very 

restrictive 129 miles, and we are out there on an ongoing basis assigning approved routes and educating the users as to the need for 

this change. 

This is but one example of where the process of the Desert Plan 

is working, and it is constantly reducing or restricting vehicular 

use. This process will not stop after this legislation, but the general 

public's perception that it is fair and needed will be tarnished. 
322 

Perhaps one of our greatest concerns is with the designation of 

the East Mojave National Scenic Area as a national monument or 

park. Testimony in previous hearings indicates that this area fails 

to meet the criteria to justify its existence as a national park. This 

says nothing of the tremendous cost both near and long term of 

transferring responsibility from the BLM to the Park Service. As 

we are all well aware the Park Service backlog currently exceeds 

$16 billion. Is the creation of a controversial national park worth 

the cost? We think not. Our members are also taxpayers and they 

object, as all Americans do, to unnecessary governmental spending. 

We would like to highlight our concerns by drawing the committee's attention to a representative area known as the South 

Algodones Dunes Wilderness Study Area. This area was not recommended by the BLM for wilderness status. Last year, it received 

2.8 million visitors. This area is unique in its recreational value 

and should not have its 64,000 acres closed to OHV access. 

Other areas, mostly trails and other travel routes, will be similarly declared off-limits by the passage of this bill, and we would 

therefore urge a careful area-by-area examination of each proposal 

before any bill is made law. We also believe that the deliberation 

of H.R. 5189 cannot and should not occur without considering the 

impacts of the recently released Fish and Wildlife Draft Desert 

Tortoise Recovery Plan. Not only will the American taxpayer have 

to foot the bill for questionable land exchanges, significant loss of 

sales and tax revenues may be expected if OHV use is curtailed in 

Southern California. Unemployment will surely rise if workers related to tourism and OHV sales and service are displaced. This 

raises the question once again, Mr. Chairman, can we really afford 

this bill? 

We urge this committee and Congress to consider our concerns 

with this legislation in light of this testimony and others. It is clear 

that H.R. 518 does not enjoy widespread support among those who 

have traditionally come to expect reasonable access to areas heretofore undeserving of wilderness or park status. Proponents of this 

bill say H.R. 518 is a compromise bill. To that we reply: The existing California Desert Plan is the true compromise, and it should 

be allowed to work as it was originally planned by Congress. 

Therefore we respectfully urge this committee to reject H.R. 518 

and in its place consider the passage of H.R. 2379. Thank you for 

your time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hathaway follows:] 
323 

Testimony of 

American Motorcyclist Association 

Before the National Parks, Forests 

and Public Lands Subcommittee of 

the House Natural Resources Committee 

Regarding: 

H.R. 518 

Presented by Kurt Hathaway 

6645 Day Street 

Tujunga, California 91042 

June 15, 1993 
324 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity today to share our concerns with you in 

regard to H.R. 518. My name is Kurt Hathaway and I represent a variety of off-highway 

vehicle enthusiasts who believe they have not been heard in the process of considering this 

bill and its Senate counterpart, S.21. 

As you know, we have been intimately involved in the California Desert for some time. On 

behalf of our 200,000 members nationwide, 29,000 of whom reside in California, we have 

played an active role in the formulation of the California Desert Plan which was done under 

the auspices of the Carter administration with then Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus 

presiding. We continue to support that plan and are therefore opposed to H.R. 518 because 

we believe it circumvents a Congressionally mandated plan to involve all affected parties 

who wish to access the vast areas we call, collectively, the California Desert. Conversely, 

we support H.R. 2379 by Rep. Lewis which mirrors the public planning process envisioned 

in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). His bill, H.R. 2379, 

would preserve 2.3 million acres of California public lands, and while no legislative vehicle 

is ever perfect, this one comes as close as possible and therefore warrants our support. 

Certainly, no group has an exclusive franchise on the term "cOnservationist." We fully 

recognize the need for preservation of fragile wilderness areas, as well as providing for 

multiple use trails and corridors for all outdoor enthusiasts to use. Without roadways and 

trail systems, not one among us could access the pristine areas we strive to protect. Without 

access, there can be no enjoyment of the natural treasures which abound in the vast areas 

of the California Desert. Even hiking trails limited to foot travel represent some 

environmental degradation. We view properly maintained trails and access corridors not 

as environmental hazards, but rather as avenues to explore the natural wonders of the 

desert. 

Certain areas should be preserved as wilderness to protect their inherent beauty and native 

wildlife that could easily be lost if proper management of those areas is not responsibly 

employed. As off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, we too appreciate the wilderness, and we 

2 
325 

support the professional land managers who are charged with protecting both wilderness and 

recreational areas. All we are asking today, Mr. Chairman, consistent with our involvement 

in this issue for the previous two decades, is to keep long travelled, historic and traditional 

OHV routes and recreational areas open for OHV recreation and access. We do not seek 

to open areas which should remain closed to motorized vehicles. 

H.R. 518 and its Senate companion S.21 would effectively lock us out of many traditional 

areas. By designating large tracts of land as "wilderness~ or "parks," Congress would 

preclude the use of those lands for responsible trail and roadway recreation. Others, who 

are unable to reach these areas without the use of a motor vehicle would be shut out, and 

only those persons with the time, health and resources to travel on foot to and through 

wilderness areas could conceivably enjoy them. This we cannot abide. 

Perhaps one of our greatest concerns is with the designation of the East Mojave National 

Scenic Area as a national monument or park. Testimony in previous hearings indicates that 

this area fails to meet the criteria to justify its existence as a national park. This says 

nothing of the tremendous costs, both near and long term, oftransferring responsibility from 

the BLM to the Park Service. As we are all aware, the Park 'Service backlog currently 

exceeds $6 billion. Is the creation of a controversial national park worth the additional 

cost? We think not. Our members are also taxpayers and they object, as all Americans do, 

to unnecessary governmental spending, especially in these times of economic uncertainty and 

austerity. Similarly, vehicular access would be severely restricted in much of the proposed 

Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks. 

We would like to highlight our concerns by drawing the Committee's attention to a 

representative area known as the South Algodones (Imperial) Dunes wilderness study area 

(WSA 362). This area was !l.Q1 recommended by the BLM for wilderness status. Last year, 

it received over 1.3 million visitors according to previous Senate testimony. This area is 

unique in its recreational value and should not have its 62,000 acres closed to OHV access. 

Other areas, mostly trails and other travel routes will be similarly declared off-limits by the 

3 
326 

passage of this bill and we would therefore urge a careful, area by area examination of each 

proposal before ~ bill is made law. 

We also believe that deliberation of H.R. 518 cannot and should not occur without 

considering the impact of the recently released Fish and Wildlife Draft Desert Tortoise 

Recovery Plan. Together, with H.R 518, the acreage which may not be accessed by the 

public will effectively double. Less than three million scattered acres having few contiguous 

boundaries will remain to be shared by all multiple use interests. No areas will remain, if 

both plans are implemented, that are capable of absorbing the number and diversity of 

motorized recreational activities. 

Not only will the American taxpayer have to foot the bill for questionable and tremendously 

expensive land exchanges, significant loss of sales and tax revenues may be expected if OHV 

use is curtailed in southern California. Tourism will be thwarted and travellers from other 

states will be forced to look elsewhere for recreational opportunities. Unemployment will 

surely rise if workers related to tourism and OHV sales and service are displaced. This 

raises the question once again, Mr. Chairman, can we really afford this bill? Resolutions 

against this bill by the cities of Barstow, Blythe, Needles, Twentynine Palms and by the 

counties of San Bernadino, Inyo and Kern would tell us "no." 

We urge this Committee and Congress to consider our concerns with this legislation in light 

of this and other testimony. It is clear that H.R. 518 does not enjoy widespread support 

among those who have traditionally come to expect reasonable access to areas heretofore 

undeserving of wilderness or park status. Proponents of this bill say that H.R. 518 is a 

"compromise bill." To that we reply: "The existing California Desert Plan is the~ 

compromise," and it should be allowed to work as originally planned by Congress. 

Therefore, we respectfully urge this Committee to reject H.R. 518 and in its place consider 

the passage of H.R. 2379. 

4 
327 

Mr. VENTO. We next want to hear from Mr. James Reddy, the 

California Mining Association. 

Mr. Reddy? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES REDDY 

Mr. REDDY. My name is James Reddy. I am president of PleussStaufer (California), and I am before you today representing the 

California Mining Association. My company, Pleuss-Staufer, produces high grade calcium carbonate for use in plastics, paint, carpets, bathtubs, PVC, rubber, and many, many other products. Our 

Lucerne Valley operation employs 75 people. We purchase approximately $8.5 million annually from local vendors, and we are re-. 

sponsible for $350,000 in taxes, fees and related payments annually. We appreciate the opportunity today to clarify some misconceptions about the mining industry's position on the Desert legislation. 

First, we hear and read that the mining industry is opposed to 

desert protection. That is not true. The mining industry has been 

an active participant in the desert planning process dating back to 

the development of the Desert Plan under President Carter and 

Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus. The industry recognizes the 

need to protect those areas which meet the criteria for protection 

established by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Second, we hear and read that the legislation is necessary to prevent the mining industry from decimating the entire desert. We 

heard that a little bit this morning from Secretary Babbitt, by the 

way. This isn't true either. Mining activity is closely regulated by 

local, State and Federal a~encies. Also, only 1 percent of the land 

in the California Desert is m mineral production. 

We hear and read that mining industry concerns with this legislation have been addressed by excluding working mines, and the 

promise to honor valid existing rights. In fact, there are many 

areas where small operations or advanced exploration projects will 

be affected. History as well as practice has shown the valid existing 

rights language to be an empty promise. 

The mining industry's concern about this legislation is not only 

about what is operating today. Somebody once said, People want 

things and things are made out of stuff. Well, that is what miners 

do. We get the stuff to make the things. No stuff, no things. Mining 

from existing reserves is fine for the things we need today. But 

miners are also a little different than normal Americans. We take 

kind of a longer term view and we look for the things to ensure 

that our grandchildren and that their grandchildren will have the 

things that are necessary for them to enjoy life. 

My company's experience is a case in point. In preparation for 

the depletion of our reserves, the search began about a decade ago 

that ultimately located a site in the New York Mountains in the 

East Mojave Scenic Area. We encourage and support actions to 

base desert legislation on the congressionally mandated desert 

planning process, and for that reason the California Mining Association supports the California Desert and Employment Preservation Act of 1993 introduced by Congressman Jerry Lewis and other 

desert Congressmen. 
328 

However, despite these views, we understand that the California 

Desert Protection Act has widespread sufport, and for that reason 

the industry prepared at the request o Senator Feinstein a detailed outline of suggested boundary adjustments to allow a minimal amount of mineral production from the California Desert. 

These minimal adjustments would make less than an 8 percent change to the 7.5 million acres proposed in this legislation. Many 

of the key areas have been discussed earlier, including a borate geology deposit in Death Valley National Park proposed area, gold mines in Imperial County, and a sulfur mine north of Death Valley. 

But perhaps the most compelling example of the type of area 

which should be dropped from the Califorma Desert Protection Act 

is 200,000 acres, about 3 percent, in the northern part of what is 

proposed as the East Mojave National Park. This is an extensive reg~on of historic and current mining activity including two active 

gold mines, a major calcium carbonate deposit upon which a plan 

of operation has been filed, advanced exploration activities for precious metals, Lanthanides, industrial garnet and limestone. It also 

includes water sources and access routes, a small community, and 

numerous private property holdings located on either side of the 

Ivanpah Valley. None of that mineral activity will continue or can 

be developed if the area is in a national park. 

This is the location of Pleuss-Staufer's, my company, calcium carbonate deposit that is critical if our company is to remain in operation in California. If this suggested exclusion were adopted, 

Pleuss-Staufer would be able to continue pursuing the difficult task 

of permitting this project. We are not asking for permission to 

mine, just permission to continue the permitting process. So far we have invested more than $300,000 in this property. Our exploration has identified deposits exceeding 130 million tons 

of high purity calcium carbonate. We project a 100-year mine life 

with a gross mineral value of $6.25 billion-with a ''b." The project would support 452 jobs at our company and in connected industries, with a $500 million benefit to San Bernardino County. 

We recognize our environmental responsibilities and are design- ing the project carefully to minimize visual impact, noise, and air 

quality concerns. Of course, our plans would be subject to the extensive scrutiny of the Bureau of Land Management and other 

local, State and Federal agencies. 

You have heard of many concerns and projections of costs if the· 

California Desert Protection Act is adopted in its present form. The 

mining industry, unfortunately, can't predict for you when changing market demands, new technology, and ongoing exploration will 

make deposits viable for the next century. We can state that those 

deposits Will be lost forever if this Act is not modified. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express these views. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. And, if you could share that valuation 

that you did for Senator Feinstein with us, we think we would find 

it interesting and, perhaps, useful. 
329 

Mr. REDDY. We are. It is right now being prepared by the California Mining Association, an extra copy, and it is being sent to 

your committee. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reddy follows:] 
330 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

JAMFS REDDY, PRESIDENT 

PLEUSS..STAUFER 

REPRESENTING THE 

CALIFORNIA MINING ASSOCIATION 

ON 

BR.!ll 

THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT 

OF 1993 

BEFORE 

SUBCOMMlTl'EE ON 

PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

COMMIITEE ON NATVIlAL R.ESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1!, 1993 
331 

I am James Reddy, president of Pluess-Staufer (California) Inc. I am before you 

representing the california Mining Association. 

California produces $3 billion worth of minerals each year. The california Mining 

Association's 57 mining company members represent the major producers of virtually all 

industrial and melllllic mineraLs. 

Pluess-staufer produces high grade c:alclum carbonate for use in plastics, paint, carpets, 

bathtubs, PVC, rubber, and many other products. Our I..:uccme Valley operation employs 

7S, purchases approximately $8.5 million annually from local vendors, and is responsible for 

$350,000 in taxes, fees and related payments annually. 

After numerous hearings on this issue, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify 

misconceptions about the mining industry's position on the desert legislation, as well as to 

describe the industry's specific findings. 

First: We hear and read statements that the mining industry opposes desert protection 

legislation. This is not true. Until legislation is passed by Congress which completes the 

desert planning process begun in 1976, all lands under consideration for wilderness are being 

managed for those values, to tbe exclusion of mineral exploration and development. 

Second: We hear and read also that the mining industry is opposed to desert protection. Tins 

is not true. The mining industry has been an active participant in the desert planning prooeas 

dating back to the development of the Desert Plan under President Cart.er and Secretary of 

Interior Cecil Andrus. The industry recognizes the need to protect those areas which meet 

the criteria fur protection establisbed by congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Third: We bear and read that Jecislation is needed to prevent the mining industry from 

decimating the entire desert. This il not true. Mining activity is closely regulated by local, 

state and federal agencies to minimize impacts. And only one percent of the land in the 

California desert is in mineral production. 

Fourth: We bear and read that mining industry concerns with this legislation have been 

addressed by ell.cluding working mines, and the promi~~e to honor valid ~iSting rights. 1n 

fact, them are many an:as where small operations or advanced exploration projects will be 

affected. Hlstory as wen as practice has shown the valid existing ri&hts language to be an 

empty promise. 

The mining industry's concern about this legislation is not only about what is operating 

today. Without the ability to explore the vast areas included in the bill, it will not be 

possible to locate deposits that can replace existing resources. They will not be replaced by 

California, or probably even domestic, production. 

Someone once said "people want things, and things are made out of stuff, and miners get that 

stuff to make the things. • Mining from existing reserves is fine for the things we need 

today, but miners are always taldn& the longer term view to insure our grandchildren, and 

their grandchildren can continue to have the things that will be necessary their enjoyment of 

life. 
332 

My company's experience is a case in point. Every mining company must prepare for the 

depletion of its resources. In our ease, the search for our unique, high purity calcium 

carbonate began about a decade ago. That search ultimately located a site which could meet 

our needs in the New York Mountains located in the Bast Mojave Scenic Area. 

In 1976, Congress recoanized the importance of continued eronomic production from the 

most highly mineralized region in the Continental United States. Congress ordered that a 

Desert Plan be implemented and that those lands be inventoried for their mineral wealth 

before wilderness designation. It is ironic that the California Desert Protection Act pending 

before you ignore.~ both that planning process and the mineral inventory. 

We encoum&e and support actions to base desert legislation on the results of that extensive 

and costly planning proceas which has fulfilled the Congressional mandate. For that reuon, 

we support and encourage your careful scrutiny of the California DeJert and Employment 

Preservation Act of 1993 introduced by Congressman Jerry Lewis. The California Mining 

Association has supported that position despite designation of some key mineral areas as wilderness. We recognize the mandate of the planning process to balance environmental and 

economic values. 

Despite our views, we understand that the California Desert Protection Act has widespread 

support and that the current Administration has endorsed its concepts. 

For that reason, the industry prepared, at the request of Senator Feinstein, a detailed outline 

of suggested boundary adjustments to allow even a minimal amount of minetal production to 

be sustained from the California desert. These minimal adjustments include virtually no 

areas proposed during the Desert Plan process for wilderness. They would make less than an 

eight percent change to the 7.5 million acres proposed for withdrawal from mineral 

exploration and development in this legislation. 

Many of the key areas included in this proposal have been discussed with you earlier. For 

example, much of the world's richest borate geology is included in the expanded Death 

Valley National Park proposal, and some has been included in wildt!rness. In another 

location, several key exploration areas are locab-.d adjacent to and in a proposed wilderness 

which falls on a major mineralized trend. That trend has supported development of three 

major gold mines in Imperial County and another property is in permitting. It also draws 

attention to sites such as a working sulfur mine north of Death Valley which was excluded 

from wilderness, but remains within the expanded boundaries of the National Park. 

But perhaps the most compelling example of the type of area which should be dropped from 

the California Desert Protection Act is 200,000 acres in the northern part of what is proposed 

as the East Mojave National Park. 

This is an extensive region of historic and current mining activity including two active gold 

mines, a major calcium carbonate deposit upon which a plan of operation has been filed, 

advanced exploration activities for precious metals, lanthanides, industrial game! and 

limestone. It also includes water sources and access routes for those properties, a small 

community, and numerous private property holdings located on either side of the Ivanpah 

Valley. None of that mineral activity will continue or can be developed if the area is 

contained in a national park. 
383 

This is the loc.::ati.cfl of Pluesa-Staufer's calcium carllona~ deposit that is critical if our 

company is to remain in operation in Califomia. If this suggested e.xcluslon were adopted, 

Pluess-8taufer would be able to continue pursuing the difficult task of pc:mritting this project 

under the striJl&ent environmental rules of the Bureau of Land ManaJement. In addition to 

the other impacts and projects, this exclusion request abo includes access to the property. 

Plue.<~.~·Staufer hu invested more than $300,000 in the property. Our explonition lw 

identified nine miQOf' deposits with a R!SCI'Ve exgeeding 130 million tons of high-brigbltll:SS, 

high-purity calcium carbonate. We project a. 100-yea.r mine life with a gross mineral value 

of $6.2S billion. The project would support 452 jobs at our company and in connected 

industries, with a $500 million benefit to San Bernardino county. 

We recognize our environmental responSI'billties and are designing the project can!fully to 

minimize visual impact, noise and air quality concerns. Of course, our plans would be 

subject to the exlellsive environmental acrutiny of the Bureau of Land Manapment, which 

bas been shown to be extremely strict for companies attempling to operate in the Eat 

Mojave Scenic Area. 

You have heard of many c:onccms and projections of costs if the California Desert Profr.ction 

Act is adopted in its present fonn. The mininJ industry unfortunately can not predict for you 

when ch111&ing market demands, new tec:hnoiOJY, and ongoing exploration wiU make 

ptwiously infeasible deposits viable for the next century. We can state that those deposits 

will be forever lost if this Act is not modified. 

But there is an even creater expense to this legislation: Implementation of this bill in the face 

of studies by expert public land manqers wbiell find that these properties do not meet the 

criteria for wildemcss and park dcslption degrades those desi.gl1atlons and their use on truly 

qualifyin& areas. 

I personally concur with tbese professional land mana&ers. Over the last 20 yean I have 

camped and hiked In nearly every National Park and National Monument In the western 

United S1ates. Since moving to California my wife and I are in the dcxrt or mountains 

nearly every weekend, inciuclin& the 200,00 acn: area I diJcussed earlier. This is not 

National Park standard land, and is adequately protected and designated today by the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

For the mining induslry, the result is the closure of a vast area without a showing of 

adequate justification for that action. For California, it means the unnecessary departure of 

yet another industry from oor state. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express these views and concerns. 
334 

Mr. VENTO. We have next Mr. Riedy. 

STATEMENT OF NORBERT RIEDY 

Mr. RIEDY. Thank you. My name is Norbert Riedy. I live in California. I am here to represent The Wilderness Society which, as 

you know, strongly supports passage ofH.R. 518. 

I would like to say on a personal note here that I, with you and 

your staff, have sat through all of these hearings, and I am glad 

I have a chance to say something finally because I have been itching for it. 

The proposals put forth in the California Desert Protection Act 

do not ask for unlimited economic or personal sacrifice for the people of the region. The boundaries of the proposed park and wilderness areas recognize the need for the traditional economic and recreational activities of the region to continue. I know you will put 

my full statement in the record, so I would like to summarize a 

couple issues, if I may, including a little bit about mining and the 

fact that in the region as a whole mining jobs account for only 1.6 

percent, talk a little bit about the impact of livestock grazing to 

wildlife, and also recreation access. 

I would like to start with the recreation. See the map or drawing 

to my right? It depicts the Algodones Dunes system in the southeast comer of the State which has been mentioned several times 

today. I have heard the statement here that the proposal for the 

South Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area will close down the areas 

where 2 million people a year recreate. Well, let's look at the facts. 

The drawn-in area is the whole dune system. It is quite extensive. The two white areas in the middle are the proposed wilderness units. The one in the upper part of the drawmg is the North; 

the one that is to the south is the South Algodones. The intensive 

use areas currently in this dune system are primarily in the south 

and central, but the Mammoth Wash area to the north is available 

for unlimited off-road vehicle play. The area in the center, these 

are the blue dashed areas, is open for unlimited use in the Gecko 

and the Glamis areas. The green areas depict areas with limited 

use-sticking to trails, vehicles can go. Then the southern area, 

which is warped a little bit in the transmission from map, includes 

the Patent Valley, the Buttercup area, and the Dune Buggy Flats. 

Those are the areas in the Algodones Dunes that get the intensive 

use. 

The South Algodones Dunes Wilderness Study Area does hav:e 

unique ecological features. It and the northern unit have some species that overlap of plant and wildlife which are rare, but they also 

each have the individual species that are found not in the other 

unit, and so we think it is very important to protect both of those 

units, yet at the same time leave open significant areas for the economic benefits and the recreational benefits that so many people 

spoke about so well. 

I think that represents generally the issue of recreational access. 

Each and every one of the wilderness areas in this bill will be 

reachable by a road. Popular 4-wheeler drive routes such as the 

Mojave Road will remain open to use. There will be minimum closures. Those are designed to restrict access across sensitive wildlife 

habitat such as desert tortoise habitat, where a parallel route ex-
335 

ists nearby, and the desert is very open-it is easy to have parallel 

routes just a half mile or quarter mile apart-and where access by 

vehicle threatens archaeological or wildlife resources. 

Essentially, for the vast majority of visitors to the desert, access 

to these areas will not change. There are going to be significant 

changes in the future for the traditional industries, especially livestock grazing and hardrock mining in the region, and I want to 

first talk about the livestock grazing. 

These might be difficult to see. You might want to come up after 

we have finished. You see the cross-hatched areas represent the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Draft Plan for Desert Tortoise 

Areas, where livestock grazing will be excluded. The two units of 

the proposed park-there are 2 of the 8 units that overlap extensive parts of the proposed national park. In the north, it is the 

Landfair Valley area, which includes some of the area that the 

Mining Association would like to see excluded. It includes extensive 

language. And in the area to the southeast is the Ivanpah Valley. 

This is the Landfair Valley in the southeast. That area too, in a 

draft plan by the Fish and Wildlife Services, calls for restrictions 

in livestock grazing in those areas. So whether or not the desert 

bill passes grazing in the Mojave and the region as a whole is going 

to have to change dramatically because of the impacts to wildlife 

resources. 

Now, if you could flip the chart to show the bottom overlay. 

I want to talk about mining and the impacts to the mining industry a little bit. Changes are occurring in the mining industry. It is 

no longer the generator of a large portion of the region's jobs. In 

fact, today it provides only 1.6 percent of the region's jobs and that 

percentage has been declining for years. 

Assertions that H.R. 518 will impact thousands of jobs are absolutely groundless. The Desert Protection Act will have no near-term 

impact on mining jobs, and the long-term impact will be negligible 

given the millions of acres of land that will remain open for mineral development. 

Attached to my testimony is a report by Dr. Robert Hrubes, aresource economist at LSA Associates, who did a study for us of the 

impacts on mining jobs in the California Desert from this legislation, and I am not sure if you can see it from that distance, but 

the boundaries of this proposal were drawn recognizing the importance of the mining industry to the region and to the State as a 

whole. No mines are located in any of the designated wildernesses. 

In two of the park areas there are some mines. There are six 

mines, active mines, right now in the two park areas to the north. 

One, at the very north end of Death Valley is the sulfur mine with 

about 12 employees, and to the very south end is the Ellie Mine, 

an occasional operation of about five or six people. 

In the East Mojave you have the Viceroy Gold Mine to the east, 

you have the Colosseum Gold Mine, the Ackin Center Mine and the 

Morningstar Mine. Three of those, the Colosseum and the 

Morningstar Mine, are in shutdown phase and going to reclamation, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The Ackin 

Mine, which is the cinder mine destroying the national natural 

landmark and the BLM has been trying to put it to bed for years, 
336 

is currently in court and they believe this time around they will be 

able to close down that operation. 

So, in the end there are going to be three operations within these 

boundaries. They will employ, Viceroy being the vast majority of 

them, about 250 people. So the claims of thousands and thousands 

of job losses are just irresponsible. 

Of approximately 3,500 non-fuel mining jobs in the entire region, 

only about 2,350 will be within the park proposals, and the valid 

rights provision will allow for continued operation of those claims 

even within the park, as we have today in the existing Death Valley Monument a borate operation. 

Dr. Hrubes' analysis also found that the 1989 mining industry 

study that suggested tens of thousands of mining jobs would be affected by the legislation used factually indefensible assumptions 

and an inappropriate econometric model to generate its conclusions. That study assumed that all mining would cease in the California Desert after 50 years if this legislation is passed, when in 

fact millions of acres of Federal, State and private land will remain 

open to mining activity. 

In addition, existing reserves at places like Boron and at Mountain Pass Mine where they mine the rare earths will last for centuries, according to data from the Bureau of Mines. 

The desert's new reality is that it is economic future may very 

well be tied to the preservation of wildlands and parks. New data 

from the National Park Service demonstrates that the two existing 

monuments, Death Valley and Joshua Tree, currently contribute, 

combined, $120 million a year annually to the regional economies. 

They also generate nearly 2,000 jobs-that is on a regular basisfor an unlimited period of time. The resources within Death Valley 

and Joshua Tree should not be played out like an ore deposit and 

will last more than 10 years, more than 20, hopefully for thousands 

of years. These resources are the future job creators of the desert 

region. 

Finally, the Field Institute public opinion survey in the desert 

counties of California during September of 1992 and February of 

1993 found that more than two-thirds of the respondents living in 

the desert supported designation of the Mojave as a National Park. 

The vast open desert has its limits. It cannot continue to provide 

unlimited urban expansion, mining, livestock grazing or poorly 

managed motorized vehicle access. As Wall ace Stegner, who for 

more than 60 years camped, hiked and drove through the California Desert described it in a statement to Congress several years 

ago, "What one pleads for here is a policy of multiple sustainable 

use to replace the present irreversible wastage and destruction of 

the resource. The rugged, desolate, primitive, wild character of a 

region will not remain so unless we dedicate ourselves to preserving it." The California Desert Protection Act will preserve those resources while preserving opportunities for traditional recreation, 

economic stability and jobs. 

Thank you. I am willing to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Riedy follows:] 
337 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

TESTIMONY OF NORBERT RIEDY, 

SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CALIFORNIA REGION OF 

1liE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

BEFORE 1liE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

CONCERNING H.R. 518, 1liE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 19?3 

AND 

H.R. 880, 1liE CALIFORNIA MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL AND 

OVERFLIGIITS ACT OF 19?3 

JUNE 15, 19?3 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 300,000 

members of The Wilderness Society, I welcome this opportunity to express our very 

strong support for H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act of 1993. I also 

appreciate the opportunity to disalss H.R. 880, concerning military land withdrawals and 

overflights in the California Desert. 

Protection of the extraordinary and fragile California Desert is one of the highest 

priorities of The Wilderness Society. The Desert contains some of America's most 

spectacular, diverse, unique and fragile landscapes. It includes thousands of species of 

wildlife and plants, Native American cultural sites and artifacts, unique geological 

features, and outstanding opportunities to experience wilderness. It is time to give these 

irreplaceable resources the protection they urgently need and deserve by passing the 

California Desert Protection Act. 

The product of many years of disalssioo, analysis, and modification, H.R. 518 is a compromise propo&aL It responds to overwhelming public sentiment for greater 

protection of the Desert. H.R. 518 protects the best of the remaining Desert wild lands 

for current and future generations, while also allowing for the continuation of activities 

such as .mining. off-road vehicle use, bunting, and other activities in the Desert region. 

We urge the House to pass H.R. 518 without any additional changes that would 

further reduce protection of the Desert's fragile resources. 

900 SEVENTEENTH STREET • .._ " . \i:'AS!IINGTON, D.C. 20006-2596 

(2n.n "t* 3~?3f)Q 
338 

THE COMPROMISES HAVE BEEN MADE, IT'S TIME TO PASS H.R. 518 

H.R. 518 is the culmination of more than 16 years of detailed work and 

compromise. It is based on tedmical analysis and studies by Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and National Park Service professional staff, plus input from 

thousands of people and more than one hundred organizations interested in conserving 

wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. During the seven years the proposal has 

been pending before Congress, it has been extensively discussed, analyzed, and modified. 

During the 102nd Congress, The Wilderness Society was party to numerous 

compromises adopted in the House-passed version of the legislation, H.R. 2929, to 

accommodate off-road vehicle use, mining, utilities, military, and land management 

considerations. We accepted which significantly reduced the scope of proposed 

protection for the Desert by the boundaries of numerous wilderness areas and 

eliminating five areas entirely. H.R. 929 resulted in the net ~ of nearly 200,000 acres from the proposal. As introduced in the 103rd Congress, H.R. 518 incorporates 

nearly all of the changes that were in H.R. 2929 as passed by the House in the 102nd 

Congress, including changes which reduced the proposal by 200,000 acres. 

Despite years of discussion, analysis, bearings, and numerous changes to the 

original proposal, and despite strong public support for enactment of H.R. S 18, the 

opponents of Desert protection continue to seek changes. The changes they seek are not 

new: they have been made and rejected in the past, and they should be rejected again 

now. For example, the American Motorcycle Association is proposing changes that even 

the BLM rejected under the Bush Administration. Mining interests are proposing 

deletions of areas from park or wilderness designations even though H.R. 518 recognizes 

all valid existing rights, and even though there has been ample opportunity in the seven 

years since introduction of the proposal for mining companies to conduct the limited 

amount of work to establish a valid existing right. 

In short, we believe that all of the accommodations to the Desert bill that are 

appropriate have been made already. We agreed to some of these changes and have 

very reluctantly accepted others as necessary to secure passage of the bill by the House. 

We see no need for additloBal ehuges to H.R. 518.. 

We also see no reason for further delay in passage of this compromise legislation. 

The first version of the California Desert Protection Act was introduced seven years ago; 

today marks the eleventh hearing on the proposal. Surely, there is ample information 

available to end the gridlock and take final action on this bill. 

THE NEED FOR ACTION 

The cost of additional delay in passing the California Desert Protection Act would 

be significant in two key ways: 

( 1) the unique resources and frontier character of the remaining natural areas 

in the Desert will be further degraded; and 

2 
339 

(2) the people of the region and of the United States, including those with 

business interests in the region, will continue to be denied the certainty 

they need to plan and carry out a wide variety of activities in the Desen 

region. 

The California Desen contains some of the most wild and beautiful landscapes in 

America, but these lands are being continually degraded. The fragile desen soils, scarce 

water, unique ecosystems, irreplaceable archaeological sites, and spectacular scenic 

beauty are receiving too little protection in the face of a variety of development 

pressures. The opportunity to experience what remains of the frontier quality of the 

region is rapidly disappearing as development spreads. The public has lost much of this 

priceless heritage already; it is time to save the best of what remains as a lasting gift to 

future generations. 

Congress has long recognized the special significance of the California Desert, as 

well as the need to treat it with utmost care. In language that is as true today as when it 

was written 17 years ago as pan of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

Congress described the area this way: 

'The California desert environment is a total ecosystem that is extremely fragile, 

easily scarred, and slowly healed; the California desen environment and its 

resources, including cenain rare and endangered species of wildlife, plants and 

fishes, and numerous archeological and historic sites, are seriously threatened by 

air pollution, inadequate Federal management authority, and pressures of 

increased use, panicularly recreational use, which are cenain to intensify because 

of the rapidly growing population of southern California." (P.L. 94-579, Sec. 601 

(a)) 

A bold plan was envisioned for the California Desen Conservation Area when it 

was established by Congress in 1976. But the development and execution of that plan by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been a failure. 

We understand and appreciate the effort being made by the new Secretary of the 

Interior, Bruce Babbitt, to improve morale within the BLM by praising their effons and 

taking pains to avoid discussing problems or criticizing their management of public lands. 

But the harsh reality is that BLM's management of the California Desert Conservation 

Area has not provided the protection and appropriate management that Congress 

intended. Damage from unauthorized off-road vehicle activity, excessive mining, and 

overgrazing are continuing problems. 

Unauthorized ORV Activity. The Office of Inspector General of the Interior 

Department reponed in 1991 on their investigation of BLM's management of off-road 

vehicle use in two of the five Resource Areas in BLM's California Desen District. 

According to the IG's report (No. 91-1-654), BLM personnel acknowledged they had 

completed only about half of the inventory of vehicle access routes, and that an 

"estimated 600 miles of unapproved vehicle routes have been created annually" in the 

two areas. 

3 
340 

The report goes on to say that BLM personnel estimate that "to mitigate for the 

degradation of vegetation, soils, and wildlife that has occurred on these lands [in the two 

resource areas), an estimated 3,500 miles will require reclamation at an average cost of 

$250 per mile, for a total cost of $875,000." It is likely that activities on motorcycles and 

other types of ORVs are causing similar costly damage to the other three BLM areas in 

the Desert District that the IG's office did not examine. 

Damaae to Wildlife. A 1989 GAO report (GAO-RCED-89-171) found glaring 

failures in BLM's treatment of wildlife resources under the BLM's management plan for 

the Congressionally established California Desert Conservation Area: 

"While BLM considered wildlife needs during its overall land use planning process 

for the California Desert, the wildlife protection objectives envisioned in the 

overall land use plan have not been achieved. More than 8 years after the plan was issued, nearly one-half of the required wildlife management implementation 

plans have not been developed. In addition, BLM's progress in implementing 

completed plans has been limited. Nearly half of the wildlife-related actions 

called for in the completed plans GAO reviewed have not been started and many 

others have been only partially completed. Actions not completed include many 

that are considered critical by BLM biologists." 

" ... data available on several species including the desert tortoise - an 

important indicator species for the overall health of the area's habitat - indicate 

that the effects are not favorable. Desert tortoise numbers have decreased 

dramatically in recent years, and according to tortoise experts, the species may 

now be sliding irreversibly toward extinction." 

BLM's response to this report was to blame funding shortfalls. But GAO found: 

"Even if more funds were made available, however, BLM has not demonstrated 

the willingness to take actions necessary to protect wildlife interests. For 

example, it has permitted motorcycle races and established off-highway vehicle 

"free play" areas in important desert tortoise habitat, has allowed livestock grazing 

that is harmful to various species, and has frequently not placed sufficient 

restrictions on mining operations to reduce adverse effects on wildlife." 

The Social Costs of Delay. In addition to the continued degradation of fragile 

resources, the delay in enacting the California Desert Protection Act also has a high 

social cost. Delay means continued uncertainty for the people in the region who need to 

have the Desert issue resolved so that they can plan activities, including business 

decisions, with certainty about the status of the lands involved in H.R. 518. 

In particular, the mining industry, utilities, State Lands Commission, Catellus 

Corporation, and people in business in the surrounding communities are eager to end 

the uncertainty about the future of these lands. All of them will benefit from the 

increased predictability about the use of these lands that will occur only when this 

legislation is enacted. 

4 
341 

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PROTECriNG mE DESERT 

The California Desert Protection Act presents the 103rd Congress with an 

excellent opportunity to demonstrate leadership and action on a significant land 

conservation issue which has very strong public approval from all over the country. 

Nowhere is that support greater than in California. In 1988, The Wilderness Society 

asked the Field Institute to conduct a statewide poll ott public attitudes about the 

California Desert. It revealed that three-quarters of Californians want greater protection 

for their Desert ecosystem. 

A September 1992 poll by the Field Institute revealed that by a margin of 3-1, 

Californians support establishing a national park in the East Mojave, with an end to new 

mining claims and a phase out of grazing. The poll results also showed that support for 

the Mojave National Park is just as strong in the Desert region as it is statewide. We 

note this particularly in light of previous statements by Congressman Lewis that his 

constituents do not favor the bill: these poll results show that be is out of touch with the 

majority of his constituents on this issue. 

Even more recently, in February of 1993, the Field Institute again surveyed 

Californians. The key tables from this poll are attached to our testimony for inclusion in 

the hearing record. The Field Institute found strong majorities statewide, and within the 

Desert region, for designating the Mojave National Park even though hunting will be 

prohibited. Specifically, the opinion· survey found that 75 percent of those surveyed favor 

national park status for the Mojave even knowing that hunting will be prohibited in the 

area. Even two-thirds of the households with hunters surveyed by the Field Institute 

survey support establishing the Mojave National Park without hunting! 

To date, 15 counties and 34 cities representing more than 66 percent of the state's 

population are on record in support of the California Desert Protection Act. In addition 

to the state's ten largest cities, representing over 10 million people, the list includes the 

Desert communities of Riverside, Palm Desert. Rancho Mirage, Hemet, Desert Hot 

Springs, and four of the largest cities in San Bernardino County - Redlands, Yucaipa, 

Upland and Ontario. Also, over the past few years more than 1,600 scientists and 

educators from universities and research institutions have endorsed the California Desert 

Protection Act. 

The strong public support for desert protection has been reflected in editorials 

across the state. The Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union, Fresno Bee, San Francisco 

Examiner, Sacramento Bee, and San Bernardino Sun are among the newspapers which 

have issued editorials in support of enacting the California Desert Protection Act. 

H.R. 518 IS A COMPROMISE 

The California Desert Protection Act would bring long-overdue fairness and 

balance to management of the region's public lands. The Desert region bas been 

subjected to extensive urban or suburban development and activities such as mining, 

off-road vehicle use, and livestock grazing. Claims of "lock-up" by the bill's opponents 

5 
342 

are hollow diversions to deflect attention from their lopsided control of the region's 

public lands for many decades. 

The numerous compromises made in the evolution of the California Desert 

Protection Act illustrate the extensive efforts by Congressional sponsors and supporters 

to resolve legitimate conflicts and ensure that the bill is fair and balanced. 

Extensive accommodations have been made for the mining industry. Using 

information from the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of 

Mines, and the State of California during the initial drafting of the bill, the boundaries in 

the proposal were drawn to avoid known or significant potential mineral conflicts. Each 

time the bill has been reintroduced, additional boundary changes were made to 

accommodate mining interests. For example, nine boundary changes were made in 1989 

specifically for mining concerns. In 1991, the House-passed bill reduced wilderness and 

park areas by another 50,000 acres to accommodate mining interests. 

We continue to strongly oppose any further changes in the boundary of the 

Mojave to delete the claimblock of Viceroy Gold Corporation. H.R. 518 already reflects 

compromises made in the bill previously for Viceroy, specifically to roll back the 

boundaries of two wilderness areas to avoid Viceroy's mine and claimblock. 

There are two key reasons why we oppose any further boundary changes for 

Viceroy. First, their existing operation will not be impacted by the management of the area by the National Park Service; this is due to the reclamation and environmental 

protection requirements that were part of a settlement by Viceroy with environmental 

groups, including The Wilderness Society, who threatened legal action to force the BLM 

and Viceroy to adopt reasonable protection standards. Second, any future mining 

activity involving lands within the claimblock where Viceroy might have valid existing 

rights can be handled through the Mining in the Parks Act as administered by the 

National Park Service. The claimblock is part of the watershed and ecosystem of the 

east side of the Mojave, and also is a significant part of the viewshed. Common sense 

dictates that the whole area be under the management of the National Park Service. We 

note also that as of January 1992 there were 43 active mining operations with existing 

National Park Service units; the agency has the personnel and expertise to deal with 

Viceroy Gold's mining activity. 

H.R. 518 also contains extensive compromises for off-road vehicles (ORVs). The 

drafters of the initial proposal considered the need for access into the desen and the 

opportunity for ORV use on public lands. A~ a result, this proposal is extraordinary in 

accommodating vehicular access for recreational use of the desert. 

More than 33,000 miles of roads and jeep routes will remain available for access 

to public lands after enactment of H.R. 518. The BLM's access guides were used to 

maximize the number of primitive routes left open under the Desert Protection Act. 

More than 18,000 miles of primitive routes ·• enough to go more than half way around 

the world·- will remain available for ORV use. Overall, nearly half a million acres of 
343 

ORV use areas (amounting to an area the size of the state of Rhode Island), and 

popular routes such as the Mojave Road, will remain available. 

No one who has carefully reviewed the situation in the California desert can say 

that H.R. 518 seriously limits access to desert public lands. In fact, every wilderness unit 

in the bill can be reached by a mad, ensuring lasting access to all who seek to enjoy the 

quiet beauty of the region. 

PARKS FOR PEOPLE 

The United States is unique among the nations of the world in having the 

foresight to protect premier natural areas, for the benefit of humanity, through our 

National Park System and our National Wilderness Preservation System. The California 

Desert Protection Act will add significantly to the great legacy that we pass on to future 

generations through these systems. 

Mojave NatiQJlal Monument. Although the proposal to establish the Mojave 

National Monument is the most controversial aspect of H.R. 518, there is no reason for 

the controversy. Studies by BLM and National Park Service resource professionals 

document that the East Mojave fully qualifies for park or monument designation. 

Moreover, because the Mojave lies between the burgeoning human populations of Los 

Angeles and the Las Vegas region, special attention is required to maintain its unique 

resources and primitive character. Enjoyment of this spectacular area in the future 

hinges on its protection ruM as a national park or monument. 

Regrettably, the battle over the future of the Mojave primarily has involved the 

Bureau of Land Management's desire to maintain its "turf' rather than transfer qualifying 

park lands to its sister agency, the National Park Service. We are pleased that the new 

Administration supports park designation for the Mojave Park. The Mojave should be 

established as a park not only because it fully qualifies, but also because its highly 

diverse and spectacular resources require management that is uniquely consistent with 

the mission of our National Park Service. 

We also support the provision in H.R. 518 which ensures that the primitive nature 

of the area, its beauty, and its natural and cultural resources will not be diminished by 

unnecessary new roads or inappropriate hotel and restaurant development. 

Deatb YaiiO' and Josbua 'free. We support the additions to Death Valley and 

Joshua Tree National Monuments as proposed in H.R. 518, as well as the redesignation 

of these two areas as national parks. The expansions, totaling approximately 1.5 million 

acres, will incorporate contiguous lands of national park caliber having significant 

natural, cui tural, archeological, historical, and wilderness values. 

Grginc in Parks. H.R. 518 takes a compromise approach to the phase-out of 

livestock grazing in Death Valley and Mojave National Parks. Essentially, the bill 

provides an opportunity for grazing to be permitted by the National Park Service for up 

to 25 years by current permit holders, subject to applicable laws and National Park 

7 
344 

Service regulations. H.R. 518 also directs the Secretary of the Interior to give priority to 

acquisition of the base property of permit holders, on a willing seller basis, in the 

acquisition of lands for these park units. We prefer a more rapid phase-out of this 

destructive activity than 25 years, but accept the political necessity of the compromise. 

Livestock grazing must be phased out in the proposed park units. The severe impact of livestock grazing on desert ecosystems is illustrated by the demise of native 

plant communities, the plight of desert bighorn sheep, and the need to increase 

protection for the desert tortoise through the Endangered Species Act. A General 

Accounting Office report (GAO/RCED-92-12) regarding livestock grazing on public 

lands in the Mojave and other "hot deserts" included these findings: 

"Current livestock grazing activity on BLM allotments in hot desert areas risks 

long-term environmental damage ... " 

"GAO found evidence of damage occurring on BLM lands as well as evidence of 

livestock grazing's adverse impacts on several wildlife species. Some damaged 

lands may take decades to recover if they recover at all." 

"According to the most current data available, the economic benefits derived from 

livestock grazing on BLM lands in the hot desert areas are minimal .... At a local 

level, BLM documents indicate that local economies do not depend on public 

lands ranching for economic survival." 

Unlike public lands elsewhere in the West, livestock grazing occurs on only a 

small percentage of California Desert lands. According to a National Park Service 

assessment, "grazing is considered to be a marginal and somewhat speculative business in 

the California desert, [and] the entire 25 million acres [of the California Desert 

Conservation Area] produces only about three/tenths of one percent of beef production 

in the state." 

Very few people will be affected by the gradual phase-out of grazing in Park 

Service units that is proposed in H.R. 518. According to BLM data, there are only 

eleven grazing allotments in the Mojave, including one where the permittee is a mining 

corporation, and two involved in the additions to Death Valley. It is our understanding 

that there are only four working ranches in the Mojave: the OX, Kessler Springs, Valley 

View, and Blair Brothers. 

Grazing is likely to be eliminated in much of the proposed Mojave National 

Monument regardless of H.R. 518. The draft recovery plan for the threatened Mojave 

desert tortoise recommends prohibiting livestock in fourteen Desert Wildlife 

Management Areas proposed in the plan. Two of these are the lvanpah Valley and the 

Fenner areas of the proposed Mojave National Monument. The draft plan, prepared by 

a team of scientists and issued in April 1993 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

states: "Livestock can kill desert tortoises and eggs directly by trampling. Grazing can also damage soil crusts, reduce water infiltration, promote erosion, inhibit nitrogen 

fixation in desert plants, and provide a favorable seed bed for exotic annual vegetation". 
345 

The grazing phase-out proposed in H.R. 518 applies only to the Park Service 

units. The Wilderness Act provid~ for the continuation of grazing in wilderness, and 

this fact is expressly recognized mH.R. 518. Thus, the California Desert Protection Act 

will not eliminate grazing in the BLM wilderness designated by the Act. 

Huntlne In Parka. We strongly oppose the provision jammed through the House 

in the l02nd Congress to mandate hunting in the proposed Mojave National Monument. 

The provision was primarily the result of inteDSive lobbying by the National Rifle 

Association (NRA). 

Mr. Chairman, the issue is not merely about hunting in the East Mojave. The 

real issue here is an assault on the integrity and the future of our national park system. 

It is about whether we are ever going to designate new national parks or monuments 

again anywhere in this counny. It is about whether wildlife and families will be safe 

from the threat of bullets in our national parks. It is about the clear intent to seek the 

restoration of hunting to parks and wilderness where Congress has decided that such 

activity is inappropriate. 

According to testimony on the California Desert Protection Act offered by the 

NRA during the 102nd Congress, the organization adopted a resolution in 1987 which 

opposes any further expaDSion of the National Park System that does not preserve 

existing hunting access and opportunities, and "supports the restoration of hunting access" 

in areas where., in their view, the activity has been "improperly curtailed." 

The Wilderness Society is not anti-bunting. But in our National Parks and 

Monuments, the maintenance of natural ecosystem processes and the safety of the public 

must be placed above other concerDS. Our national parks and monuments are not places 

where hunting should ocaJr. 

Although hunting would be prohibited in the Mojave National Monument, the 

region still will have extensive lands for hunting. H.R. 518 will not put an end to 

hunting in the Desert: huntlllg will CODtinue to be allowed on nearly 10 million acres of 

federal land In the Callfomia Desert, including BLM wilderness areas. H.R. 518 

provides more than ample opportunity for hunting to continue in appropriate locations in 

the Desert region. 

The courts have held that sport hunting is not an appropriate use of our National 

Parks and Monuments. In 1984, the NRA sued the Department of the Interior, claiming 

that national park units should be open to open to wildlife harvest unless Congress 

specifically closed them. 

The District Court disagreed with the NRA, finding in National Rifle A5sociatjon 

~. that wildlife harvest is nol compatible with the basic purposes of national parks. 

These purposes, as described in the Park Service Organic Act, are 'To conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for 

the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such meaDS as will leave them 
846 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." In November, 1991, the Michigan 

6th Circuit Court of A~ reaffirmed the findings of NRA v. Potter. 

Hunting is not permitted in 78 of our 79 National Monuments or in 50 of our 51 

National Parks, and these two exceptions are for highly unusual circumstances. The park 

exception involves Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. More than 40 years ago, 

Congress took the highly unusual step of authorizing the National Park Service to 

"deputize" hunters to assist in the reduction of the local elk population; few people would 

characterize this activity as sport hunting. The monument exception is Hagerman Fossil 

Beds, a paleontological site in Idaho. Legislation creating this national monument 

includes a provision which allows hunters access to the monument in order to shoot at 

waterfowl flying over the adjacent Snake River outside the monument. 

We strongly urge Congress to reject the attempt of the NRA to amend the 

California Desert Protection Act to allow hunting in the Mojave National Park or 

Monument. Such an amendment would establish a terrible precedent and would be 

completely counter to public opinion. As shown by a recent statewide survey conducted 

by the Field Institute, by a margin of nearly 4 to 1, Californians support creating the 

Mojave National Park with no hunting. Even among surveyed households containing at 

least one hunter, 66 percent support a park for the Mojave with no hunting. 

Make the Mojave a Park or Monument. Not a Preserve. We further urge 

Congress to reject any attempt to make the Mojave a National Park Service "preserve", 

where hunting is allowed, rather than making it a park or monument. 

Mr. Chairman, the East Mojave fully qualifies for and deserves the highest level 

of protection our nation can bestow: national park or monument status. There are very 

few places left where we have the opportunity to preserve large natural areas for future 

generations. Designation of the Mojave as a park or monument will provide more rigorous protection for the area's natural and cultural resources than preserve status. 

National Preserves are more complicated, difficult and costly to manage than 

national parks or monuments. More scientific research and larger resource management 

and law enforcement staffs are needed to address the divergent mandates and constraints 

of national preserve legislation. 

Hunting is one of the more challenging activities to manage. Hunting is not a benign activity. Existing Park Service units where hunting is authorized, such as the Big 

Cypress National Preserve in Florida, are experiencing management and visitor safety 

problems because of this activity. A few examples: 

o Hunting impacts the integrity of natural systems. Because hunters target the 

largest and healthiest animals, the genetic viability and age distributions of species 

populations are disturbed. In some NPS units hunters have released exotic 

species which negatively impact native species and vegetation. Problems with 

vandalism, poaching. noise pollution, and off road vehicle damage are exacerbated 

during bunting seasons. 

10 
347 

o Hunting poses a safety concern and conflicts with other legitimate visitor activities 

and access. Hunting in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, a unit of the 

National Park Service in Michigan, has resulted in bikers wearing orange safety 

vests during hunting season. Some Park Service units must close areas or restrict 

the access of non-hunting visitors during hunting season. Also, some members of 

the public simply do not want to risk being shot accidentally and avoid going to a 

unit they would otherwise visit. In the Big Cypress Preserve, rangers report that 

the four-wheel buggies used by hunters to access the backcountry sometimes 

conflict with hikers using the Florida National Scenic Trail. 

o Many park system units with hunting lack adequate funding to properly manage 

and enforce hunting regulations. In many cases, the funding and staffing required 

to administer and patrol hunting activity takes resources away from other 

operations. In addition, philosophical differences over hunting can lead to 

continuing conflict between the NPS and State Fish and Wildlife agencies over kill 

quotas and the management of hunting. 

Aside from the bunting problem, national preserve designation potentially opens 

the door to other undesirable consumptive uses. For example, the Big Cypress National 

Preserve enabling legislation authorized off road vehicle use, grazing, and oil and gas 

development, all of which present ongoing management challenges for the National Park 

Service. If there is a move to designate the Mojave as a preserve rather than a park or 

monument, it would not be surprising to find extractive industries or other development· 

oriented groups seeking new concessions. As the Field Institute poll reveals, the vast 

majority of Californians, and even 66% of households with at least one hunter, support 

making the Mojave a national park even if it means that hunting will be prohibited. 

BLM WILDERNESS 

The California Desert Protection Act will add approximately four million acres of 

BLM lands to our National Wilderness Preservation System. These wilderness areas 

provide an absolutely essential insurance policy for the irreplaceable scenic, recreational, 

cultural and ecological values of the California Desert. 

The BLM wilderness areas in H.R. 518 have been the subject of years of 

exhaustive examination of BLM data, discussions with BLM staff professionals, and onthe-ground analysis to ensure that each area fully qualifies as wilderness. The areas 

designated by the bill are essentially the same as those identified by BLM as meeting the 

standards of the Wilderness Act. Boundaries were modified in every case where an 

inappropriate situation was discovered; numerous modifications and significant 

reductions in wilderness acreage that were made with our input and acceptance. 

Mr. Chairman, we are resolute in our commitment to oppose the designation of 

any area that fails to qualify as wilderness. Designating such areas would only 

undermine the integrity of the National Wilderness Preservation System that we fought 

so hard to create. But we are equally committed to protection for those areas which do 

fully qualify. 

tl 

72-354 0 - 93 - 12 
348 

Under the previous administration, the BLM advocated designating less than half 

of the qualifying BLM desert wilderness, protecting only isolated blocks of land and thus 

allowing further fragmentation and deterioration of desert ecosystems, including the loss 

of biological diversity. This meager approach, which is still suggested by some opponents 

of H.R. 5 18, would result in continued damage to fragile desert resources. It would 

deprive the public, now and for future generations, of the quiet splendor of wilderness 

that is increasingly rare and increasingly valuable as our human populations grow and 

development spreads. 

WILDERNESS WATER RIGHTS 

The California Desert is one of the most arid parts of the United States. In those 

rare areas where water is present, it is essential to protect it. We support the language 

in H.R. 518 that reserves a federal water right for the designated wilderness areas, 

establishes the priority date of such rights as the date of enactment of the legislation, 

and requires appropriate Federal officials to take all steps necessary to protect these 

rights. 

A reservation of water rights must be included in the legislation to make it clear 

that Congress intends to provide sufficient water to fulfill the purposes for which the 

wilderness areas are designated. Silence on the subject of water rights may be 

interpreted as an indication that Congress did not intend to reserve water for the 

wilderness designated by the Act. 

Prior to 1988 an express reservation of water would have been unnecessary. 

Water for wilderness, and indeed other federal land reservations, was assured by the 

~ doctrine. According to this doctrine, announced first by the Supreme Court in 

1908, when Congress sets aside an area of the federal lands for special purposes it also 

reserves sufficient water to fulfill those purposes. Congress need not express its 

reservation of water in legislation setting aside lands; the reservation is implied where 

there is a need for water to achieve the goals and purposes of the land reservation. This 

water right is junior to all valid existing water rights. 

Between 1908 and 1988, the doctrine of federal reserved water rights was applied 

consistently by the courts to assure water for wildlife refuges, national recreation areas, 

national forests, national parks, and national monuments. 

In August of 1988. the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an 

opinion that Congress did not intend to reserve water rights for the wilderness areas 

designated pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Solicitor's opinion (which an 

exhaustive analysis by the Congressional Research Service indicates is in error) became 

the basis of a directive from former Attorney General Meese prohibiting the land 

management agencies from claiming federal reserved rights for wilderness in ongoing 

stream adjudications. In light of this situation, Congress must explicitly recognize the 

existence of water rights in wilderness legislation. Without an express reservation of 

water rights, the wilderness areas designated by the California Desert Protection Act may 

be deprived of life sustaining water. 

12 
349 

The water rights language in H.R. 518 is essentially identical to language adopted 

by Congress last year and enacted as part of the Los Padres Condor Range and Rivers 

Act. of 1992 (P.L 102-301). There is no need to change it. 

This same language was the compromise reached in Title I of the Arizona Desert 

Wilderness Act of 1990 (P .L 101-628) designating BLM wilderness. Title III of P.L 101-

628, designating several national wildlife refuge wilderness areas in Arizona, contains 

identical language plus two unnecessary and confusing provisions that were added during 

conference on the Act. These provisions, which were rejected by the House when they 

were proposed as an amendment to the California Desert bill during the 102nd 

Congress, state that no rights to water of the Colorado River are reserved with the 

respect to the Havasu and Imperial Wilderness Areas in Arizona, and that nothing in the 

Act amended or preempted any State law, Federal law, interstate compact or 

international treaty pertaining to the upper basin of the Colorado River. 

These extra provisions were unnecessary because great care was taken to draw the 

boundaries of the Havasu and Imperial Refuge wilderness units so as to avoid including 

the river. Moreover, the language is confusing because it implies that the water rights 

language in the Act was intended to apply outside the wilderness boundaries. The 

provisions were not part of the House or Senate versions of the Arizona bill and were 

not debated as part of the conference report because of time constraints on passing the 

bill on the last day of the 101st Congress. 

The Havasu and Imperial Refuge Wilderness areas on the California side of the 

river are designated in H.R. 518 with boundaries drawn at the 100 year high water level 

of the Colorado to avoid including any portion of the river. Therefore, the federal 

reserved water right in H.R. 518 does not affect the Colorado River, its water 

management or any compacts associated with it. Amending the bill with the special 

"Arizona provisions" would be unnecessary and confusing. We urge the House to again 

reject any such amendment. 

MY'IHS ABOUT MINING 

Opponents of the California Desert Protection Act have made inaccurate and 

insupportable claims about its potential effects, but none have been more wildly 

exaggerated than their allegations about mining. Those who seek to perpetuate the 

dominant influence of the mining industry on the use of public lands talk as if H.R. 518 

will essentially put an end to mining in the California desert and have serious impacts on the economy and employment of the state. Their assertions are ridiculous. These myths 

are a disservice to those who need reliable information in order to make informed 

decisions about the future of the desert. 

Let's set the record straight: 

o The California Desert Protection Act does not put an end to mining in the 

California Desert. In fact, H.R. 518 protects all valid existing mining rights. 

13 
350 

o When the California Desert Protection Act was flfSt drafted, boundaries were 

drawn to avoid known areas of potential mineral conflict. 

o The proposal has been modified by the House sponsors many times to 

accommodate specific mining concerns raised since initial introduction. 

Wilderness and park boundary changes have been made for Viceroy Gold, 

Canyon Resources, Keystone Mining, Kerr-McGee, and U.S. Borax, among others. 

Further deletions for mineral concerns have been made in the Argus, Chuckwalla, 

Dead Motmtains, Jacumba, Malpais Mesa, Resting Springs, and Eagle Mountain 

wilderness areas. 

As a result of these and other modifications, information provided by the 

California Department of Mines and Geology indicate that no mines are within 

the legislation's wilderness proposals and only six of over 400 mines in the five 

desert counties are within park additions or expansions. The BLM expects three 

of these to end operations during 1993, regardless of action on the California 

Desert Protection Act. The remaining three mines are likely to have valid rights 

which will allow them to continue to operate. 

o According to a 1992 U.S. Geological Survey report on the East Mojave, "[T]he 

prospects for further mineral discoveries in the [Mojave] are relatively poor .. .in 

the parlance of mineral resources, this does not appear to be an area of worldclass deposits." 

o None of the 14 materials identified by the office of Technology Assessment as 

meeting the criteria for strategic minerals is currently produced anywhere in the 

California Desert Conservation Area. 

o There are no active mines within the boundaries of the California Desert 

Protection Act that produce materials listed by the Department of the Interior in 

1989 as strategic and critical minerals. 

o The Mountain Pass Mine, which produces 97 percent of the U.S. output of "rare 

earth" minerals, is excluded from the boundary of the proposed Mojave Park. 

The bulk of its undeveloped claim block also is excluded. At current use levels, 

there is a sufficient supply to serve the country for 250 years. 

o Gold is one of the minerals produced in the California Desert Conservation Area. 

The largest producer, the Mesquite Mine, is wholly outside of the wilderness and 

park/monument boundaries of H.R. 518, as are most of the other major mineral 

producers. The Colosseum, Morningstar, and Castle Mountain (Viceroy) mines 

are within the proposed Mojave National Monument, but are outside the 

proposed park wilderness. Also, according to BLM, the Colosseum and 

Morningstar mines already have ceased mining and shifted their operations to a 

reclamation phase. 

14 
351 

o Although the California Desert produces significant quantities of some minerals, 

much of the value of mineral production comes from private lands unaffected by 

any legislation. Of the approximately $1.1 billion worth of mineral production 

derived from the California Desert Conservation Area, approximately 40 percent 

is from borate production at two locations well outside of proposed park or 

wilderness lands. The bulk of the remaining value of mineral production from the 

California Desert is confined to low unit-value construction materials, such as 

sand and gravel, many of which are readily available elsewhere. 

o Estimates of job loss in the mining industry attributed to H.R. 518 are absolutely 

incorrect. Not a single producer will be shut down by this legislation. Opponents 

of this bill use job loss estimates from a paper by Ms. Shirley Anderson, whose 

assumptions are fatally flawed. Anderson's job loss estimates are based on mining 

jobs that do not now exist, on the assumption that all mining will cease after 

current deposits are played out, and on the mistaken notion that all mineral 

production in the California desert is on public land. A detailed analysis of the 

flaws in the Anderson paper is provided in the attached report, "Park and 

Wilderness Designation in the California Desert: A Survey of Potential Impacts 

on Mining Employment and Mineral Availability", which we request be included 

as part of our testimony for the hearing record. 

o The report by resource economist Dr. Robert J. Hrubes of LSA Associates, based 

in Point Richmond, California, also demonstrates why H.R. 518 will have no 

immediate impacts on mining jobs and little or no future impact on the number of 

mining jobs in the California Desert region. Finally, the report shows that mining 

is a very small - and shrinking -· sector in the Desert region's economy. Mining 

jobs account for just 1.6 percent of total employment in the region, and that 

percentage includes oil and gas jobs. The percentage has decreased over the past 

decade; it was 2.5 percent in 1981. 

o The truth of the matter is that the six mines encompassed within the boundaries 

of the park and monument proposals in H.R. 518 currently employ a total of 

approximately 250 people. H.R. 518 will not shut down any or these mines or put 

an end to any or these jobs. Three of these mines, with a total of approximately 

40 employees, are expected to shut down within the next year regardless of 

Congressional action on H.R. 518. 

MILITARY USES OF 'mE DESERT 

In combination with H.R. 880, H.R. 518 will not significantly affect the current or 

future use of the Desert region by the military. In previous testimony, the military 

expressed two primary concerns about the California Desert Protection Act: its impact 

on low-level military overflights and the potential expansion of existing facilities, such as 

Fort Irwin. These concerns are accommodated in H.R. 518 and H.R. 880. 

Withdrawals. We do not object to renewing the withdrawal of approximately 13 

million acres of Federal lands for the China Lake Naval Weapons Center and the 

15 
352 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, as proposed in H.R. 880. The withdrawals 

will allow numerous military activities to continue, such as testing and training for aerial 

gunnery, rocketry, bombing. missile firing. electronic warfare, tactical maneuvering and 

air support. 

Mi!itaa OterOipts. We believe the military overflight language in H.R. 880 is 

unnecessary. Under current law, wilderness and park designations do not restrict 

military overflights. Nothing in the California Desert Protection Act would restrict such 

activity. Therefore, Section 12 of H.R. 880 merely affirms existing authorities of the 

military. We urge that the language be deleted; including it in the bill implies that it is 

necessary for the continuation of overflights, when in fact it is not necessary. 

Some 3.1 million acres in the California Desert are under military withdrawal, 

primarily at Ft. Irwin, Chocolate Mountain, China Lake, Twentynine Palms, and Edwards 

Air Force Base. Additional Desert land is covered by military overflights to test aircraft 

and train pilots. To accommodate these uses the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) has established large areas of restricted air space for the military. 

The airspace over all lands, including wilderness and parks, is controlled by the 

FAA. The agency has issued a general advisory, which is Jl2t mandatory, that pilots 

maintain a minimum altitude of 2000 feet above wilderness areas. Since December 1, 

1977, the military use of airspace above the California Desert has been governed by a letter of agreement between the military and the FAA. Within this restricted air space, 

flights are limited to no lower than 2000 feet over existing wilderness and park units, and 

no lower than 3000 feet above ground level (AGL) over Death Valley. With the 

exception of these existing wilderness and park units, the level is 200 feet AGL 

To specifically accommodate the concerns of the military, Section 802 states, in 

part: "Nothing in this Act or in the California Desert Protection Act of 1993 shall 

preclude low-level overflights by military aircraft, the designation of new units of special 

airspace, or the use or establishment of military flight training routes over the new units 

of the National Park or Wilderness Preservation System ... " This language, which we view 

as unnecessary, should put to rest any concerns about the military being precluded from 

continuing low-level flights in the region after H.R. 518 is enacted. 

The military's second major concern has involved the potential expansion of Fort 

Irwin. The Army is examining several alternatives to expand the Fort. The issue is 

highly controversial. largely because much of the public questions whether it is needed. 

Also, all of the options have environmental and user conflicts. For example, the option 

of expanding to the east has conflicts with an existing power line to Los Angeles. 

In recent testimony on S. 21, the companion bill to H.R. 518, the Department of 

Defense testified that they wanted to make sure the California Desert Protection Act 

"does not preclude the future expansion" of Ft. Irwin. We believe that H.R. 518 fully 

addresses this concern by leaving the three areas adjacent to the Fort in wilderness study 

area status, rather than designating them as wilderness. This approach fully preserves 

the military's option to expand Ft. Irwin to the east, and at the same time it retains 

16 
353 

interim protection of the wilderness characteristics of the three areas pending resolution 

of the Ft. Irwin expansion issue by Congress. 

H.R. 518 offers several benefits to the military. The presence of wilderness along 

installation boundaries will help prevent accidental trespass by ORV users and will make 

it easier to detect people who might deliberately attempt to enter the facilities illegally. 

In no case will wilderness close routes used by the military for boundary patrols of the 

installations. Finally, wilderness will provide a buffer for the military from future 

external development that might lead to problems along installation boundaries. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Chairman, the choice before this committee is a simple one. You can set 

aside a few museum pieces of our country's great western heritage, as advocated by 

opponents of H.R. 518, pieces too small and isolated to preserve the California Desert's 

wild and scenic character and its storehouse of biological diversity. Or you can adopt 

H.R. 518 and provide a network of wilderness and park land that ensures permanent 

protection for the region's frontier character and allows us, our children and theirs to 

experience the wealth and majesty of this great American Desert. 

live up to the faith the American people have placed in you. Pass the California 

Desert Protection Act without further delay. 

17 
The field Poll • February, 1993 

Q •• 6b "nl• •••teen Mojave is publicly owned land located in the desert region of Souther

i• conaidering lhAldng the eaatern Mojave a n.tional park. Hunting would be exclu

allowed to continue on other public lanct.. in U1• California deae:rt region. 

Do you favor or oppoae ..,king the uatem MOjave a natiorull park, knowing that bu

park? Do you !favor I c_..ael atrong1y or o-.ou 

llau: 'total S-1• 

hai

section Ar- ...

........... ·····················-························· 

c.n- llortb 

can- tnl Cout 

e North Sovtb oru San~ trel Val· ky /Sier 

-ern -em LA ·o• Di49 tlea Coaat ley Area -r:a U&"b

••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• • •••••••••• ··-·· ••••••••

Unwe&ghted a ••• 1052 4H 624 285 15 80 n 79 161 216 45 3

Weighted •••• 1052 424 62. 281 ,. 91 87 75 153 224 tl 3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

!'AllOR STRONGLY ~ 220 302 uo ., .. ~ " 11 lU 20 1

- IJS '· 5t.a .... 50.0 50.1 50.3 U.6 U.6 46.3 55.1 47.5 55

~ ... 

i'AIIOR SOIIBWIIAT 265 106 159 70 ll 2 ll 40 54 10 

<2!); 25.0 25.5 25.0 22.3 u.o 7. 2'1.7 26.2 23.9 22.7 21

OPI'OU S'OIIDIIIAT 90 n 58 2t 

' 6 11 5 u 18 3 

8.5 7.6 9.2 8 .• 9.5 6.6 ll.4 6.7 9 .• 7.t 7.6 9

OPI'OSI STIIONGLY 109 37 70 28 u 7 13 

' 1S 15 7 2

10.) 8. 7 11.3 9.1 u.a 7. 7 15.4 12.6 9.5 6.6 15 .• 6

llon. t know 65 29 35 19 ) 6 3 3 13 u 3 2

6.2 6.9 5.6 6.7 3.2 6.4 3. 7 3 •• 8.6 6 .• 6.9 7

tcoject 1091·001 
S55 

!l 

~ .. :.s ! .. .. , .s 

n s !l 

.:: .~ 

.. ... .., "!j 

~ ... i a ... ll ~ 

• 

.~I J 

11 c.! ... o .. .... 

.. ~ ...... r Ill . ·: 

j.. j 

... ~· J . j .. 

.. 

... 13J J 

f 

JU J r wJ) .; .... l I jl ... .. !{I ~ ... 

2 

! ! :: 2 

~ ... • ,}t' .... • ~:! =J ' ! 1s i • ; ~ hi !• \£, i P' !tl ~1 i ~: ... ..... .... ..... .... ... ... .... ... .. . ... .... .. . . . .. . 

iii f} . si .\ i: • •g .. ... ...... • .. .. ... .. ... . \.: w •.. ..... ~gu "'"' ... ., •• "' ... . ..... ~ ..... .. . • • ... ..... • ~ to. •J• ,_ j: ,. . 0 ' . ... 

i;J i ... I N NO .... -s., .. I"' ,. .. "'" 

·. i I .. ... ::1 • .. • • 0 .... 

igJ :;: 0 :u a Nlft • ""'0 ~ .. .. • ... .. eo- il . :!S :1 I J I .. an ~~ ... I I I 0 

J ! 

J:i ai i J .. 1 . .. .. 1 ... 

a ! i I I I .. " j I • 

J i ... • ... e 

0 • : .. ... 
356 

PARK AND WILDERNESS DESIGNATION 

IN 11iE CALIPORNIA DESERT: 

A SURVEY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON MINING 

EMPLOYMENT AND MINERAL AVAIIABIUIY 

A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WILDERNESS SOClE1Y 

BY 

ROBERT J. HRUBES, PH.D. 

PRINCIPAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMIST 

AND 

}AMES D. FINE 

ECONOMIC ANALYST 

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 

1S7 PARK PLACE 

PT. RICHMOND, CA 94801 

MAY24, 199~ 

I.SA CONTRACT # T\VS301 
357 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • 1 

SECTION I: 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION . • . . . . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

PRINCIPAL FEAnrRES OF niB PROPOSED CDPA . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

CURRENT DESERT MIN1NG AND niB NEAR·TERM EFFECTS 

OF niB PROPOSED CDPA 

...................................................... 6 

POTENTIAL LONG· TERM EFFECTS OF niB PROPOSED 

CDPA .................................•...... 9 

SECTION II: 

AN ECONOMIC PROFILE AND ANALYSIS OF niB RElATIVE IMPORTANCE OF 

MINING IN niB CAilFO~ DESERT REGION 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

INTRODUCTION . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 11 

ECONOMIC PROFILE • . • . . . • . . • . • • • • • . . • . . . . . • • • . . . . . 16 

SECTION Ill: 

A CRITIQUE OF "MINERAL RESOURCES OF niB CAilFORNIA DESERT AND 

TiiBIR SIGNIFICANCE TO CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY' • . • . . . . . . . . . . 31 

BACICGROUND . . . • . . . . . . • • • • . • • . • . . • • . • . . • . • . . . . . . . 31 

SUMMARY CONCLUSJONS . . .. .. . • . .. . . . . . . . . . • . .. . .. . 31 

INAPPROPRIATE ASSUMP110NS . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

MIS.USE OF INPUT/OtrrPUT ANALYSIS . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

ii 
358 

UST OF FIGURES 

PAGB 

1 - Calitbmla Desert Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

2 - County Composition of the COCA .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . . 11 

3 - Population Growth Rates in the Study Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

4 - Employment - Study Area 1: Central Desert Counties . . . . . . . . 18 

5 - Mining Jobs Per 1,000 Raidenas: Central Desert Counties . . . . . 20 

6 - Contribution to Personal Income: Central Desert Counties . . . . 21 

7 - Employment • Los Angeles and San Diego Counties . . . . . . . . . 24 

8 Employment - Study Area ll: All COCA Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

9 - Mining Jobs per 1,000 Resldencs: All CDCA Counties . . . . . . . . 26 

10 - ·Contribution to Personal Income: All COCA Counties ....... : 26 

11 - Employment - Califumia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

12 - Mining as a Percent of Total California Gross State Product . . . 30 

iii 
359 

UST OF TABLES 

PAGE 

A - Counties in the COCA ........ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

B • Metropolitan Statistic:al Areas In the COCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

C - Population Growth: Central Desert Counties and California . . . 17 

D - Mining Employment as Percent of Total Employment . . . . . . . . 19 

H • Personal Income . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

F • Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

G • Mining Employment as Percent of Total Employment . . . . . . . . 25 

H · Personal Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

I • Gross State Product .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29 

iv 
360 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Utilizing available information, an evaluation was conducted of the potential 

near-term and long-term implications of the CalitOmia Desert Protection Act 

(CDPA) on mining acttrity within the 25.5 million acre CalitOmia desert. The 

provisions aqd requirements of the CDPA ate reviewed and compared against 

the spatial location of current mining activity in the desert and known reserves 

of economically-valuable minerals. A salient feature of the CDPA is that the 

boundaries of proposed park and wilderness areas have been drawn to largely 

exclude current and hisrorical mining districts. M such, there would be no 

adverse near-term impact on desert mining production if the CDPA is enacted, 

as the Act specitica.lly recognizes valid existing rights. Active mining operations 

within the boudaries of the proposed parkes that have valid rights would be 

able ro continue operations. MJnlng and park designation need not be 

mutually exclusive, as reflected by the 42 units within the National Park System 

with active mining operations, as of January, 1992. 

Long-tenn impacts of the.CDPA on desert mining ate much more difficult to 

ascenain given the uncertainty about future regional and global mineral 

market conditions and the lack of precise knowledge of the locations of 

valuable deposits within the descn. But fur numerous reasons, it is concluded 

that future impacts, if they were to occur, will be limited: 

Less than a third of the CalitOmia desert would fall under the 

jurisdiction and limitations of the CDPA. Vast areas of mineral-rich 

desen land will remain open fur exploration and mineral extraction. 

By design, the proposed park and wilderness boundaries avoid areas 

of current and historiC21 mining signiftcance. For instance, the 

Mountain Pass mine, which accounts fur virtually aU U.S. production 

of rate earth elements, is excluded from the boundaries of the 

proposed Mojave National Park. Rate earth deposits at this mine 

location can be expected ro lut several hundred years, at current and 

furesec:able cr.uaction rates. 

The pdnd.pal active deposits of many economically important minerals 

such as cement, sand and srzvd, and boron ate 1oc:a:ced f.u from the 

boundaries of the CDPA and would be un-impacted. Additional 

deposits of these materials are located outside of proposed park and 

wilderness areas. 

Using federa,l and state time series data, a pro81e was deftOOped of the 

California desert regional economy. Focusing on population. employment, 

personal income, and gross domestic product, it is demonstrated that the 

mining sector is a very minor contributor to the 5-county and. larger, 7 -county 

desert regional economy and ro the statewide economy. Further, the relative 

importance of mining has declined substantially <m!r the past 10 years as the 
361 

California desert region bas experienced rapid demographic change and 

economic diversification. 

There are approximately 3,500 non-fuels mining jobs in the California desert, 

which constitutes less than 1/4 or one percent or total employment within the 

Southern California regional economy. The principal source or mining 

employment in Southern California is assoc::iated with oU and gas, primarily 

located in portions of Kern County weD outside of the proposed park and 

wilderness areas. Even within the 5 central desert counties, non-fuels mining 

accounts for less than one peteent of total employment. Due largely to 

regional and global mineral market forces, total mining employment in the 

study area has stagnated over the past 10 years. In contrast, other sectors of 

the regional economy have experienced rapid increases in employment. 

Finally, a critique is offi:red of a pa~, widely cited by the mining industry, 

that argues that all California desert mining will C\'entually cease if the CDPA 

were to be enacted. In fact, there is no plausible basis to support this 

argument. Fundamental ftaws in assumptions and analysis methodology, that 

undermine the credibility of the paper's conclilsions, are identified and 

discussed. 

1 Mineral R&:sources of the California Desert and Their Significance to 

California's Economy, Shirley c Anderson, California State Untversity, 

Northridge, CA 
362 

SECTION 1: 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 

On January 21, 1993, newly..elected CalifOrnia Senators Dianne Feinstein and 

Barbara Boxer opened the current round of a multi-year Congressional 

deliberation over prou:ct:lon of public resources within the 25.5-million acre 

CalifOrnia desert (see Figure 1). Their bill, the Califurnia Desert ProteCtion Act 

(S. 21), is largely identical to a bill of the same number introduced by furmer 

Califurnia Senator Alan Cranston in the p~ous Congress. At the same time, 

a nearly identical companion House bill (H.R. 518) was introduced by 

CalifOrnia Representatives Richard Lehman and George Miller. 

ln past deliberations over CalifOrnia desert legislation, much attention has 

been paid to and substantial misinfOrmation has been generated concerning 

the potential implications of CDPA enactment on mining-related employment 

within the CalifOrnia Desert Conservation Area (CDCA)2• Commodity 

interests including the mining indusuy have asserted that passage of the CDPA 

would result in the loss of many thousands of desert region jobs due to the 

"locking up• of federal desert lands in parkland and wilderness areas. Relying 

primarily upon one indusuy-supported study, the mining lobby has argued 

that the CDPA would result in the loss of over 20,000 jobs due to the eventual 

forced cessation of mining throughout the Califumia desert. Supporters of the 

CDPA have argued that the industry's claims are grossly overstated and 

deliberately misleading. 

To help develop a better factual basis upon which to assess the regional 

economic consequences of the proposed CDPA, The Wilderness Society 

retained LSA Associates, Inc., under the direction of Dr. Robert J. Htubes, to 

prepare this report on the .contribution of mining to the regional economy of 

the Califurnia desert and the likely Impact~~. if any, of the proposed Califurnia 

Desert Protection Act on present and future mining activity. This report 

constitutes a compiladon, synthesis and interpretation of available infOrmation 

obtained &om public agendes and private organizations. 

2 The Ca1ilOmia Desert Conservation Area (COCA) was established by the 

Federal Land· Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The COCA 

encompasses approllimately 25.5 million acres in all or parts of 8 California 

counties. The Act established the COCA fur the purposes of "protection and 

administration of the public lands in the CalifunUa desert within the 

framework of a program of multiple use and sustained yield, and the 

maintenance of emirorunental qualiry." 

3 
363 

. < 

~ ~ ! ......... .8 . t·. 

E 

. A 

l \ 

• 0 J 

i 1 

\ ::E ~ 

ii! 

OS 

J 

·~ 

i 

u 

1: 
PRINCIPAL l!1!ATlJRBS OP 77lB PROPOSI!D CDPA 

As with Ia Senate and House predecesoors, S. 21 and H.R. 518 call fur the 

redcsignation of several million acres of federal land presently odminlstered 

by the Bureau of and ManafJement to park .and/or wildemeoa status. ands 

eleoated ID park status would be tr.U!Sterred ID the National Park Service. 

Within current and proposed parklands under the jurisdiction of the Park 

Service, several million acres would be eleoated to wildemeoa status. 

Deslpatloa of B1JII Laacl aa Wlldem.,.. Area& or Other Protected Statua 

In H.R. 518, designation of 73 BLM wildemeoa areas, totalling 

approzimately 4 million acres 

In S. 21, designation of 74 BLM wildemeoa areas, totalling 

apprmdmately 4 million aae:sl 

establlshment of a 2,040 acre Desert Uly Sanctuary 

BLM Laacl to be T......ternd to Other Aael>clee for Park E.xpanslou: 

1.5 million acres ID the NPS fur the creation of the Mojave National 

Park 

1.3 million acres ID the NPS fur ClqliUISion of Death Valley National 

Monument, which will be redesignated as a National Park 

234,000 acres 10 the NPS fur <2piiiSion of Joshua Tree National 

Monument, which will be redesignated as a National Park 

20,500 acres to CalifOrnia State Oepartmalt of Parks fur ClqliUISion of 

11M Rock Canyon State Park 

Desipadoa of Park Serftce Laacl aa Wlldent.,.. 

3.2 mllllon acres of Death Valley National Park 

695,000 acres of Mojae National Park 

1,2,000 acres of Joshua Tree National Park 

! Rdatift: to H.R. 518, the Senate bill deletes two wildemca areas, Slate 

Ranse and South AYaWatz. It also modifies the boundaries of fOur other 

wildemca areas (Orocopia \lountains, Chucl<walla Mountains, Avawatz 

Mountains, and Soda Mountain>) 
365 

The bills recognize existing mining laws and regulations that aft"ord mining 

opera1ioM with valid cmting rights the ability to continue exploration and/or 

dew!Jopment acl:i'rities.4 The lmpliau:ion is that all cunent mineral producers 

on federal land In the Ca1ifOrnla Desert .'-e legal protection ror continued 

opera1ioM evatlf the land or surrounding am& is designated as a wUdemess 

orparkalQL 

Changes From Prior Veniou 

A key R:arwe of the current and prior ~ of the CDPA is that c:xplidt 

effott baa been made to minimize mining conft1c:ts by emudlng from 

proposed wilderness and parks neatly all areas of :IICtt¥e mining operations and 

known reserws. To that end, S. 21 dlffi:rs from Its pn:decclsors by ac:iuding 

from the proposed Mojave National Park a ~1,000 acre mining clalm block 

controlled by VIceroy Re:soun:e Corpotation, a Canadian gold mining 

company. 

S. 21 modifies or eliminates wilderness areas surrounding Ft. Irwin In order 

to allow ror pcesently unspedfted base ezpansion plans of the Atmy. 

CURRENT DBSI!R'1' MINING AND THB NBAR·TBRM BPJIJ!CI'S OP THB PROPOSBD CDPA 

Due the design of the proposed COP A, determining the near-term Impact on 

mining is a sttaigbtfi:lrwani matter! there will be Utde or no impaa-as 

measured la employmeat, lacome or ft1ue of pmcluc:tlon- current 

tniDlag acd9idell witbla the CaUtoniJa ne.crt. The one facet of mining 

activity that oou.ld ezperlence adverse near-term impiC1S due to the CDPA is 

exploration, parttc:ulady on federal lands that would, by CDPA enactment, be 

resened from future mineral c::m:actton. H~. this Impact can be 

expected to be exln!IDely limited on a regioftl1 scale in that mineral 

c:xpJoration actMty is not labor intenstte and becwae the CDPA will not "lock 

up" anywhae near all the potentl:ally minemli2:ecl lands in the Ca1ifOrnla 

Desert. 

O..er 7 miJlloa ol the 25.5 million IIC1'I!S In the Cali.tbmla Desert Conseryation 

Ala are e:lcber pdmll!:ly owned or owned by the State of Califomla and not 

subJect 

~ 

to tbe ptOpOIIed CDPA. Fw:thel', the CDPA would Impact only 

-to. of the federal land within the Ca1ifOrnla Desert 

4 Valid edsting rights are esl2bli.shed when a daimhoklet baa shown proof 

of~ of a valuable mineral deposit. Valid ezis1:lng righm include right 

of ~ and production of the minerals on the ftlld claim, evat if a 

claimhnld« conuolllland In the middle of an area that later is ~ as a 

wilderne8t or park area. To ronc:nue to hold c:liiClullllte rlshm to the minerals. 

under cw:n:nt tegulatlons. a cl:umholder mtl$t ~a J100 annual fee per 

claim. 
366 

(approximately 7 million acres). In addition 10 7 million acres of private and 

state Ianda anilahle fur mineral production, more dJ.an 5 million acres of BLM 

land and portions of the military baseslresena withln the COCA will be 

a.vallable. 

Major components of California Desert mining activity takes place in areas 

clearly outside of and, thereby, un-impacted by the proposed CDPA. For 

instance the approximately 7 million con annual production of cement occurs 

on the western margin of the desert (in the Lucerne Valley, near Vicconille, 

and west of the toWn of Mojave), well west of the boundarie~ of the COP A.' 

Similarly, all impol'Wlt deposits of commodities such as boron, gypsum and 

saline minerals are located well outside of the proposed COP A. 6 

The lack of signi.ficant near-term impac1S notwithstanding, it is infurmative to 

provide a brief overview of the CUITent mining operations within the California 

Desert and, more particularly, on federal lands affi:ca::d by the proposed COP A. 

It is difficult to create an accurate and comprehensive accounting of all active 

mining in the Califurnia Desert, as reporting mechanisms originally managed 

by the Califurnia Division of Mine~ and GeoiOST and now managed by the 

Office of Mining Reporting and Reclamation COmpliance (RRC) have }1:t to 

generate a data base that accurately differentiate~ between active and inactive 

tnine~. Funhe:r, the numbet of active mine~ varie~ from year to year in 

re~ponse to fluctuations and trends in markl:t priCe~ fur California desert 

minerals such as gold. In 1987, there were an estimated 806 active mines in 

Califbrnia, of which approximately 130 were located in the California Desert.7 

OMRRC listed, fur 1990, 1143 "active and idle" reporting mines, of which 350 

were in the 5 principal counties of the COCA. • It is not known what portion 

of those totals were operationally active. 

More preclae information is available on the number of presently active mines 

in areas proposed as parkland and/or wilderness under the CDPA. Based 

' Commen!l on the; moon by Shirley c. Andmon· Mf.nmfl RI1SOu1fi!!s of 

tbf CaUforma Dgrrt and tbetr Sltmil'lqmq to Cqllfomig's Economy, 

unpubllllhed report prepared by Professor An Montana, Department of Earth 

& SpcKC Sc.ic:nces, UCLA. 

6 Montana, op dt. 

1 Estimaa: generated by Tom Goerold, Ph.D. from data compiled by the 

U.S Bureau of Mines and the Califbrnia Depanmenr of Conserr.uion, Division 

of Mine~ and Geology. 

• Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Riv~rstd~. and San Bemadlno counties. 

7 
367 

upon imoestigadons of~. the mlncll presently k:nown to be ac:t1ve within 

the boundaries of the propoascd park expansions are all loc:ated within the 

propoascd Mojave National Park, the exisdng Death Valley National Monument, 

and lis proposed expansion. There are no acttve mines within the propoascd 

wildernc:a areas. 

NAMB LOCATION MINElW.. ES'IlMATED COMMJ!.NTS 

EMPLOYEES 

Castle Mojlfte Gold 185 E:zpeaed life is 

Moun lain 20 years; not 

within s.~t 

park boundary 

Collscum Mojave Gold 50 E:zpeaed to 

close 

6/15/9!10 

Morning Mojave Gold 1 guard Idle, not 

Star expected to 

rcopcnu 

Aiken Mojlne Cinders 5 BI.Mbas 

deu:nnlncd 

claUDs to be 

imalid 

American Death Valley Bora: 1!, at mlllsite Within exisdng 

Bora1e natiooal. 

IJlOilUJDCilt 

boundaries 

Crater Death Valley Sulfur 3-S 

B1lie Death ValJey Iron 4-S 

H:a:ept fix tbe .Ai.llal mine, all of the currently 11ettte mines within propoascd 

park and~ area appear to blne ..ud c:ldsdn8 righa and, as such, 

WO!IId. be able t10 continue opctatior» uilda' edllt:intJ laws and rqJUiadons. 

The stllbl8 of tile Alb:n mine is a mat1e.t ofBLM detetmlaatlon and would not 

be iDflaencecl by tbe CDPA. 

' PriJIIIIq --· Callromia Dmsloft of Mlns and Geology, Loa Angeles Thnea, Callfomla Desert Prote<:Uon t.casue. scdf asalscana to Congressman 

I..erine, Vk:etoJ' Beloun:es Co., BLM, National Park Sentce. 

11 Ibid., Poocnoce 10 

8 
368 

POTI!N11AL LONG-TERM EFFECTS OP THE PROPOSED CDPA 

An assessment of the long-term effects of the CDPA on California Desert 

mining Is highly speculative, at best. Further, and contnuy to arguments 

presented by CDPA opponents, the speculative and temporally-delayed nature 

of potential CDPA·induced effects on desert mining severely limit the 

credlbillty of any assessments of the regional economic implications of those 

possible future effects.13 

Long-term mining effects would be associated with precluded future mining 

activity on CDPA federal lands that would otherwise have occurred in the 

absence of park and wilderness designation. The possible magnitude and 

timing of this impact Is a function of the extent to which the lands proposed 

for park and wilderness designation contain commercially valuable mineral 

deposits and numerous additional factors such as future mineral market 

conditions, the magnitude and a'1'11ibbility of alternative mineral reserves (both 

within the COCA and elsewhere}, and the expected life of known and available 

reserves within the California Desert. There Is considerable uncertainty 

associated with each factor. 

The expected life of currendy-mined mineral deposits in the COCA (which 

would not be impacted by the CDPA} varies by mineral group and iS 

fundamentally dependent on extraction rates. Whereas opponents of the 

CDPA have argued that all known, available mineral reserves in the California 

Desert would be exhausted within 50 years of passage of the COP Au, other 

mineral experts present a much different picture. For instance, known 

reserves of rare earth minerals in the California Desert-which would not be 

impacted by the CDPA-are projected tO not be exhausted for at least 350 

years, at current e:ttraction rates. 15 

13 As will be diScussed later in this report, opponents of tbe CDPA have 

widely dted the results of a 1987 industry-supported study on regional 

economic impacts. This report, however, Is fatally flawed due tO unreasonable 

assumptions and inappropriate methodology and its results laclc credibility . . H This suppositiOn, espoused in a paper by Shirley Anderson, will be 

addrei!lled in more detail in Section m of this report. 

15 Rare llaah Minerals· SuperconduC!iyltt, and the Ca1ifOm!a Desert. W. 

Thomas Goerold, Ph.D., Paper presented at The California Desert Mineral 

Symposium. March 3-4, 1989, Irvine, Callfi.:>rrua; and, 

Testimony of Dr. w Thomas Goerold BefjJce the House Interior Committee's 

Subcommittee 09 National Parb and PubJk; Landt. July '1.7, 1989. 

Rare earth mlnerab are a group of related elements used lbr spedalty 

purposes in petroleum, metallurgical, and glusmaldng industries with 

9 
369 

IJkewise, rhe location of presently unknown mlnerall'ellle.l"RS in the California 

desert is highly speculatm:. So too, then, is the extent to which the CDPA 

would c:ircumaCl'lbe and exclude from future access these unknown reserves. 

In the opinion of many mining experta16, however, thete Is a high likelihood 

that future mining aaivitywill oc:cut at ot near rhe loades of cun:ent mining. 

One of the sttongat indicators of mineral potential is the presence of current 

or historical mining aaivity. For lnstanc:e, 27 of the 30 California gold mlnes 

and 12 of the 14 CaliCornia Desert gold mlnes active in 1987 -=relocated on 

the sites of old mining d.ist:ricts. To the em:nt that future mining is 

locationally comelalrd With present and/or past mining. the CDPA will have 

lim.IU!d long-lleml Impacts since blstorica1 mining dlstrk:ts wicbln the Ca1ifomla 

Desert hlme been largely excluded from the boundatles of the CDPA. 

potendld IUpCftlOIIduatrty applic.ationa. .Aimosc 100. of U.S. production of 

llltCeanbs~ fromooe location, the Mounlllln Pa.Mine, loaded llCIIIt the 

propoeed 

~ 

Mojlnle Nadona1 Park. The boundadel of the' CDPA hlme been 

dlawD to Clldude this area in order to -*1 ~ imp!ldS on 

producdon. 

'' Foe iniC:IIIIZ, -. Mining and the Califpm!a Dqert. VI. Tbonlas 

Goerold. Paper presenU!d at the CaJi10mia Dalert M1lleral Sympc:leium: 

Platulina tor Tomonow. Mur.h 3-4, !989, Irrine, Califixrlja. 

13 
370 

SECTION II: 

AN ECONOMIC PROFILE AND ANALYSIS OF TilE RELATIVE 

IMPORTANCE OF MINING IN TilE CALIFORNIA DESERT 

REGION 

INTRODUC710N 

The proposed CalifOrnia Desert Protection Act (CDPA) has generated 

considerable debate over its potential impacts on mining employment. This 

section presents an economic profile of the CalifOrnia Desen Conservation 

Area (COCA), which encompasses the vast majority of lands proposed for 

wildemesa and park designation under the CDPA and analyzes the importance 

of mining aclivities to the regional economy of the COCA (henceforth, to avoid 

confusion, ·conservation Area"). The economic importance of mining is 

measured in ternts of the past, present and likely future relative contribution 

of mining to total employment and personal income to the regional and State 

economies .. 

Califontia IHHrl ConJiflrf!lll'km A"'a 

Counly COfffpoaitlon 

The Conservation Area includes all or pan of seven counties in southern 

CalifOrnia. These counties, and the approximate petoent of the county and 

county ~ included In the Consetvation Area, are listed in Table A and 

shown in Figure 2. The counties have been ocganlzed inlD twO categories: the 

Central DeMrt Couatiee which comprise the bulk of the Conservation Area 

and OtherCouades in the Con.sen>adooAI:eL ~. the t1n> categories 

0 counties) COttstitute All COCA. Couadea. 

Figure2 

County Composition of the COCA 

11 
371 

San Bernardino, lnyo, Riverside, Imperial and Kern are the most significant 

counties In the Consenation Area, accounting Cor appi'Oldmau:ly 95 percent 

of the Area's tocal acreage. Except Cor the "MStem portions of San Bernardino 

and Ri?erside Counties, these ft9e counties are relatively undcm:loped and 

unpopulated, and have slmllar demographic compositions. In addition, all five 

counties are predominandy desert temlin and comprise the southeastern 

portion of the Scate. They have been gmuped as the region which will be 

most substantially lnftueno:d by the proposed CDPA, and shall be referred to 

as the "Ceatnl De8ert eo-de." of the Consenadon Area, hereafler. 

Table A 

Cowltls In the COCA 

co-ty Approximate Approzimate 

Percent In COCA Aaeaaeln 

COCA (Xl,OOO) 

Central De8ert 

co-de. 

Imperial 100 2,714 

lnyo 75 4,862 

Kern 40 2,087 

Rivenide 70 3,215 

San Bernardino 90 11,588 

Other Coaods 

Los Angeles 30 781 

San Diego 20 545 

All COCA Cornrdn 

Lai Angdes aad San Diego Counties hPe not been Included In the Ccntra.l 

Delat Coundea. Although the portions of Los Anse~es and San Diego 

Counties wtdUn the Consenadon Area are relalndy undemoped desert, like 

the counties of the centra.l desert area, the remaioing portions of the nro 

counties are JUsbiTcbdopc:d and densely populaled. In fact, Los Angeles and 

San Diego Counties had apprmd.rnaldy' 843 aad 230 persons pet square 

ldlometer In 1990, whereas, the centra.l desert counties had an ~ of 30 

persons per square ldlome= In 1990, a population density one-eighth as 

dense as San Diego's and one-r:wenty-dghth as dense as Los Angdes17. In 

17 Source: 1992 County and City Extra, Annual Meuo, City and County 

Daca Book, Edited by C. Slacer anrl G. Hall. 

I~ 
372 

addition, both Los Angeles and San Diego Counties are located along the 

coast, whereas the central desen counties are landlocked. M such, the two 

counties derive extensive economic activity, and, in tum, employment, through 

intra-state, inter-state and international trading activities such as trade with 

Pacific Rim countries. 

Since employment data cannot be accurately disaggregated beyond the county 

level, use of employment data from these two counties would dominate trends 

for the COCA. However, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties cannot be 

excluded even though they account for ·only approximately live percent of the 

total COCA, because they have mining employment which is likely associated 

with mining activities within the Conservation Area11 and they contain the 

closest major commercial centers to the Conservation Area. 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

Detailed employment and other economic data provided by the California 

Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, is 

available, by county, for Imperial and Inyo Counties, and by Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) for the other counties in the COCA. MSAs are comprised 

of one or more entire counties. These MSM are described in Table B. 

MSA 

Bakersfield 

Los Angeles-Long Beach 

Riverside-San Bernardino 

San Diego 

Table 8 

MSAs in the COCA 

Coundes in MSA 

Kern 

Los Angeles 

Riverside, 

San Bernardino 

San Diego 

Employment data for Inyo County has been combined with Mono County by 

the California Employment Development Department ~use both counties 

have very small populations. In order to deri9e employment data for Inyo 

County, the ratio of populations for the two counties is assumed to be 

indicat!Ye of employment ratios. 

County-level population data has been provided by the California Department 

of Finance, Economic Research Unit. Therefore, population data will be 

presented per county, while employment data will be presented per MSA, 

11 From sectoral employment data that is published at the county level, it 

is not possible to detennme where, within a county, mining 

activity/employment occurs. 

13 
373 

cm:ept foe Imperial and Inyo Counties which have pero(X)Uilty employment 

data. However, this should not be a problem as MSA boundaries are 

coincident with county boundaries. 

The counties llstai In Table A represent seven of the fifty-eight counties In 

CalifOnUa. The populations of these counties represen~ 50 percent of the 

tolal Cali1ixnla populalion In January, 1992, and their to1a1 area represents 40 

percent of the entire State. Because the counties which encompass the COCA 

represent such a significant portion of the State's populalion and area, statewide economic trends are relevant to the economic profile of the COCA. 

AI sucb, an tiCOI'UJmic profll- and mtntng's stgntjiCIUIQI wtll be analyzed, 

below, at tlnw lewis: 1) the central dBSflrl oount14s, 2) all CDCil oounttes, 

and 3) the State. 

Mining Indllslry c~ 

Employment for llllning and other Industries Is catqp:lrized according to 

Standard lndusuy Classiftcation {SIC) Codes. All industry employment is 

broken Into two general categories: agricultural and nonagricultural. The 

nonagric:u.ltural category Is further partitioned Into eight subcategories, 

Including mlnlng, constrUCiion, manufacturing, transportation and public 

utilities, wholesale and relllil trade, finance and lnsuranc:e and real estate 

(c:ommonly referred to as "PIRE"), services, and gotemment. Each of these 

subcatepies Is further divided Into categories of gRater spedlidty. 

The mining macro«ctoc is partitioned Into: metal, anthracite {coal), 

bltumiDoua CXllll, oil and gas, and non-metallic minerals. Mlnlng acliYities In 

the Central Dcsen Counties produce primarily metallic and nonmetallic 

minerals wbk:h, by c:omenlion, are grouped togethet as "non-fueJs mlnlng". 

No measunble amoun&a of oil and SU an: ~ from within the 

Cucwttiiduu Area boundaries (and none within the boundaries of proposed 

~area md puldanda). Howeft:l", Kcm County, wbk:h Is one of the 

Central ne.en Counlies, bas majm oil and sas auidluo operations which are 

lKlt within the Conlena1ion Area. Oil and sas auidluo dominates mlnlng 

emploJmmt within that county and at the stall!-wide lerel. Oil and gas 

e:atuwodoo mmpriled ovu 78% of 1987 statewide mining secu. employment, 

aaxxdtllgto Cali1ixnla Employment ~dopment Deputmentdala. Non-fuels 

~ 

mlning aa:oun~ foe approximately 8,200 iOO.. ~de, of which 

3,500 an: assoda~ with the caJiComla desert. 

14 
874 

Industry-specific employment stil.tislics Me :t key indicator of the role that an 

industry pla}'S in a regional economy. Employment datil. in this discussion has 

been organized according to SIC categories and has been provided by the 

California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information 

Division. The datil. is based on payroll datil. reported by all private and 

government employers in the Slate and datil. from the persona! Income ta:x 

reportS of self-employed persons. 

While we would prefer to present stil.listics only on non-fuels mining 

employment in the following discussions and tables, it is not possible as 

sc:veraJ of the Conservation Area counties report employment only at the 

aggregate mining sector leveL As such, the stil.tislics presented will overstil.te 

the relative importance of non-fuels mining to the regional economies of the 

California desert and to the slate-wide economy. Even with this 

overstil.tement, the importance of mining-sector employment is very limited. 

PIN':Knfal/tiCOifl.tl 

From the standpoint of direct impact3 on the residents and workforce of. the 

region, persona! income generated by an industry is a good indicator of the 

Importance of that industry to the regionaJ economy. Persona! income is a 

national social accounts measure effi=ctively equivalent to the take-home "pay" 

of households, including government transfer payments.19 I..ike employment 

daaa. persona! income datil. has been reported according to SIC. The U.S. 

DepartmentofCommerce,BureauofEconomicAnat}'Siscompilesandpresents 

income datil. in the publication, Local A.rWI AINonal 1-. 

The Grose State Product (GSP), which is defined as the annual value of goods 

and scrrica produced withln the Slate, is anomer means of studying the 

Importance of an industry in a regionaJ ecotlOI:IlJ'· The pctcentage of toti!.l GSP 

represented by mining industry prodUda is a good indicator as to the 

Importance of mining in the slate-wide economy. 

19 By U.S. Department of Commerce commdon, persona! income is 

defined as disposable income ~JIU3 personal tll:lli:S (I.e., personal income ta:x 

and estil.te lax but not residential property lax). 

15 
375 

BCONOMIC PROPILB 

The following discussion prorides ap economic profile of the t1u:ee ~hie 

regions of studr. the Central Desert Counties, All CDCA Counties, and the 

Stab:. Hisliorical populaUon and employment trends an: identilled for each 

MSA or county within the study areas. Specific trends in mining employment 

and income 1vrte also been identlfted. 

Total populadon In the Central Desert Counties bas inaeued dramatically 

over the .-c two decades and at a fasb:t pu:e than the SCale-wide~ as 

shown in Figure ~. This populadon growth is indk::alhe of fundamental 

struCtural cbanges to thedemogr:apbksuueture and reglonal economies of the 

Central 

~ 

Desert Counties. ln pank:ulat, it is inclic:advoc of economic 

and· a rapidly dedining relatm: lmponanc:e of commodity 

extracdoll ac:tlvlties such as mining. The populatioo. for each of the five 

central desert counties and the entl!e Stab: in 1970 and 1990, along with the 

pen:en!liF change 09U the period. Ia shown In Table C. 

! 

J 

1 

J 

I And~ 

Ulill I ... lflltt7"" 

IIIII 1111 .,.,..., ... --- -
376 

Table C 

Population Growth 

Central Desert CoUDties and California 

CoUDty 1970 1990 Percearage Change 

Imperial 75,000 117,000 56 

Inyo 16,000 19,000 19 

Kern 330,000 584,000 77 

Riverside 457,000 1,290,000 182 

San Bernardino 682,000 1,531,000 124 

California . 119,971,068 29,558,000 48 

As clearly demonstrated in Table C and Flgw:e 3, population in the Central 

Desert Counties is increasing rapidly and at a fa.stet rate than the State average. 

From 1970 to 1990, the State population increased by 48 percent. During the 

same period, the total population of the Central Desen COunties increased 

twO and a half times fa.stet than the State average, growing by 127 percent. 

Future population growth in the central desen counties is predicted to 

continue to be twice as great as the State average. The population of the 

central desert counties is expected to be apprOldmately 5,290,000 persons by 

2020, a 55 percent increase from 1995. Total California population is 

predicted to be approximately 39,618,000 persons in 2020, an increase of 28 

percent from 1995.2° 

Emplqyttumt 

Total employment growth in the Central Desert COunties has paralleled 

population growth. Figure 4 demonstta~e~ that employment has grown, for 

instance, in the services, wholesale and retail tnde, and pernment 

employment sectors while total mining employment (fuels and non-fuels) has 

declined sli!Jhtly. 

From 1981 to 1991, service sector employment inaeasrd from 1Z4,200 to 

233,600 jobs, employment in wholesale and retail tt2de grew from 153,200 to 

241,600 jobs and pernment employment grew from 146,400 to 211,200 jobs 

in 1991. Go\lemment, services and tt2de employment comprised 

approllil:nately 69.9 percent of total employment in the Central Desert 

Counties tOt 1991, as compared to 62.7 percent in 1981. Regionally, these 

employment sectors can be expected to continue to fPOW, albei.t at c:liffi:n:nt 

rates tOt eac.b coun1.y. For example, gowemment employment Is predicted to 

decline t.htou!Jh 1996 in Kern County, while it Is projected to srow by 31 

20 Source: California Alman.u:, 5th Edition, Pajp:s 8 and 9. 

17 
377 

percent In Imperial County when nro 1arse prisons are opene;:~:u. As is the 

national trend, SCI"''ic:es and trade employment will oonsi.stcndy grow in each 

of the Ccnual Desert Counties. 

~"11•re 4 

Employmcnc, By Scctot 

S<udr An!a 1: ~ o--tCoundd 

.-1--- -------·----------J--It-

-+------· ·-··· ··-----A--11--R--11-----1!1---!l 

The Central Desert Countia blld 17,00 UJIIII tueta aKi non-fuels mining jobs 

~ 

In 1981, • ~ 11016,100 Ia 1991, a decllaeoll paomt. Of this 10131, 

80!518 geoa::a11ed broil aKi .. a:plondao aKi ~and 

1s localed m ~of liem ~ Olltllde of me Coules vadoA .Area. That 

Is, the bulk ol UlllllllliDill& emploJmeftt Ia me Ceaunl Deaert Counties Is not 

auoc:laled 1ri1h me CoG~emu:~oa Area IDd, • such, would ncx be lmprlclai by 

the propt'*ld CDPA. ll:m County Ia the oaly Ccrural Deaert County 

prcdii:UDs fuaue growda itf'IDiDia(J cmploiJmea.t (a~ 1' percent 

tna- li:oal. 198!t 110 t996)ZI. But dlis 8tO'ftb CUI be elpeCIIIld ID occur 

almollt ea:l~ Ia oil and .. llliDilll wbk:h bas blaaxk:altr represenced 

Oftlt' 90 pel'('lalf oE rota~ mining cmp~oymeat 1n me c.ountyZS. 

21 Source: Bala:n8eld MSA and lmpedlll County 'Annual Planning 

InfDrmal:loo, 1991 and 1992. 

az Source: Babn8eld MSA. Annuall'lanniDIJ lllilnMdoa, 1991. 

l3 Source: Load Area Penonal Income, 1984-198!t, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bunzu of Ea:no::l.lc .\rull}'Sis. 

18 
378 

Employment 

The importance of mining employment (fuels and non-fuels) to the Central 

Desert Counties has been steadily decreasing OYer the past ten years. As 

shown in Table D, mining represented only 2.5 percent of total employment 

in the Central Desert Counties in 1981. This percentage dropped to 1.6 

percent in 1991. The percentage of total employment represented by mining 

employment has declined for Cldl county of the Conserwtion A.n::a except for 

Imperial County. However, Imperial County accounllS for only 2.9 percent of 

total mining employment in the 7 counties of the Consei"Ylltion Area. 

TableD 

MiniJlg Employment As Pet'Cellt of Total Employment 

Central Desert Counties 

County/MSA 1981 1991 

Imperial 0.8 1.6 

Inyo24 

Bakersfield 8.4 6.6 

Riverside · San Bernardino 0.5 0.2 

5-County Tota125 2.5 1.6 

Figure 4 displays how an expanding economy, as indicated by growth in total 

jobs, coupled with stagnant total mining employment has decreased the 

contribution of mining employment tO the Central Desert Counties. Figure 5 

shOW$ that the number of mining jobs pet 1,000 residenllS has been steadily 

declining in the 5-county area. 

Also, Figure 4 demonsttates that, while mining employment has not grown, 

employment in the services, gcmemment and trade industries has grown 

significantly in the Central Desert Counties. Senrlces secror employment grew 

from 124,200 jobs in 1981 to 233,600 jobs in 1991, an inc:reue of 82 percent. 

Employmentlnpemmentandtradegrewfrom 146,40011nd 153,2001n 1981 

tO 211,200 and 241,600 in 1991, 1.naases of 45 and 51 percent, respectively. 

Comparad9dy, mining employment OYet this period declined by 2 percent. 

21 Mining and manufacturing employment dalll Is combined for lnyo 

County. As a result, specific mining employment data Is urumd.lable. 

25 Based on rota! mining jobs divided by tOtal jobs fot all industries for the 

five-county prinwy impact region. 

19 
379 

Fig\ll'e 5 

Mining jobs Per 1,000 Raideml SNdy Mt:a ~ Cennl o ...... Couolies 

~ •-+--------------------~------------------~ 

! 

As growth OCCW'5 in total population and in industry employment for sectors 

other than mining. the relative importance of mining in the Central Desert 

Counties will continue to decline. This is typical of an evolving economy 

which is growing both in size and diversity. While mining and other natural 

resource extraction activities may play a majo.r role in a de9eloping economy, 

a larger and more heterogeneous population creates demand for gOods and 

services which, in turn, spurs growth in employment sectors such as services, 

govem.ment and tr.ide. As a result, the role of mining employment in the 

Central Desert Counties is becoming less important to the area economy. 

The oonttlbution of the mining industry to total personal income bas also 

been dcdlnJng. A$ shown in Figure 6, the portion of total personal income 

repraented br earnings from mining indWitry activities has declined from 

1984 to 1989. In 1984, personal income from mining .represented 2.1 percent 

of 101111 personal inoonle in the Central Desert Counties. By 1989, thlll 

perceoage bad dropped to only 1.3, which tepte:Sents a 38 percent drop in 

the lmponance of mining to total personal income in just IDe years. 

For ptll1lOIICS of comparison, Table E display.~ 101111 penonal income and 

personal income from the services, FIRE (ftnana:, inauranoe and real estate), 

and mining In milliona of dollars for 1984 and 1989, and the percentage 

change m= that period. 

20 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 13 
Industry 

All Industries 

Mining 

FIREZ6 

Services 

380 

Table E 

Personal Income (in $mllllons) 

Central Desert Coundes 

1984 

30,030 

642 

584 

3,429 

1989 Peroentlo~ 

49,040 63 

647 

1,093 87 

6,404 87 

Figwe6 

Contribution To Personal Income Srudy Area ~ Cencnl 0..... C..U.deo 

1•-· ..... rzz.~- I 

!ttJ Figure 6 and Table E demonsuate, personal income gaaerated by the 

IDlnlng industry is an Increasingly smaller portion of 101:11 personal income in 

the Cenual De:lert Counties. Concurrently, personal income &om the services, 

gofti11111lalt and tnde industries is an increasUlgly laqp (XXdon of tow 

personal 1nmme. Prom 1984 to 1989, tow personal income ~by 63 

percent. Personal income from FIRE and scnk:es each grew by 87 percent, 

respcc:dftly. Compruathdy, personal income &om IDlnlng grew by only 0.8 

percent during this same period. 

Z6 Finance, inswance and real estate. 

21 
381 

Trends in penona1 income puallel those dem011l1Ua1ai by employment. The 

role of the miJlln8 industry In generating personal income is declining. As a 

result of an economy which is becoming more c'liverse, personal income from 

sectors other than mining is playing an increasingly larger role In the economy 

of the Central Desert Counties. 

The fOllowing discussion willl.Ocus on Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, 

which together with the five Central Desert Counties, encompass the entirety 

of the Consemldon Area. 

Once the Central Desert County economic trends have been augmented with 

chua ror Los Angeles and San Diego Counties (presented In this section of the 

report), the economic profile of the Conservation Area is essentially complete. 

Because the Consemltion Area's boundaries are not drawn with respect to 

jurisdic::tional delineations and because economic data is readily available only 

at the county level, the. economic profile pertains, by necessity, 10 a larger (J 

county) area, within which is located the Consemadon Area. 

The reader should note that, 10 the extent that economic trends In Los Angeles 

and San Diego Counties dominate the 7-county aggn:sate statisdcs, we beUeve 

that the S-county aggregation, Central Desert Counties, provides the depiction 

of the regional economy of most relewnce to the pol.k:y debates ~ the 

CDPA. Thls is because the bulk of the geographic area and the economies of 

Los Angeles and San Diego Counties are oucstde and latgely independent of 

the Consermton Area. 

Para1le1inB f.l:l:llds in the Central Desert Counties, total popuW:ion bas grown 

rapidly in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties ova: the past two decades. 

Figure l shaw~~ the populatioft growth f.l:l:llds fur the All CDC.\ Counties and 

Table P, below, lis1ll the counties' popuJadons in 1970 and 1990, and the 

percentage change ova: that period. To proride a measure of comparison, the 

All CDC.\ Counties and State population data are also pn:aented in Table P. 

TableF 

Populadoo Growtll 

All COCA Coundes aud CaHiomla 

Coaaty 1970 1990 Perce:atqe Cbaaae 

LasAngdes: 7,042,000 9,087,000 29 

San Diego 1,358,000 2,602,000 92 

All CDC.\ 9,959,000 15,230,000 53 

Counties 

CalifOrnia 19,971,000 29,558,000 48 

03.'0!195(k\T'ti'SWI n 
382 

Combined, the populad.on of Los Angeles and San Diego in 1991 was 

appi'OJiinwdy three times greater than the combined populations of the 5 

Central Desert Counties. Yet, only approximately ftve peroent of the Los 

Angeles and San Diego Counties' population falls within the Conservation 

Area. 

Los Angeles and San Diego Counties ace predicted to grow In population from 

8,886,000 and 2,630,000 residents, respectively, In 1995 to 10,119,000 and 

3,665,000 In 2020, respectively. Like the trend of the past decade, Los Angeles 

County population growth will be slower than the State average while San 

Diego County will outpace the State average by 31 peroent. All Conservation 

Area counties but Los Angeles County ace expected to experience population 

growth which far e:xx:eeds the State-wide average. 

The prlndpal point of these 7-county population statisUcs is that the larger 

region within which is located the Conservation Area is w:ry heavily populated, 

largely In areas outside of the Conservation Area. At the 7-county level of 

aggregation, population levels and trends ace dominated by areas outside of 

the Conservation Area. 

Emproy-.rt 

Total mining employment (fuels and noon-fuels) has declined over the past 

ten years In Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, as well as In the 7 -county 

region, as shown In Figures 7 and 8. In Los Angeles County, total mining 

employment has declined dramatically; from 14,400 jobs In 1981 to 7,800 jobs 

In 1991, a 45 percent decrease. San Diego County mining employment 

remained constant over the period, at apptOJiirlwdy 600 jobs. Mining 

employment In the two counties is expected to condnue to decline through 

the 1990's. Z7 In the 7-county region, mlnln8 employment accounted for 

31,600 jobs In 1981 and 24,400 jobs In 1991. The trends In the Central Desert 

Counties and In Los Angeles/San Diego Counties ace consistent: total mining 

employmeDt has been decreasing over the past ll:rl years. 

While it is bqootld the scope of this paper to detail the causes of mining 

employmeDt dcdlne, there is broad evidence that most job losses ace related 

to regional and nadonal mineral marlr.et conditions. For lpst:ance, the price of 

gold is ptesendy at a seven-year !owl*. A standard reaction to depressed 

mineral prtca is to cunail or suspend production and lay oft: mining and 

support stall. 

Figure 7 demolllttates that total industry employmc:nt grew In Los Angeles and 

San Diego over the ll:rl years between 1980 and 1990 by 694,000 jobs. The 

services and trade sectors experienced the greatest job growth over this 

X1 ibid 29. 

28 Sonora UniOn Democrat .. \\arch 30, 1993. 

23 
383 

period, while mining employment declined significantly. Figure 8 displays 

employment for selected sectors in the 7<0unty region. 

Uke the five Central Desert Counties, the services, trade and government 

sectors account for the majority of employment in Los Angeles and San Diego 

Counties, and, in turn, the 7<ounty region. In 1991, these three sectors 

accounted for 66 percent of total employment in the 7<0unty region (i.e., All 

COCA Counties). According to California Employment Development 

Department (EDD) data, services and trade sectors are predicted to be the 

major job growth areas through the end of the 1990's in Los Angeles and San 

Diego Counties and in All CDCA CounliesZ'. 

--···· 

L 

i ·""' ------, t ! I 

~ -~ ~ 1"' UG 191! 

Figure7 Employmem, By Sector Los Anaeia md San Diep Counda 

M ~ i 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

;z, Soun:e: W. Angeles MSA and San Diego MSA, Annual Planning 

Information, 1992, California Employment Development Depanment, Labor 

Marlcet Information Division 

2·1 
384 

... ----···-················· -

.... ~--r- - -

-

~ 6 Q ~ ~ I 

~ J1 J~ ~ ~ m m ~ f m 

l

:·•lG&I.ei• o~~~~ I ,._, ................ .......... !Z"JT"""' D T...O ....... _......, __ 

~--------------------~ -~--

lmporlaiU:ttl of Mining to tlHI 7-County Regi<null Bc:onomy 

Empfqymtmt 

Paralleling the trends revealed in the prior discussion of the Central Desert 

Counties, the importance of mining employment to the 7-county region will 

continue to decline as population grows, as mining employment dec:reases and 

as employment in other sectors grows. Table G shows the percentage of total 

employment represented by mining employment in 1981 and 1991 ror Los 

Angeles and San Diego MSAs, and ror the 7-county region. In the 7-county 

region, the percentage of total employment represented by the mining sector 

was ex~J:emdy small in 1981 (0.6 percent) and declined by~~ percent <m::r the 

subsequent 10 years. Mining employment declined, also, within Los Angeles 

and San Diego Counties between 1981 and 1991. 

TableG 

MJniDg Employment As Percent of Tocal Employment 

Couaty/MSA 1981 1991 

Los Angclc:s • Long Beach 0.4 0.2 

San Diego 0.1 0.1 

All COCA Counties 0.6 0.4 

Figure 9 displays the number of mining jobs per 1,000 rl!llldents ror All COCA 

Counties. 

2S 
J 

385 

FlpN9 

MlniniJ Jot. Per 1,000 Roslden11 Srudy ,._ II> All COCA Coundoo 

~~~--------4-----------~ 

.1! 

·-+--------------~------------~ 

Mining sector-generated personal income as a percentage of total personal 

income in the 7-county region has been dedlning since 1984, as shown in 

Figure 10. In 1984, mining income represented only 0.8 percent of 7-county 

total personal income. Comparatively, services income represented 20.0 

percent of 7-county total personal income. By 1989, mining in<:Ome had 

declined to O.S percent of total personal income and services employment had 

grown to 23 percent, a 39 percent drop and a 16 percent increase, 

respecti:vely, in just live years. 

J 

fiP-11 

~To-ID•­

s-I?Analll AI CDC.\-

)*-~~~~~~~~~ 

!-r----~·--~k--~A--4m~~~~~-1 

J 

- -
386 

Table H shows 7-county total personal income and personal income 

attributable to the FIRE, services, and mining sectors in millions of dollars for 

1984 and 1989, and the percentage change over that period. 

Table H 

Personal Income (in $millions) 

All COCA Counties 

Industry 1984 1989 Percentage Change 

All Sectors 180,101 269,301 50 

MJning 1,397 1,280 ·8 

FIRE 8,915 15,312 72 

Services 35,937 62,143 73 

Table H shows that personal income in the 7-county region that is generated 

by mining is becoming an increasingly smaller portion of total personal 

income. Conversely, personal income from sectors such as FIRE and services 

constitute an in~ingly larger portion of total personal income. The trends 

in personal income for the 7-county region are similar to those occurring in 

the Central Desert Counties. As the population grows and the economy 

becomes more diverse, the role of the mining industry in generating personal 

income is declining while the role of sectors such as FIRE and services is 

increasing. 

Study Area m: Calljornia 

State-wide trends echo those of the other two stutly areas. The population of 

Califomia has grown at an annual r.ote of 2.0 percent over the past twenty 

yeatS, as Yisua1ly disp~ in Figure 3. Total employment in Califomla, as 

shown in Figure 11, has grown from 10,339,700 jobs in 1981 to 12,839,300 

jobs in 1991, an annual rate of 2.0 percent. 

Figu.rc 11 demonstrates that state·wide mining employm~t has declined over 

the past ten }'QIS; from 49,200 jobs in 1981 to 38,700 jobs in 1991, a decrease 

of 2.7 percent. Appi'Clltimately 78 percent of all Califumia mining jobs are in 

gas and oil o:llliCtion, and it is this component which has declined over the 

past ten }'QIS. Metal and nonmetal mining. which is the predominant mining 

acti'rity in the <mera11 COCA. remained appi'Clltimately constant dwing this 

period but declined approximately nine percent from 1991 to 199230. 

30 Source: California Dep-.Lrtment of Economic Develop-ment 

1.7 
' 

"' 

! 

l 

• 

m n m 

387 

Flplw II 

l!m~Br-

-, ...... m,QollfomJa 

I I I g 

m m m m II 

I B J 

Jl I II ..,. 1JiM u. UJJCt tift 

Comparatively, as also shown in Figure 11, sta~&wide serrices employment 

grew from 2,240,500 jobs in 1981 to 3,444,900 jobs in 1991, an increase of 54 

percent. Wholesale and retail t.mde employment was 2,301,600 in 1981 and 

2,910,500 in 1991, a 26 percent i.ncR:ase, and government employment 

accounb:dfor 1,756,400 jobs in 1981 and 2,078,900 jobs in 1991, a 18 percent 

increase. 

lm~ of Mining E~ to II» Stalti·Widfl Et:Jt:1rfOmY 

.As the Stalle's population, tolal employment, tolal personal income, and GSP 

continue to grow, and mining indusuyaaivlty remains constal\t or grows only 

marginally (by about 0.1 percent annually) through the 1990's31 the 

importalll:e of mining in the sta~~e-wide economy, as measured by employment, 

personal Income and GSP, will continue to decline. 

Ita shown in Figure 11, state-wide mining employment has declined over the 

past 1e11 J'II\!8B. During this period, employment In other 5CICI.OrS, such as 

services, tr.llde and government, has grown. These trenda are ~ to 

continue. Ita such, the role of mining employment will become te. Important 

with time. . 

3t Soutt:e: Projections of Employment, 1987-2000, CalifomiaHmp!oyment 

Development lkp;utment. 

28 
388 

The role of mining income in state-wide personal income has been declining. 

In 1984, mining income represented 0.6 percent of total personal income in 

the State. By 1989, that percentage had declined to 0.4 percent, a 33 percent 

decrease. 0\>er the same period, personal income from FIRE and services gte-w 

from 23 percent of total in 1984 to 26 percent total in 1989. 

The gross state product (GSP), another economic indicator, can also be 

analyzed to identify trends in the mining industry. As shown in Table I, from 

1977 to 1989, the GSP of all industries in Califumla increased from 329.9 

billion do.llam to 552.1 billion dollars, as measured in constant 1982 dollars. 

This represents an annual average increase of 4.4 percent. During this same 

period, the GSP of mining declined slighdy, due primarily to variability in 

product prices. Comparatively, GSP from manufacturing and services rose 

dramatically over the same period. 

Table l 

Grose State Product31 

(Ill billioDa of constant 198l dollan) 

Industry 1977 1989 Perceo.t Change 

All Industries 329.9 552.1 67 

9.2 

58.9 

8.1 

119.1 

-12 

102 

As shown in Figure lZ. the percentage of total GSP represented by mining has 

been declinins since 1977. This Ia a result of two factof:s. The first is an 

lnaealin8 GSP from lleCIIOl'S sucb as manufacturing and semces.. The second 

is a dec.reasing GSP from mining. Por example, the GSP from nonfud mineral 

commodiiM=I in the State decreased by two percent from $2.53 biJJion in 1991 

to 12.47 billion in 199234. As the total GSP grows and ~erated GSP 

n:mainll c:onMaat,,mining activity will become an lncraslnglr smaller portion 

of total GSP. 

32 Sowo:: U.S. Department of CollllllCI:Ce, Bureau of Eallloll'lie Analysis 

B Includes fuels and non-fuels mining. Non-fuels mining Ia a relatively 

minor contributoc to state-wide economic actirity, haYing conslituted 

appraxiDIU:ly ~. in 1977, and apptoldmalely 9", in 1989, of gross mining 

scctoc product. Then: Ia essentially no fuels mining ac:~Mtywttbin the COCA. 

34 Soun:e: U.S. Bureau of Mines 

29 
\ 

~ J . 

·-

..... 

.... 

389 

Pigun: 12 

Mining u a Pe=m of Total 

caJifomia Gross State Product 

~ ..... 

~ "-- ~ 

In summary, these: c:conomic statistics present a clear pi~. The relative 

contribution of the mining sector to the 5-<:oUnty, 7-<:oUnty, and suu:..wide 

economies Is ~ small and declining <mer time. At the ~ level, 

mining Is a trtria.l component of the onnll economy; It reptaenll'l but a 

mlnoc component of the regional economy of the Cenual Deaert Counties. 

Re8ea:ing rapid demographic change and economk ~ future job 

creatJoo at all three regional levels will clearly not be roming from the mining 

sedl)C, regardJels of the disposition of the proposed COP A. 

30 
390 

SECTION ID: 

A CRITIQUE Of "MINERAL RESOURCES Of TilE CAUFORNIA 

DESERT AND TIIEIR SIGNIFICANCE TO CAUFORNIA'S 

ECONOMY" . 

BACKGROUND 

In 1989, Shirley Anderson, affiUatcd with Califumia Swe UniversityNorthridge. released a working paper!' that purported to estimate the 

mining-related regtonal ea)nomic implications of implementing the Callfomia 

Desert Protection Act (CDPA). Ms. Anderson's paper was based, In part, upon 

data supplied by the Call10mia Mining As5odadon. Ms. Anderson's paper has 

been widely dted by those opposed to passage of the CDPA, largely because 

of the exttemely high estimates of job losses-ovet" 20,000 jobs are claimed to 

be In jeopardy if the CDPA is passed. Conversely, numerous other parties to 

the leglslativedebate over the COP A-including mining and economics expensstrongly contest the ~dity of Anderson's analytical assumptions and the 

veracity of her conclusionS. 

The Wilderness Sodety asked LSA Associates, as pan of this report, to 

Independently ew.luate Anderson's paper against standards of analytical 

reasonableness and other sources of expert opinion and lnfunnation. 

SUMMARYCONCWSIONS 

In the opinion of LSA's economics staB; Andemon's paper represents a clear 

c:zample of"c:hidlm little economics"ln which the apparent dcsite to generate 

ecooomic atgWDell.ts In oppollidon to a contempla1ed emtronmentallyodena:d sau:ute baa led to the use of numerous e.m:eme, illogical and 

~analytical assumpdoNI that render the cond'WIIons both 

highly 

~ 

1n11ccw:ae and mialeadlng. Whether intended ot not, Anderson's paper 

the casual reader. In our opinion. based upon an accurate 

In~ of the proposed CDPA and known dn:umstances In the 

CallfDmja daen:, the actual mining job loues that oop.ld be triggered by 

~ of the CDPA-both short term and In the k11:eseeable futu.re-are 

appn:I!XimUely 2 orders of magnitude less than claimed by Anderson (I.e., 

-a huadted, u most, rather than 20,000}. And due to cunent mining 

reguladoas deldlng with valid emtlng rights (disc:usled prmous.ly In this 

tepOCt), the sbon term employment effects of CDPAenactmentwould be none 

to nqligihle 

3S MJnmJ lc!ou&p;s of the California Ds;!m and Their Slrp'liftqnce to 

r.~~!ifrypta's lja:mgmy. Shldey C. Anderson, Scbool of Buslnesa AdmJnlstration 

and Ba.mom1cs, California State University, Nonhridge, CA 91330. 

3i 
391 

Whereas Anderson assumes that all mining activity In southern CaliComia will 

cease within 50 yeA!$ due to passage of the CDPA, a factually accurate reading 

of the CDPA and a reasonable assessment of the expc:cted life of known 

mineral reserves leads to a drastically c:il.ffetent conclusion. Even a cursory 

check of the facts, such as the CDPA is expressly desim¢ to ayoid Impacting 

exlstlng mlniruz ~ and it will not •toclt up" anvwhere near all kngwn 

and ootent!a.l msmes In southern California,' revea.ts that Andeaon's analysis 

f.llls the test of reasonableness. Anderson simp&tically assumes that all 

known and unknown (In 1989), available reserves will be l:ldlausu:d on a 

straight-line trend, with final exhaustion In 50 yeA!$. There is no basis In fact 

for this simpUslic assumption (both the trend pattern and the date of 

exhaustion), the effect of which is to overstate the near-term cessation of 

mining under the circumstances of the CDPA. Under this assumptiOif, 10% of 

all desert mineral reserves lcnown In 1987 would now be l:ldlausted. In faa, 

this has simply not occum:d. 

Beyond the use of clearly unreasonable assumptions, Anderson's paper suffers 

from fundamental analytical flaws. In particular, she generates employment 

and Income lOllS estimates using a non-slll'\'ey Input/output (I/0) model that 

WM construCted from 1977 "national accounts" data. The accuracy of IJO. 

derived estimates requires conformance with a key assumption-that the 

structural chanrcteristics of the economy have nllt changed betl:n!en the time 

of original data collection (1977 and earller, In this case) and the year for 

which impact estimates are sought. 

Even if all impacts (the "initial shock" modelled by the 1/0) occum:d 

immedialdy upon passage of the CDPA, the underlying national accounts data 

would have been 10 yeA!$ old In 1987 and of questionable veradty.37 But 

In that the bulk of the direct IOIISCS of mining jobs, if any, would occur upon 

ahaustioo of known reserves (i.e., at least 50 ya.rs In the future by 

Ander!IOil's own admission, and most likdy, much longer), the use of 

unalteted 1977 1/0 model borders on the abswd. No one knows what the 

economk: suucture of southern Call1bmia will be In 50 to 350 ya.rs. but it is 

a vecy safe bet that the 1977 structure is of vety limited teler.mce. Eftl'l under 

circuJDsl:anc:e In which the analyst expressly attempts to fotu:asr future 

suuc:tural c:bantfe In a modelled econonty (whk:b. AndenoD. dkl not), I/0 

analyal ill simply an Inappropriate tool for very long ran&e fotu:asring. In 

liilc:t, chen= 111 no method of economic analysis that can genetiUie rellable 

estimates efta l5 yeA!$ Into the future, let alone 50 ya.rs or beyond. 

36 For ins111Df.1e, mining operations at Searles LUe, Bolon, Mesquite and 

Mountllln ,_are c=tpressly excluded from the boundaries of proptllled parb 

and wildc:rnesa areas. 

37 Ptn: ya.rs have subsequendy elapsed, fwther rencterlng the 1977 

national accounts dam inappropnare for us and any condustona based upon 

that data lnaccutate lUld irrele-'3.1\ [ 
39~ 

By employing inappropriate analytical methods and unreasonable assumptions, 

Andet\\101\ has produced a paper that fails to meet minlmum adequate 

standanb of academic inquiry and that has yielded resulca laddng in factual 

credibility. The aedibillty of her analysis is further eroded by the out-ofcontext and obriouMy inadvenent inclusion, on page 15, of "boilerplate" text 

from some other document that refers to the loss of timber-related jobs due 

to environmental restrictions. The clear impression left by this word 

processing glitch is that the author is uncritically borrowing blanllet arguments 

commonly invoked in opposition to proposals for greater environmental 

consideration in the management of natural resources. 

INAPPROPRLU11 ASSUMPTIONS 

The accw:acy of Anderson's analysis is fundamentally compromised by her 

assumption that all mining in the Callfumla desert will be eventually, but 

directly, prohibited if the CDPA is passed. In fact, this assumption is 

fundamentally inaccurate for numerous reasons, including: 

The CDPA pertains only to federal lands within the 25.5 million acre 

California Desert Conservation Area (roughly analogous to the 

physiographic extent of the California desert). Appl:'O.Iimately 30% of 

the tow area is under state and priftte ownership. Priftte inholdings 

within federal parks and wilderness ateas are potential candidates for 

land exchanges involving other BLM land within the California desert. 

It is likely that land exchanges would involve ateu of comparable 

mineral value, thereby resulting in no net loss of prin.te land mining 

activity within the desert area. Further, there are act:iYe deposits of 

commen:ially valuable minerals within the California desert but well 

ou131de of the boll:(ldaries of the proposed parks and wilderness areas. 

Of the 18.5 million acres of federal land within the California desert, 

approzlmately-40% percent will be excluded from future mining activity 

unless wild mining righca cum:ndy exist. Portions of the remaining 

federal lands and virtually all of the non-federal lands will be available 

for future e:~ploration and mining. In the short run, it is highly 

probable that none of the cum:nt mining operadc:p~ will be closed by 

the lmf*X of the CDPA. as the boundaries of prop:llled wilderness 

an:as and parldands have been purposefully drawn to amid most areas 

of cum:nt and known areas of most likely potential fot future mining 

activity. Further, operations with valid eldsting righ1S-eft:n within 

wildemesa areas-will be able to continue operadonll under existing 

laws and regulations, upon passage of the CDPA. 
393 

In the opinion of qualified expensD, unknown mineral ~ 

within the COCA are llkc:ly to be locatlonally correlated with areas of 

ac'live mining. areas that have been ~uded from the CDPA. Mineral 

exploratiOn of the Califumia Oesc:tt has been taking place for over 100 

years and It is unlikely that large unknown ~ exist in areas far 

rc:maft!d from current mining activity (and therefore potentially within 

atea5 proposed for designation as wildc:mess or parkland). 

According to qualified expc:ns, known reserves of most commercially 

valuable minerals, which would not be Impacted by the CDPA, would 

not be cmausted for many decades or centuries at current and 

foreseeable production rates, long be)'ond the 50 years assumed by 

Anderson. For lns1ancc:, Professor Montana estimates that known 

deposita of boron, gypsum and saline minetals (virtually all of which 

would not be Impacted by the CDPA) wllllast for centuries at any 

reasonable production rate. 

By focusing attention in her paper, Andetson Implies that cement 

production will be cuna.i.led upon passage of the CDPA. In f.1ct, the 

region of cement production is far to tbe west of any of the proposed 

wildc:mess areas and parks and wll1 remain un·impactc:d. 

In summary, there would be virtualty no short term Impact on mineral 

production within tbe California dc:sc:rt if the CDPA w.::rc: passed; and the bill 

has been intentionally written to minimize long t:c:nn lmpac1S on future 

exploration and mineral production. Known deposita of com.inercially 

valuable desert minc:rals, largely un·lmpaaed by the CDPA, will not be 

exhausted for many decadQI'cc:nturles at reasonable production rates. While 

the location and atmt of commerdally valuable, but presently unknown 

mJneral deposita within the lands proposed for withdtaw.al under tbe CDPA 

Is obviously an open question, some expert opinion holds that deposita 

discoveR:d in the future are most llltc:1y to be located in the prmim.ity of 

e:r:1s1:1ng mining opc:radons, thereby limiting the potential for future confilccs 

betwl:en parb(wi1dcrness and mining since areas of emtl.ng operatiOns are 

putpOIId'ully ea:luded from the CDPA. Even if some ~ mineral 

deposita - emausted, say 100-150 years in the future, it Is simply 

d.lsiJlsenUDU8 b Ms. Anderson to assume that a leglslai:Pdy-manted 

wtthdtaw.almade in 1993 would not be reviewable at that distant time. 

Mis-usB OP INPUTIOlJTPUl' ANAUSIS 

As d.lsc:usMd abaft!, Andetson uses an 1/0 mode.l based ,on 1977 national 

aa::ounta datia b estimating the employment and income efl"ects of a 

pc:rturbatlon (a:Mation of mining) that by her awn account wll1 not fully occur 

D E.G., writu:n comments of Art Montana, Professor-of Geochemistry, 

Department of Earth and Space ScJences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 
394 

for at least 50 years and by more reasonable standards will not occur if at all 

for many years beyond. Applying a 1977 1/0 to changes that far 'into th~ 

future is a pointless and misleading exercise, the folly of which is only 

heightened by the false precision of her estimated effects (e.g., predicting job 

losses to "precision" of 6 significant dig>•:s).· 

Even if the time frame issue d id not invalidate her VO analysis, it would be 

equally in..alldated by the non-marginal nature of the modelled perturbation. 

It is a fundamental assumption in VO modelling, well recognized by active 

practitioners, that the changes in an economy being CI2Diined are of a 

marginal nature such that fundamental structural changes in the economy are 

not occurring. For if structural changes were to occur as a result of the 

modelled perturbation, the VO model would, by definition, no longer be valid. 

Clearly, and despite its shrinking contribution to the regional economy, the 

total elimination of mining within the 5<ounty California desert economy 

represents a non-marginal perturbation, further invalidating the VO model that 

was used. 

Though Anderson's discussion fails to provide the reader a means of 

verification, it is likely that another fundamental I/0 modelling mistake was 

made. Unless expressly accommodated with special techniques, VO-derived 

employment and output multipliers describe "backward linkages" and are 

applicable only to changes in "sales to final demand"; that is, changes in 

commercial tramactions between producers within the modelled system and 

buyers "outside" the system-e.g., exports outside of the 5<aunty regional 

economy. 

Changes in the availability of a factor of production such as minerals to 

industtial entities within the 5<ounty or, even more so, the southern 

California regional economies may well not fully tran:slate in10 a change in 

sales to final demand, bccaU5c: of input substitution. That t.s, production of an 

industry using "local" sources of a mineral may not be reduced with the 

elimination oc reduced awilability of that source, if other sources of the same 

materials are available or if the production process can be modified to utilize 

another type of raw materiaVmput. To the extent that input substitution 

occurs in response to reduced availability of local mineral deposits, backwardl..lnbd final demand multipliers-such as those apparend-J used by Andersono9erstaslc the regional economic effects of the supply perturbation. Anderson's 

paper f.aiJ8 to Indicate that she recognized this problem and modified her 

mode1lflt& approach. accordingly. 

35 
395 

Mr. VENTO. We must hear from, finally, Mr. William Matheson 

from Catellus Development Corporation. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MAmESON 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, my name is William C. Matheson, and I am vice president of sales and land management for Catellus Development Corporation. Catellus is a publicly owned real estate company that trades on the New York, Pacific and Midwest Stock Exchanges. 

In testimony today you have heard at various stages that 

Catellus is the land company of the Santa Fe Railroad, that 

Catellus stock is owned by the railroad, that Catellus was given its 

lands for free. None of those statements are accurate, and I just 

wanted to clarify that for the record. 

Catellus' principal stockholder is the nearly 1-million-member 

California Public Employees Retirement System, known as 

CalPERS. The CalPERS owns about 41 percent of our stock. The 

railroads don't own any of our stock, to my knowledge-certainly 

not a significant portion. 

Mr. VENTO. I had you derived from Southern Pacific. Obviously, 

that statement was wrong too. 

Mr. MATHESON. Right. It is a common misconception and I just 

wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that. We have absolutely 

no affiliation with any railroad whatsoever. 

I am pleased to be speaking here today in favor of H.R. 518 as 

it is currently written. Let me begin by noting that Catellus owns 

approximately 355,000 acres of land and mineral interests which 

are included in the bill, and this acreage equals about 40 percent 

of our entire ownership in the desert, and it equals about 60 percent of all of the private ownership inholdings, subject to this bill, 

in the desert. 

I don't think it is an understatement to say that Catellus is impacted by this bill more than any single party, and I believe the 

scope of this private land inclusion is unprecedented in the history of this country. Now, fortunately, the bill as it is currently written 

has two mechanisms for transferring Catellus lands to the Federal 

Government, which everyone seems to agree there is a need to do. 

The land exchange mechanism is less controversial, so I would like 

to spend my time discussing the exchange account mechanism. 

The first question that might come to mind is, Why have an exchange account at all? Why not just use the Department of the Interior to do direct land exchanges, BLM land exchanges? Well, you 

know, Catellus has done land exchanges, and its predecessors have 

done many land exchanges with the BUd over the years. The problem is there just aren't enough suitable exchange lands. They were 

exhausted long ago. I am sure that Secretary Babbitt, when he 

really looks at the inventory, is going to find that to be the case. 

I know the Secretary felt it was a good idea that we could just 

exchange our checkerboard lands for similar checkerboard lands of 

the Federal Government in the desert, and that sounds like a very 

appealing idea when you glance at it at the surface. But when you 

really go down into that idea, you find that there are problems. For 

instance, most of those lands are subject to desert tortoise habitat 

or mining claims, and so they really aren't available for exchange. 
396 

The other thing that I don't think anyone has given thought to, 

and, of course, we would as the landowner, is that whenever there 

is a land exchange, although there is no income tax assessable to 

our company, there is a reassessment by the counties of property 

tax. And, if you take an example of the lands we have in the 

desert, if you assume a value of $45 million for our lands, for instance-! know we have heard many that are higher than that and 

I would like to comment later on that-if you assume $45 million 

is the value, that increases our property taxes by over 500 percent 

over what the current taxes are. We cannot produce income to 

cover that. It is just plain unfair to put us in a position where we 

now are losing money on lands through a checkerboard land exchange. 

Also there has been some comments about why we need to fix a 

date when the credit account takes place? Why not just have it as 

an option? Well, there is a need for uncertainty. At least our company feels there is. It is just not fair to keep us in limbo for years 

and years and years because the Secretary wants to have some negotiating leverage. 

There are many beauties of the exchange account which I want 

to highlight, and I don't think have been highlighted today. First 

of all, it obviously solves the problems of not enough Federal land, 

because it opens up the entire bank of Federal surplus lands to 

Catellus. Now let me define what that is. The bill defines it, but 

I don't think it is, maybe, clearly understood by everyone. 

These are lands that are being made available to the public at 

large today. These are lands-these are not lands that are being selected for Catellus only, and Catellus doesn't have any preference 

over these lands. Catellus would have to go to this public sale and 

bid as any other bidder for these lands, so there is also no favorite 

price. 

We have the right to buy these lands today. We are not asking for an increase in those rights. All we are saying is let us use the 

exchange account as a mechanism for payment. It is simply a 

mechanism for payment, and that is all. 

The other thing I think we should focus on on land exchanges is 

that they are actually quite expensive because you have got to go through environmental assessments, archaeological-there are all 

sorts of expenses and thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars. 

The nice thing about surplus lands is that all of this has already 

been done. They are released for sale. There is no extra charge to 

the public. 

Another advantage of the exchange account is that Catellus 

would be trading for surplus lands that it feels that it can use, and 

this is bound to create jobs in the private sector, which I think is 

certainly something that all of us favor at this point. 

I have also heard a comment made today that there is absolutely 

no precedent whatsoever in the history of the United States for an 

exchange account like this. Actually, that is not true at alL We 

need only look back to October 1992, the Alaska Lands Technical 

Corrections Act, and if you look at that you will notice some striking similarities between that law and what we are proposing. We 

have also submitted some technical corrections, some language in 

the Senate committee, and we would also like to submit it to the 
397 

subcommittee here, which aligns our language much more closely 

with that Act. 

I would also like to point out the fact that there are other Acts 

enacted for the States of Hawaii and Alaska, and you will find 

those cited in my written testimony. So there is precedent for an 

exchange account. What there isn't precedent for is such a large inclusion of private lands from a single landowner. That is what 

there is no precedent for. 

Another comment made by Secretary Babbitt was that he feels 

he needs more discretion, and again he said this was for negotiating leverage. Well, I guess he is really talking about price because 

he has got a willing landowner here. I guess what bothers me 

about this is we took a little bit different approach. We don't think 

that he should have leverage over us, and we don't think that we 

should have leverage over the Department of the Interior of the 

United States. I think we should be approaching this as some kind 

of mechanism to fairly compensate Catellus for its transfer of ownership, and actually the bill language does that. The valuation 

process is exactly the process found in the Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976. It has been in use for 17 years. There is 

an arbitration procedure if the two parties disagree as to value. 

And it works. We have used it before. Our company has used it before. 

The appraisal process as specified in the bill is controlled by the 

Secretary, so he can guarantee we are not going to be getting a 

premium. We are not out for a premium, but we don't want to be 

taken advantage of by having the Secretary have unfair leverage 

over us either. I don't think either party should have leverage. We 

should allow this appraisal process that has been in place for 17 

years to function. 

We don't object to some discretion being given to the Secretary. 

Don't get me wrong. But we don't want him to have too much for 

a couple of reasons. First of all, it is a rather selfish reason: we 

don't want our lands held hostage to a Secretary that says, "Unh! 

I don't like the price. I'm not going to do business with you." 

On the other hand, I don't think that it serves the purposes of 

the bill either. I would imagine that if some day the Secretary of 

Interior might be Congressman Lewis he may decide not to have 

any exchanges whatsoever at all because that might meet his particular need in the bill because he is opposed to this kind of taking 

of property. I don't mean to single out Congressman Lewis, but my 

point is that you don't want the personality of the Secretary of the 

Interior to decide what lands are transferred and when they are 

transferred. 

The other thing I want to talk about is the urgency to acquire 

inholdings because the Secretary made a comment that our lands 

aren't very valuable and there is no urgency. We can sit on them 

for 50 years. Again, I think that is unfair. We are trying to cooperate with everyone here, and to put our lands in limbo is just plain 

unfair. 

But also, remember we are a private company; we have stockholders. We have a duty to those stockholders to try to create some 

value out of our assets. We are going to be forced to try to develop 

those properties as long as the government doesn't own them. 
398 

I would like to point out that right now 86 percent of all of the 

acres that we own in the desert have an activity on them. It is not 

true whatsoever that there are no values here, and the kinds of 

uses that they are being put to are, again, in my written testimony. The other thing is that it seems like this could create a conflict 

between the U.S. of A. and Catellus. We could try to develop the 

properties. The Secretary-or other people-may try to stop us. 

The Secretary may try to stop us. All this conflict is unnecessary. 

You have a willing landowner. Just be fair to us. 

The last thing I want to comment on is the value. We have heard 

a couple of people, Mr. Hillier and Congressman Lewis, talk about 

values. Congressman Lewis mentioned a value of $1,000 per acre 

for the Catellus property specifically, and then he tabulated that to 

be a $355 million bill. That would be what it would cost to buy 

Catellus lands. Let me point out that for an extra $125 million, 

based upon our price on the stock exchange, you can have the 

whole company. In addition to the 40 percent of lands in this bill, 

you can have the other 60 percent of our desert holdings, you can 

have our 15 million square feet of buildings, you can have two of 

the largest developments in America-the Mission Bay Project in 

Senator Feinstein's area and the Los Angeles Union Station in Los 

Angeles-you can have interest in six joint ventures, in apartments 

and in hotels, and you can have all of the other holdings that we 

have, prime development holdings in 12 other States. 

Clearly, I know the need to exaggerate numbers to make points, 

but that kind of number is really not useful and I think that we 

should stand off of it. 

I happened to look at the same report that Congressman Lewis 

looked at. We did a scientific study of it and we distributed this 

widely on the Hill in the last couple of months, and I am surprised that Congressmen Lewis didn't see it. And the BLM report actually gives a range of values, it doesn't give a single value, and it does 

it in different levels. If your land is a certain type it is assigned 

a certain value. Based upon just applying that "BLM reP.ort, we 

came up with a value of between $74 million and $189 mlllion for 

Catellus properties. 

I want to point out that this was a study prepared during the 

Cranston bill era at a time when the BLM was antagonistic to this 

legislation, or this type of legislation. The actual assessed value by 

the county assessor is $9 million. Certainly that is way too low. 

The county assessed value is way too low. But I think it is safe to 

say that somewhere between $9 million and $189 million is where 

the true value lies. 

The last thing I want to say is Catellus never went to the Federal Government to try to get its properties taken over by the Federal Government. We have cooperated throughout the whole process with the BLM. When Senator Cranston and Congressmen Lehman and Levine talked about including a Catellus provision, we cooperated with them. We have never tried to dictate which lands are 

in the lands and which lands are out of the bill. That is up to you 

all to do that. You are the experts on doing that. 
399 

All we are sayin~ is, if you are going to include our lands in 

these boundaries, gtve us a fair way to transfer the properties to 

the Federal Government. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Matheson and attachment follows:] 
400 

Statement of 

WILLIAM C. MATHESON 

Vice President - Sales and Land Management 

CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

on 

H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act of 1993 

before the 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Washington, D.C. 

June 15, 1993 
401 

STATEMENT OF 

WILLIAM C. MATHESON 

VICE PRESIDENT - SALES AND LAND MANAGEMENT 

CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

ON 

H.R. 518 

BEFORE THE 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

JUNE 15, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is 

William C. Matheson. I am Vice President - Sales & Land Management 

of catellus Development Corporation. catellus is a publicly-owned 

real estate development company headquartered in San Francisco, 

California. It develops, manages and owns real estate in 

California and 11 states in the West, Southwest and Midwest. Until 

December of 1990, Catellus was the real estate arm of the Santa Fe 

Pacific Corporation. In December 1989, the nearly 1,000,000-member 

California Public Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS") purchased 

a 19.9% interest in the company, and a year later the remaining 

shares of Catellus were spun off to its parent company 

stockholders. CalPERS has since increased its ownership in 

Catellus to 41%. 

My testimony today will focus on the provisions of H.R. 518 

which would enable the federal government to acquire the extensive 

private lands owned by Catellus that are included within the 

boundaries of H.R. 518 1 s proposed wilderness and park areas. Let 

1 
402 

me begin by noting that earlier versions of H.R. 518 would have had 

severe adverse consequences for catellus stockholders. However, 

the authors of H.R. 518, Chairman Miller and Mr. Lehman, faced a 

unique, difficult challenge and have struck an appropriate balance 

between protecting lands for wilderness and national parks and 

respecting the property interests of Catellus stockholders. 

I. The Effect of Wilderness and Park Designations on Private 

Landholdings Included within Them 

Catellus owns approximately 355,013 acres of land and mineral 

interests which would be included within the boundaries of 24 of 

H.R. 518 1 s proposed wilderness areas and two of its national park 

units. This acreage amounts to more than 40% of the 885,690 acres 

of mountain and desert land owned by Catellus in California and 

approximately 60% of all of the private lands inclu.ded in the 

bill's wilderness and park units. Appendix A to my statement 

summarizes the location of these lands. A complete inventory of 

the lands has been provided to the committee staff. 

Catellus 's desert lands have historically supported a wide 

variety of development activities providing income to Catellus. 

These include: 

Precious metal exploration and development, 

Oil and gas exploration and development, 

Geothermal development, 

Sand and gravel extraction for the construction of homes, 

highways, office buildings etc., 

Solar power generation, 

2 
403 

Placement of rights-of-way for fiber optic cables, 

pipelines, power lines, telephone lines and other 

utilities, 

Placement of communication sites for television and radio 

transmitters with access roads in remote locations 

surrounded by vacant land free of electro-magnetic 

fields, 

Secret weapons testing, 

Grazing and forage for cattle and sheep, 

Agriculture, such as the growing of table grapes and 

Providing play areas for off-road, recreational vehicles. 

Placing Catellus's lands in wilderness and park units will 

preclude these economic uses. This occurs for two reasons. First, 

federal wilderness or park designation will subject development 

activities within the areas to regulatory restrictions designed to 

afford maximum protection to wilderness and park values. These 

restrictions will make development activities uneconomic. Second, 

should Catellus attempt to conduct any development on these lands -

- notwithstanding these restrictions -- it would be exposed to 

costly litigation intended to frustrate any development and 

stimulate adverse public reaction. The result, of course, will be 

that the affected Catellus lands will suffer a significant 

diminution in value. 

If Congress takes an action, such as this, which devalues a 

landowner's investment, fairness and equity require that it provide 

a way to compensate the landowner for its loss. Catellus objected 

3 
404 

to earlier versions of H.R. 518 because they failed to provide a 

realistic means by which Catellus's lands could be acquired and 

catellus could be compensated. 

sizeable backlog of private 

Budgetary constraints and the 

lands awaiting Congressional 

appropriations for their acquisition suggested that within the 

foreseeable future the federal government would be unable to 

purchase the Catellus acreage affected by those bills. Further, 

land exchanges with the Bureau of Land Management ( "BLM") under 

existing statutory authorities were not the answer because the BLM 

did not (and does not today) have enough suitable land classified 

for disposal under its jurisdiction in California to acquire the 

large quantity of Catellus lands involved. Thus, the unique 

circumstances involved in this massive land acquisition demanded 

the imaginative solution contained in H.R. 518. 

II. H.R. 518 Includes Provisions Which Will Allow the Federal 

Government to Acquire the Catellus Inholdings Within a 

Reasonable Period of Time and in a Manner Which Protects 

the Public Interest. 

H. R. 518 provides the BLM and the Park Service with an 

acquisition tool which we believe will enable them to acquire the 

Catellus inholdings within a reasonable period of time. Section 

611 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire Catellus 

landholdings by crediting an "exchange account" in catellus's name 

at the time catellus lands are transferred to the United States. 

The amount credited to the Catellus account would be the fair 

market value of the lands as determined by appraisal performed by 

the Secretary. Catellus would be authorized to use these credits 

4 
405 

in payment for property sold in public sales by any federal agency. 

This would include lands sold by the General Services 

Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the 

Resolution Trust Corporation. 

H.R. 518 structures the exchange account in such a way as to 

ensure that catellus will eventually be compensated for the value 

of all of its holdings included within the bill's wilderness and 

park designations. The bill does not leave to the discretion of 

the Secretary which lands should be accepted by the Secretary and 

transferred to the United States. We do not believe that there is 

a public interest rationale for conferring on the Secretary the 

discretion to refuse to accept title to lands which Catellus is 

willing to transfer for exchange credits. We are unable to 

conceive of any circumstances, other than those specified in 

section 611, in which it would not be in the public interest for 

the Secretary to accept title to private lands placed in wilderness 

and park units. Indeed, it should be presumed that it is in the 

public interest to acquire all of these lands, since the 

Secretary's ability to manage and protect these areas will be 

significantly enhanced by the federal government's acquisition of 

the private inholdings. 

Congress has authorized the use of exchange accounts in 

several earlier statutes, and the House in the last Congress 

included a provision in the California Desert bill it passed which 

is identical to section 61. Acts establishing similar accounts for 

the Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated, (§ 12 of Public Law No. 94-

5 
406 

204, 89 Stat. 1150 (January 2, 1976), 43 U.S.C. 1611 note), for the 

Haida Corporation (§ 15 of Public Law 102-415, 106 Stat. 2123 

(October 14, 1992)), the Gold Creek susitna Association, 

Incorporated (Section 20 of Public Law 102-415, 106 stat. 2127, 

(October 14, 1992)) and for the landowners in Kaloko Honokohau 

National Historical Park, (Public Law No. 98-146, 97 Stat. 954 

(November 4, 1983), 16 U.s.c. 396f) are recent precedents for the 

exchange account provisions of Section 611. Exchange accounts were 

employed in these acts because Congress recognized that, for a 

variety of reasons, land exchanges were inadequate as a means of 

acquiring the private inholdings in the Hawaiian park or satisfying 

the land entitlements of the Alaska Native corporations. 

The exchange account mechanism has a number of advantages over 

the traditional land exchange employed to acquire non-federal 

inholdings. First, under the exchange account procedure, the 

government can be assured that it is getting the highest value for 

the land it is selling, because sales by competitive bidding are 

recognized as the truest way of realizing the fair market value of 

property. In traditional land exchanges, on the other hand, the 

value of the federal land is determined by appraisal and often 

through negotiations to resolve disputes over conflicting 

appraisals. Public land managers attempting to acquire non-federal 

lands by exchange are subjected -- often unfairly -- to criticism 

for disposing of lands for less than their fair market value. 

Disposing of federal lands in competitive sales avoids subjecting 

public land managers to these charges. Under section 611, Catellus 

6 
407 

would be using its credits to acquire lands in public sales of 

federal property. 

The second advantage of the exchange account procedure is that 

it does not give the private landowner a preference of any sort to 

select federal lands for acquisition. Catellus would be competing 

on an equal footing with other parties for the purchase of lands 

which the federal agency has selected for sale. 

The third advantage is that use of the credits does not in any 

way alter the disposal practices of the agency offering federal 

lands for sale. Decisions by land management agencies to offer a 

particular tract of land for exchange have often been criticized 

for allegedly being dictated more by the objectives of the nonfederal party to the exchange than by the disposal standards of the 

agency. Under section 611, credits could only be used by Catellus 

as a method of payment and would not affect agencies' decisions to 

retain or sell lands. 

The fourth advantage of the exchange account mechanism is that 

it makes more federal land available for private land acquisition. 

Public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Forest service in California are essentially the only lands under 

current authorities and agency practices that would be available 

for exchange to acquire the Catellus inholdings. Because section 

206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 u.s.c. § 

1716, prohibits interstate land exchanges, only public lands 

located in California could be used to acquire the Catellus lands 

by exchange. This presents a problem because there is not enough 

7 
suitable public land 

acquire all of the 

408 

in California classified for disposal to 

Catellus acreage included in H.R. 518's 

wilderness and park units. The exchange account mechanism of 

section 611 of H.R. 518 would help solve this problem. Catellus 

would be permitted to use its credits to acquire other federal 

properties sold by several other federal agencies or 

instrumentalities -- within or outside of California -- but would 

not authorize Catellus to purchase federal lands which it can not 

now purchase in the various states. As a matter of precedent, 

Congress has authorized the use of exchange credits for lands 

located in other states to resolve similar situations in Alaska and 

Hawaii, as cited earlier in my testimony. 

A separate provision from the exchange account mechanism would 

further alleviate the shortage of available land for exchange by 

allowing the Secretary to negotiate interstate land exchanges, 

subject to Congressional approval. While section 611 would allow 

the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate an interstate land 

exchange agreement with Catellus, it would require that the 

exchange be approved by a joint resolution of Congress before it 

may take effect. We believe that there are less cumbersome ways 

to give the states involved an appropriate role. One approach, for 

example, would be to direct the Secretary to involve the governors 

of the affected states in the development of the exchange proposal 

and to reflect their views in any exchange agreements. 

In any case, we believe that it is sound public policy for 

Congress to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to consider 

8 
409 

lands under his jurisdiction in other states for possible exchange. 

In 1970, the 19 members of the Public Land Law Review Commission, 

13 of whom were Western senators, Congressmen or presidential 

appointees, unanimously recommended that "generally, within each 

department, all federally owned lands otherwise available for 

disposal should be subject to exchange, regardless of agency 

jurisdiction and geographic limitation." (Recommendation 126). 

The Commission's recommendation is one of the few that, for some 

reason, has not yet been enacted by Congress. 

III. Catellus Recommends Two Amendments to the Exchange 

Account Provisions of H.R. 518. 

We suggest two amendments to H.R. 518 which would make the 

exchange account more effective as a land acquisition device for 

the Secretary of the Interior and more equitable to catellus. 

As section 611 is now written, Catellus could transfer lands 

to the Secretary, receive credits on its account but have no 

assurance as to when it could exchange the credit for federal 

property. If it transfers lands for credits which remain static 

in value, it risks losing the appreciation it would have otherwise 

realized on the lands had it retained them. To avoid this risk, 

Catellus may be forced to withhold transferring its lands until it 

is the successful bidder on federal lands for which it may use its 

credits. It seems to us that it would make more sense, and would 

be fairer to Catellus, to provide for adjustments to the balance 

of the account to reflect any appreciation Catellus would have 

realized had it retained title to lands transferred to the 

9 
410 

Secretary of the Interior for credits. 

section 611 be amended to do just that. 

Hence, we suggest that 

With this change, the 

timing of the transfer of Catellus lands would be dictated more by 

the land management objectives of t~e Secretary of the Interior 

than Catellus' ability to use its exchange credits. 

The second amendment we are suggesting would provide that for 

federal tax purposes, no gain would be recognized on our receipt 

of credits as long as the credits are used to acquire "like kind" 

property. This amendment, like the first I mentioned, would make 

the exchange account more workable as a land acquisition tool. 

The exchange account is plainly a mechanism to accomplish land 

exchanges. Under current tax law, any gain realized in an exchange 

transaction is not recognized for tax purposes if the exchange 

involves "like kind" property. However, we have been advised by 

tax counsel that if we receive exchange credits for the transfer 

of our land, we may be required to pay tax on the credits even 

though they are intended to be exchanged for what the tax law would 

consider "like kind" property. Consequently, we could incur what 

could be a substantial tax liability from the transaction without 

generating any cash with which to satisfy the liability. 

Because we could not afford the potential tax liability that 

would be triggered by the receipt of credits, we would be forced 

to delay transfers under the exchange account procedure until we 

have structured the transaction in a way that would qualify it as 

an exchange. For example, we may be required to withhold 

transferring our lands until nearly the exact time at which we are 

10 
411 

able to exchange the credits for other property. 

We would like to explore with the bill's authors and the other 

members of the committee whether these amendments could be added 

to H.R. 518. We would also like to work with committee staff on 

any perfecting amendments that may be necessary to ensure that 

section 6ll's exchange account language accomplishes the objectives 

I have described in my testimony today. 

IV. Conclusion 

Throughout the legislative debate over the future of the 

California Desert, Catellus has taken no position on the issues of 

which lands or how much land should be preserved for wilderness or 

ne~tional parks. Our objective has been to accommodate the 

decisions of the public and its elected representativ~s on these 

issues, while preserving for our shareholders the value of their 

investment in lands affected by these decisions. I am pleased to 

state that Catellus supports H.R. 518 because it allows us to 

fulfill this objective. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I will be happy to try 

to answer any questions that you or the other members of the 

subcommittee might have. 

11 

72-354 0 - 93 -- 14 
412 

c A T E L L u s 

SUMMARY OP CATELLUS LANDS AFFECTED 

BY H.R. 518, THE PROPOSED CALXPORBXA DESERT PROTECTION ACT 

Total Acreage Affected: 355,0131 

Allocation of Affected Acreage: 

0 

0 

0 

24 BLK-Adainistered Wilderness Areas: 

Mojave Rational Park: 

Addition to Joshua Tree Rational 

Xonuaent: 

Acreage Classified as Havinq High Mineral 

Potential: 

0 Portions of 11 Wilderness Areas: 

0 Mojave Rational Park: 

Total: 

LOcation of Acreage: 

0 

0 

0 

:n.perial county 

Riverside county 

san Bernardino county 

253,120 

88,004 (23,315 

of which are also 

in national park 

wilderness) 

13,889 

48,425 

22,286 

70,711 

1,761 

16,616 

336,636 

1

Except for 11,728 acres in which it owns only the subsurface 

estate, Catellus holds full fee title to this acreage. Also, 

27,442 acres of the total acreage affected lie outside s. 21's 

wilderness and park boundaries in parcels of land which straddle 

those boundaries. 

Appendix A 

C.~TELLUS 0EVElOPMENi CORPOR,..,tiON 
413 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you. I appreciate your clarification. Obviously, there are differences about value. You are not that much undervalued, though, on the stock exchange; is that right, especially 

at today's stock market prices, which tend to be a little higher than 

they were a year ago? 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, our price has held pretty steady for anumber of months. 

Mr. VENTO. So there is nothing unusual about this? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. No, absolutely not. 

Mr. VENTO. What is the nature of your management of most of 

these lands that are in boundaries of wilderness or conservation 

areas or park areas where they would fall under the provisions of 

the bill and be eligible for the exchange and/or the credits? 

Mr. MATHESON. When you say the nature, you mean what uses 

are they being put to? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that is right. The management style, is it passive? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have any active income? What type of active 

income or utilization is taking place? 

Mr. MATHESON. No, it is not passive. Let me just illustrate how 

non-passive it is. It used to be at one time, when the railroad did 

own these properties, that they could be pretty passive. Fifteen 

years ago, as of May 1, 1978, approximately 22 percent of these 

desert lands were being utilized. Catellus, originally Santa Fe Pacific Realty, took over around 1985, and as of May 1, 1993, 86 percent is now put under some use. And in addition, I want to point 

out that we have disposed of 190,000 acres, just outright disposed of, and that is not included in that 86 percent number. So we are 

highly active. We have to be in today's day and age where we just 

have to make the best use of the assets. 

Some of the examples of what we are doing with these assets are 

agricultural; solar, wind and geothermal; grazing; hazardous waste 

landfill; microwave communications sites; minerals, oil and gas activities; public utilities; and recreational uses; and secret weapons 

testing. And those are just some of the uses of these lands. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I assume not their secret weapons. Yes. 

The Secretary especially-! think, Mr. Matheson, you spoke to 

this-this morning he included one involving the extended date of 

October 1996 to 1998. In other words, you want a conclusion 

brought to this, not for everything to wait until 1998? 

Mr. MATHESON. That is correct. We feel it would be in everyone's best interest to make the date certain as soon as possible. We are 

perfectly willing to cooperate in a good faith effort to do land exchanges with the Department of the Interior. We just happen to 

know those lands pretty well; have worked with them for a number 

of years. And I don't think it is going to take too long to find out 

there just isn't enough to cover the situation. 

Mr. VENTO. But even in the entire inventory nationwide? 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, nationwide, we haven't looked at and I 

would have to reserve comment. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. We know the California limitations, but this leg- islation presents us with the opportunity to come back with a resolution. 
414 

Mr. MATHESON. That is right. As long as Congress approves it, 

we could do that, and we would love to do that. 

Mr. VENTO. And you say you are in 12 States? 

Mr. MATHESON. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. And they are generally the Western States, I assume. 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes, they are. All the Western States. 

Mr. VENTO. So you obviously have some capability to make evaluations and to administratively manage lands. So they would have 

some value to you. 

Mr. MATHESON. Absolutely. 

Mr. VENTO. I was trying to understand the issue on the property 

tax changes in terms of valuations that might be made. That is especially of concern to you. 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. And that as part of this particular process may take 

place, and so once they are a matter of record and stipulated, then 

you are concerned that San Bernardino County or wherever these 

lands are located would then treat you differently. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, they wouldn't treat us differently. There 

was a proposition passed in California a number of years ago called 

Proposition 13, which many of you may remember or know of, and 

it does not permit the escalation of property taxes just because the 

value of the properties escalate. They stay fixed at a level based 

upon the purchase price, and then they are allowed to escalate it 

on a certain formula. 

And whenever lands are transferred, that is the chance for the 

counties to catch up and to reassess the lands. I assume Secretary 

Babbitt's intention of a checkerboard exchange was to say, Well, 

here is some sand here and here is some sand here and we will just 

swap, and you are not the worse off. But actually, we are the worse 

off because these counties are going to reassess us according to the 

law of the State of California. 

Mr. VENTO. So, in other words, as long as you keep the same 

ownership you don't have that particular problem. But if you 

change ownership or change the land in ownership, then you are 

automatically subjected to the full assessment process. 

Mr. MATHESON. Exactly. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know how that is remedied if you select anything in California. But the same problem could or would occur if 

you selected land in Nevada, perhaps. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, that is true. It could occur. It depends, I 

think, on the local rules. We would have to look into that. But if 

we have some say in what land is going to be selected such as 

using the exchange account, then, yes, our taxes go up but at least 

we have some potential for turning that acquisition into something 

with income, with more income to offset the taxes. 

Now, Mr. Blair, I am told that when you are in the Senate you 

were able to recite some of your prose, but didn't do so, for Mr. 

Hansen and I. I won't ask you to do so now, but congratulate you 

on that ability and skill. 

One of the things you point out is the issue of the 25-year sunset 

for grazing permit activity in the East Mojave. Today, I mean, most 
415 

of your permits actually last a shorter period of time, don't they? 

What are we, 10-year permits? 

Mr. BLAIR. See the 25-year sunset clause was put in there as a 

front, actually. If you look into it, yes, the words in the bill say that 

it is at the discretion of the park director. He can cancel it at the 

end of your lease or not renew your lease. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the reason for that, Mr. Blair-I can understand why you would be concerned about it. We work with this particular policy all the time as it is applicable to BLM or the Forest 

Service and they basically have the same option at the end of a 10-

year permit, a grazing permit, to terminate it. Very often they do 

not. We expect a good faith effort. 

Mr. BLAIR. Historically, they haven't terminated them. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I think the point is that what we are really doing is picking up on the same sort of language, or discretion 

at least. I think that was the intent. In other words, passing that 

same sort of discretion or administrative ability to the Park Service 

personnel as is exercised by BLM and the Forest Service. As a matter of fact, more often than not what happens in these areas where 

we have had instances of this is that the Park Service does not do 

all the work. In fact, the BLM probably handles most of the graz- ing activities in some Park Service areas where grazing is :per- mitted or where it is being phased out. So they really don't get mto 

on-the-ground type of activity. They rather yield to the BLM to actually help them in these areas, even though they are National 

Parks. 

So it is not at all unusual to have, really, the same personnel that you would be dealing with in that particular instance. So I 

just wanted to discuss that particular point with you because someone might assume from your testimony that if we were to move forward here that you would oppose that provision of the bill, and you surely would not, although you oppose the Mojave Desert designation as a park, I assume. 

Mr. BLAIR. Yes, I do. 

Mr. VENTO. You say that you are concerned about field hearings. 

Several years ago I directed a series of field hearings, and, in fact, 

convened one in Beverly Hills. Of course, it was sort of a tough 

place to have hearings with a lot of people present at them. But 

we did get to hear a couple of minutes, I guess, from everyone that 

was on the witness list. 

So there were others, of course. Someone talked about the number of field hearing record that came out of the land-use decisions 

and proposals, so we had a pretty good gauge of where people are 

coming from, didn't we? 

Mr. BLAIR. In some aspects. If you want to see the desert, you're 

not going to see it from Beverly Hills. 

Mr. VENTO. No. I was actually--

Mr. BLAIR. I would like you to come out and look at the desert, 

not at Beverly Hills. 

Mr. VENTO. I did go-we had a field visit in addition to the hearings in which we, in fact, flew around for some days and took a 

pretty good look. The other field hearings were in Bishop and Barstow. But the point was that we also had a field visit. You had 

raised questions about hearings and I wanted to tell you that we 
416 

did have hearings in the field, and we also had a field visit. Most 

of the members individually, including the Secretary, have been 

out on the ground. I stood in various valleys, Saline Valley and 

other areas there, and we did spend the better part of a week going 

over the area, which obviously doesn't represent the type of lifetime 

experience you have had but it at least gives us a little taste of 

what we are dealing with. 

So I did want to share that with you and to point that out. 

Mr. Riedy, have you had an opportunity to review the detailed 

outline of suggested boundary changes that Mr. Reddy's organization has provided to the Senate? 

Mr. RIEDY. I am familiar with a number of them; yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Any comments at this point? 

Mr. RIEDY. Well, one of them was the South Algodones Dunes 

andMr. VENTO. The Dunes? 

Mr. RIEDY. The South Algodones. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, we had talked about that too, and I want 

to get back to that in a moment. 

Mr. RIEDY. All areas that we have looked at before and considered for various reasons felt that the primitive routes that enter 

the areas should remain closed. For example, I think it was the Old 

Woman Mountains where they are suggesting some routes be extended from the edge of the area or remain open up into the site 

of some wildlife guzzlers, and we felt that it was not beneficial to 

wildlife using the guzzlers or necessary under the BLM's management regulations to allow maintenance. They could still use that 

primitive route even if it was wildlife if it was the minimum tool 

necessary. There were a couple of areas. I can't off the top of my head remember them. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, okay. 

Mr. RIEDY. We felt that there could be some changes to accommodate some of their ~uests. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that that is helpful. So we haven't had 

a chance to see them. And I mbilit say, Mr. Matheson, that maybe 

our friend Con~ssman Lewis liad received a copy, and maybe my staff did, but if you have an extra copy of this valuation matter 

that you were going through I would like to have it in my hand 

here before I leave tOday. · [The information follows:] 
417 

18T%XATZD v.&LUZ OP ~T-LLU8 

IURFaCI IHBOLDIXdl 1810CI&TBD WlTH 8. 21 AND 

B,Jt, ! 18 ACCOJU)IBG '1'0 BUUA17 Of Lllm Hlli7.GBlCUT 

CILIIO&NlA STATJ OllXCI OCTQBIB 1!91 &IJOBT 

o The Bureau o~ Land Manaqement•s (BLM) Cali:tornia State O~:fioe 

prepared a report dated october 1991 estimatinq the costs ot 

acquiring inholdinc;s created by desiqnat:inq new wilderness and 

park units by H.B. 2929, the California Desert bill proposed by the House in the 102nd Congress, which includes essentially the same catellus lands in wilderness or parks aa s. 21 and 

H.R. 518. To estimate the surface value of these inholdinqs, the BLM used a system that assigned a ranqe ot values based 

upon the inholdinqa 1 location within "Inholding Value Units" 

(IVU). These estimates assume that the lands are subject to 

"normal and customary" mineral reservations. The BLM report does not estimate the mineral value of inholdinqs. 

o Approximately 3SS,OOO acres of Catellus's land ana ~ineral 

interests are included within the boundaries of s. 21's and 

H.R. 518'a wilderness and park units. The location ot these 

lands within BLK'e IVUs and the ranqe of value BLM's report woul4 assign to them is summarized below: 

BLH zyu Price Per Acre Ca:tellus Ac;na Valuo Bango 

:a $2.50-$400 Ui8 1 l65 $42,041,250 - $67,266,000 

3 $100-$400 166,304 $16,630,400- $66,521,600 

4 $450-$1000 9,026 $ 4,061,700 - $ 9,026,000 

6 $1000-$4000 11,518 $11,518,000 - $46,072,000 

TOTAL 355,013 $74,251,350- f188,185,1500 

o Coabininq the above estiaatea 1 the estimated eurtace value o~ 

the :tss,ooo acres of catellus lucia u4 llineral interests 

atteote4 by a. 11 an4 B.R. 518 vou14 ran9e troa f74,211,310 

to f111,11!,eoo. · 
418 

Mr. VENTO. And looking at that dune that was referred to, the 

South Algodones Dune, do you have a particular value for mining 

here, Mr. Reddy? We have a few moraines and dunes in our area. 

We don't have the hills anymore, in Minnesota, because they made 

highways out of them. They are pretty big too. 

Mr. RIEDY. Okay. If we have something in the dune, I am totally 

unfamiliar with it. 

Mr. VENTO. Oh. You are unfamiliar with it. Anyway, that was an 

area, apparently one of the boundaries that Mr. Reddy was familiar 

with specifically because he is working on this. 

Mr. Riedy, what is the area that remains open then on this particular done? As I recall, the initial BLM plan just dealt with the 

area to the north, and then the subsequent plan in H.R. 2929 included the southern portion. Is that correct? 

Mr. RIEDY. That is correct. In the dune system there are two designated wilderness study areas by BLM. 

Mr. VENTO. Right. Well, how large are these areas? Can you give 

me some numbers? 

Mr. RIEDY. Well, let me ask my colleague here. 

Mr. VENTO. Sure. Okay, he doesn't have it with him right now. 

Mr. RIEDY. It is about sixty, Kurt? Forty? Sixty-four thousand 

acres. 

Mr. VENTO. The whole dune is 64,000? 

Mr. RIEDY. No. The whole dune is about 150,000 acres. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. So what you have got here is you really have, 

in other words, two areas in wilderness that comprise about 67,000 

acres and then the remaining remains open to some extent to offroad vehicles. Is that right, Mr. Hathaway? You apparently are the 

resident expert here on off-road vehicles on this panel. 

Mr. HUGHES. Not necessarily. But I do have a little familiarity with the dunes, and I think the problem that isn't being seen here 

is that it is a boundary problem. Basically, the area which is WSA 

362 is all sand dunes, even the blue areas where use is occurring. 

In the 362 area there is no definable boundaries out there. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. HUGHES. So what we would be doing, in effect, would be creating conflict, and we don't need to create conflict. That area of the 

dunes gets about 10 percent of the use that occurs out there, which 

doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a different type of use. The use 

that stays up in the more concentrated areas is the kind of person 

that really likes to go up and down the dunes. The use that occurs 

out in the 362, which is the kind of use that I and my daughter 

happen to like is basically exploring the backs of the dunes and 

checking out what is out there, the nature of things, and the scenery, and it is a different type of experience which is of value to 

us. 

Mr. VENTO. In other words, you are supportive of the wilderness 

to the north, I guess? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Do we have a boundary problem to the north as well 

in terms of the blue area that is illustrated on this map of Mr. 

Riedy's where there isn't definable boundaries again? 

Mr. HUGHES. Again that area, there is some encroachment in the 

left upper comer of the WSA 360, some problems in there that the 
419 

BLM seems to be handlin~. That area doesn't get very much use, 

maybe 5 to 10 percent agam. It is direct road that you have to follow up the railroad to get to it, so it is somewhat set apart from 

the other. 

The boundary up there does seem to be working. It does get some 

encroachment but it doesn't get the heayy use that the southern 

area gets. 

Mr. VENTO. One of our colleagues here earlier talked about, and 

I would like both Mr. Riedy and you to comment about this, about 

the fact that the utilization here is such that you have to have the 

larger area because otherwise there are too many people concentrated in too small an area. But we are talking about a total 

of something like 7,000 acres of land that would be open and about 

6,000 to 7,000 that would be closed, I guess, based on the total size 

of this area. 

Seven thousand acres in this area is too small, Mr. Hathaway? 

Mr. HUGHES. Which area are you referring to? I am sorry. 

Mr. VENTO. Right here. Well, they are all in pieces actually. I 

guess one piece might be 4,000, one might be 2,000, one might 

1,000, I don't know. This particular done. 

Mr. HUGHES. The Mammoth Wash area is about 10,000 acres. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. HUGHES. That is the area to the far north. 

Mr. RIEDY. Yes, the far north. The blue at the upper left of the 

map. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. So these areas are too small an area? They 

concentrate use too much in these areas? I mean based on this particular plan. 

Mr. HUGHES. No. There is not much use up in the Mammoth 

Wash area because it is quite a distance from the others. But if you 

take out WSA 362 and make it wildlife as far as our organizations 

are concerned, we do create conflict and that the area available for 

use will be dramatically smaller, and that that will create prob- lems. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. But my point is that in looking at this dune it 

is apparently 61,000 acres. These are the wilderness areas that are 

included in the bill. But they must go in and out, and so what I 

am trying to do is ask whether there is a concentrated use that actually promotes-you have got the administrative boundary issue 

here, I understand that. But these areas still look pretty significant 

in size to me. 

Mr. HUGHES. Again, it is a different type of experience. The use 

patterns tend to concentrate around the staging areas and yet the 

experience that you get out in WSA 362 is a different type of expe- rience than that concentrated use experience. It is a different form 

of off-road recreation. It is exploring and enjoying the scenic attributes of that area versus the play-type use that occurs around 

the staging areas, and it is of value to us. 

Mr. VENTO. We are going to have to proceed to a vote here in 

a minute. Mr. Riedy, did you have any comments on my question? 

Mr. RIEDY. Well, just that a proposal-this is one dune system 

out of others in the California Desert. This is the one that wildlife 

does overlap some, so there are other areas in the region to use. 

I might point out, as Mr. Hathaway did, the northern part, the 
420 

Mammoth Wash that is open, in blue there, is remote, has some 

of the same attributes that he is talking about that the southern 

WSA or proposed wildlife, and so there is a cross section of types of recreational opportunities in this dune system under this proposal. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, gentlemen1 as you can see, I have to depart for 

a vote, so I am not going to nold you. I don't know of any other 

questions that members have, but we will keep the record open 

briefly so that if questions come up you will be able to respond to 

them. I thank you very much. The meeting stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to 

reconvene subject to the call of the chair.] 
APPENDIX 

JUNE 15, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CAL VERT 

TO THE HOUSE COMMITIEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMTITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS & PUBLIC LANDS 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. .J.une.)5, 1923 

I appreciate having this opportunity to ltear from Secretary Babbitt on this important issue, 

but to be quite frank about it, I view this legislation as just the latest attaCk in the war that 

the Ointon Administration seems to be waging on my state of California. 

Along with huge cutbacks in the defense and aerospace industries, the President's 

economic plan will mean a net loss to California of $11.6 billion over the next five years. 

And now, the Administration wants Congress to enact yet another piece of legislation that 

will be a blow to the Golden State. 

This legislation will have an adverse affect on the cattle industry, the mining industry, the 

recreation industry (such as hunting, and off-road vehicles) and many other industries. 

And, it will have the effect of causing land owned by many private citizens to lose value 

due to condemnation by the federal government. Many innocent people will suffer from 

this legislation -· particularly those who can't pay high-price lobbyists to gain special 

treatment. 

But the real shame of the Administration's uncompromising position is that it rejects the 

recommendations of the Secretaries of the Interior of both Presidents Carter and Reagan, 

and will basically make a large portion of this land little more than a museum -- at a cost in excess of a billion dollars, at a time when the treasury is broke, A.."'D the National Park 

Service already has an estimated land acquisition backlog of $4 billion. 

I am not sure how the Administration can claim to be in support of reducing the size of 

government and bringing down the debt, when, at the same time, it seeks appropriations 

for millions and millions of acres of desert land. We can't afford to purchase all of the 

land we have already promised to buy for the National Park Service - and the NPS can't 

maintain all of the land it already controls. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to understand why you and the Administration will not support a reasonable compromise, such as the one introduced by Congressmen Jerry Lewis and AI 

McCandless, which protects the envi~onment, but also supports American workers, 

vacationers, hunters and others. · 

When the President was in California last month, he said, "We can't turn this country's 

economy around unless we lift California up." 

So far, this Administration has had a funny way of "lifting California up." If it "lifts" us much lower, we'll never get out of our financial hole. 

(421) 
422 

OPENING STATEMENT 

THE HONORABLE RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

H.R 518, THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

JUNE 15, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Chairman of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Vento, has scheduled a hearing on H.R. 518 so that we may address the 

bill's key issues before the Senate acts on similar legislation. As I have said 

since first testifying on a desert protection bill in 1989, ''business as usual" in the 

California Desert is not an option. We must protect the desert and this 

protection must begin with legislation followed by tough administrative 

guidelines. 

For seven of my years in Congress, bills to protect the California desert 

have been introduced •• and for seven years •• these bills have failed. Last 

Congress, I along with Congressman Mel Levine, introduced the California 

Desert Protection Act of 1991, a bill that later passed the Committee and the 

House by overwhelming majorities. The Bush Administration expressed its 

intent to veto the bill and ·• except for one hearing ·· it was not acted on by 

the Senate. 
423 

Since 1991, much has changed. With the able leadership of California's 

two new Senators and an Administration that recognizes the value of 

conserving California's fragile desert ecosystem, I am very hopeful that we will 

have a bill signed into law in the 103rd Congress. 

Mr. Chairman -- without protection -- the California desert is vulnerable 

to exploitation, abuse and the normal wear and tear of consistent use. Nine 

hearings have demonstrated the certain need to protect the desert and the 

widespread support for this legislation. 

Last Congress I sought compromise with the bill's opponents and 

eliminated 271,000 acres from wilderness designation for off-road vehicle use, 

utility purposes and mining interests. 

• We eliminated all known active mines from wilderness areas. 

• We resolved the specific concerns of utilities. 

• We trimmed 75,000 acres and 114 miles from the bill for off-road 

vehicle use. 

• We included language to provide a land exchange for two of the 

largest private landowners in the desert, the California State Lands 

Commission, and the Catellus Corporation. 

2 
424 

• We included language which allowed grazing within the East 

Mojave National Monument for up to 25 years and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to give priority to acquiring the base 

property of ranchers who are willing to sell. 

• We kept three proposed wilderness areas -- totalling 160,000 acres 

near Fort Irwin --in study status pending expansion proposals from 

the Department of Defense. 

I believe these changes made a good bill even better and helped us 

garner even more support from people who have interests in the desert. This 

bill is not a baseline. This bill is a compromise. 

The House of Representatives passed this bill overwhelmingly during the 

last Congress. There have been four field hearings on this issue during which 

the Congress has heard from over 500 witnesses on this subject. Over 200 

hundred witnesses presented testimony at a Senate hearing in April 1992, on 

virtually the same bill that we have before us today. 

I have listened and will continue to listen to the concerns of the bill's 

3 
425 

opponents but must state plainly that the train has moved out of the station. 

The Senate's deliberations on S. 21 are fundamental because the Senate has 

not spoken on this issue. The House has spoken. A good bill from the Senate 

will go a long way toward passage of a law to protect the California desert. 

Today, we will discuss the economic effects of this legislation and I will 

present information from the National Park Service that outlines the 

contribution of the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Monuments to 

regional economy. I am hopeful that the Park Service will also soon be able 

to formulate similar projections for the East Mojave as I understand these 

numbers are not available yet. The economic dislocations caused by this 

legislation have been greatly exaggerated and this hearing should help continue 

to dispel accusations to the contrary. 

During this Congress we are scheduled to reauthorize the Endangered 

Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. These bills included -- the California Desert Protection Act can 

stand alone as the single most important environmental protection legislation 

of the 103rd Congress. I am hopeful that we will finally provide the desert the 

4 
426 

protection it deserves. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and look 

forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

5 
Offtee of the Assistant Artomty General 

Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman 

427 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

Washing1on, D.C. 20530 

August 3, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This presents the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 

518, the "California Desert Protection Act of 1993." We support 

the protection of this valuable desert ecosystem and offer the 

following comments so that the California Desert Protection Act 

may avoid unintended conflicts with the Constitution and the 

responsibilities of the Department of Justice. 

Section 606 of H.R. 518 provides: 

In recognition of the past use of the parks, monument, and 

wilderness areas designed [sic] under this Act by Indian 

people for traditional cultural and religious purposes, the 

Secretary shall ensure access to such parks, monument, and 

wilderness areas by Indian people for such traditional 

cultural and religious purposes. 

(Emphasis added.) This language requires the Secretary of the 

Interior to provide access to Native Americans and will expose 

the United States to liability should the Secretary decide that 

his other responsibilities require him to deny access to Native 

Americans. For this reason, we suggest that the phrase "shall 

ensure" be qualified by adding to the end of this sentence ", 

unless such access would conflict with other duties of the 

Secretary." This language will accomplish the purpose in almost 

all instances while recognizing that, in some situations, other 

duties might counsel the Secretary to limit access by Native 

Americans. 

Section 606 also provides: 

In implementing this section, the Secretary, upon the 

request of an Indian tribe or Indian religious community, 

shall temporarily close to the general public use of one or more specific portions of park, monument or wilderness areas 
428 

in order to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and 

religious activities in such areas by Indian people. 

(Emphasis added.) This provision might be challenged as 

violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which 

provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an 

establishment of religion." U.S. Const. amend. I. This 

provision could be viewed as authorizing special treatment (the 

exclusion of outsiders} for one set of religions, thereby 

conferring a benefit on those religions. Although allowing 

Native American practitioners access to religious sites would 

probably be viewed as a permissible accommodation of religions 

and religious practices, see Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals 

Commission of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987), prohibiting the 

general public from certain areas might be held to be beyond the 

scope of permissible accommodation. ~ Badoni v. Higginson, 638 

F.2d 172, 179 (lOth Cir. 1980) ("Issuance of regulations to 

exclude tourists completely from the [Rainbow Bridge National] 

Monument for the avowed purpose of aiding [American Indians'] 

conduct of religious ceremonies would seem a clear violation of 

the Establishment Clause."), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 954 (1981). 

In order to avoid a constitutional challenge, however, we 

recommend that the section be changed to read: 

In implementing this section, the Secretary, upon request of 

an Indian tribe or Indian religious community, may from time 

to time temporarily close to general public use one or more 

specific portions of park, monument, or wilderness areas in 

order to protect the privacy of traditional cultural uses in 

such portions by Indian people. Any such closure shall be 

made to affect the smallest practicable area for the minimum 

period necessary for such purposes. 

We are particularly concerned about potential conflicts 

between the duties of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) and the designation of certain lands in the California 

Desert as wilderness. In order to perform the Border Patrol's 

(part of the INS) congressionally mandated duties and complete 

its mission in a responsible manner, the Border Patrol needs 

unlimited access to lands protected by the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1993. A wilderness designation allows no 

motorized vehicles, only foot traffic or horseback. This would 

make an already difficult job almost impossible in view of the 

desolation and summertime temperatures of the areas in question. 

In light of the short response time mandated by the close 

proximity of a major highway to one of the areas used by 

smugglers to pick up their loads (both aliens and narcotics), our 

officers need to use motorized vehicles for operations in these 

areas. There is also a safety factor involved for our officers 

and for persons caught in this desolate terrain without proper 

food or water, who must be rescued. 

- 2 -
429 

Two areas of particular concern are the southern portion of 

the Fish Creek Mountains and the Jacumba Wilderness. The 

southern part of the Fish Creek Mountains area has been the scene of a number of rescue operations. The Jacumba Wilderness is 

vital in that it encompasses several corridors used by smugglers 

of both illegal aliens and narcotics. Drugs and people are smuggled through these corridors to an interstate highway that 

is, in some locations, only a mile from the Mexican border. The 

ability to respond quickly to events is absolutely necessary 

there. The Border Patrol cannot accomplish its mission without 

motorized access to these areas. 

To alleviate potential conflicts between Wilderness 

requirements and law enforcement, we recommend that the following 

language be added as a new section in H.R. 518: 

Nothing in this Act, including the designation as a wilderness, shall (1) preclude or otherwise affect 

continued border operations by the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the United States Customs Service within such wilderness, in accordance with any applicable 

interagency agreements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or (2) preclude the Attorney General 

of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury 

from entering into new or renewed agreements with the 

Secretary concerning Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, or United 

States Customs Service border operations within such 

wilderness, consistent with management of the wilder- ness for the purpose for which such wilderness was established, and in accordance with the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq .. 

Until such agreements are reached, we understand that law 

enforcement border activities will continue in accordance with 

current practice. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you on this 

legislation. Please do not hesitate to call on us if we may 

provide further assistance. 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised this 

Department that there is no objection to the submission of this 

report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. 

Sincerely, 

e~ Assistant Attorney General 

- 3 -
June 15, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear congressman Vento: 

430 

U.S. BORDER PATROL 

Immigration & Naturalization Service 1111 North Imperial A venue 

El Centro, California 92243 

Office of the Chief Patrol Agent 

ELC 92/3-C 

I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with information 

which sets forth the El Centro Sector's concerns regarding Senate Bill 

5.21, especially in the areas of general law enforcement, drug interdiction, and search and rescue. 

In the way of a little background, the El Centro Sector of the United states Border Patrol has responsibility for approximately 72 miles of 

international border between the United States and Mexico, the southern 

boundary of Imperial County. We have stations in Calexico, El centro, 

Indio and Riverside, California and our area of responsibility extends 

into most of Riverside and some of San Bernardino Counties as well. 

In Fiscal Year 1991, we arrested 30,450 deportable aliens and seized a little over 11 million dollars in narcotics (wholesale value) . In 

Fiscal Year 1992, we arrested 29,852 deportable aliens and seized 164.4 

million dollars in narcotics. As of May 1993, we have arrested 15,932 

deportable aliens and seized an all time record of 519.6 million dollars in narcotics. Again, I stress this is a wholesa1e va1ue~ X can•t begin 

to imagine how many youngsters on the street this amount of drugs would 

supply. You may have noticed the decrease in arrests between Fiscal 

Year 1991 and Fiscal Year 1992, this was not because there was a lesser 

number of people entering the country illegally, but because we had 

fewer officers with which to do our job, which brinqs us to the 

potentially disastrous situation with s. 21. 

We are concerned about all the proposed areas in Imperial County, 

however, we are especially concerned about the proposed Jacumba 
431 

Page 2 

Wilderness area and the Fish creek area. As you know, a wilderness 

designation means no motorized vehicles, only foot traffic or horseback. 

This would make an already difficult job almost impossible in view of 

the desolation and summertime temperatures of the areas in question. This, alonq with a short response time mandated by the close proximity 

of Highway 98 and Interstate 8 to the proposed Jacumba Wilderness area; 

which is utilized by smugglers to pick up their loads both aliens and 

narcotics, dellands that our officers be allowed to utilize motorized 

vehicles for operations in these areas. Within the proposed Jacumba 

Wilderness area is an area know as Davies Valley. There is a road 

through this area which runs from the Mexicali/Tijuana Highway in 

Mexico, all the way to Highway 98 near Ocotillo, California. This 

Highway has been a major thoroughfare for smugglers for years and 

speaking from experience I can safely state that closing this area will 

not stop a smuggler from utilizing what would be left of the road to 

make good his entry into the United States. They will simply ignore the 

fact that motorized vehicles are not allowed. There are also five {5) 

other well documented smuggling corridors through the proposed Jacumba area. on one of these corridors, an existing road on the east edge of 

the Jacumba area, we seized 1277 pounds of cocaine valued at 

$41,000,000.00 during January of this year. A few months prior to that, we seized 427 pounds of marijuana worth $600,ooo.oo. This seizure was made near Interstate 8, right square in the middle of the proposed 

Jacumba area. Thus far, in 1993, we have accounted for 197 entries made 

by people on foot and 19 vehicle entries in our west desert which 

includes the proposed Jacumba and Fish Creek areas. In 1992, there were 776 human entries and 18 vehicles entering through this same area. 

We are in the Jacumba and Fish Creek areas almost daily with either 4 x 4 vehicles or aircraft. The purpose being to detect the illegal entry 

of aliens and drug smugglers. We do this by looking for tracks of both 

people and vehicles and by utilizing electronic detection devices which 

have to be checked and serviced on a regular basis. You can see that if we could not utilize low flying aircraft or had to walk into these areas or even utilize horses, the cost in manpower and response time would be 

increased to the point that we would probably just have to ignore the 

activity in these areas and hope that we could make the apprehension after the smugqler reached the highway. This, in turn, puts our operations in a different legal arena, subjecting our arrests to 

different court decisions and in general making a successfu1 prosecution 

more difficult. In simple terms the creation of the Jacumba Wilderness area will only create a no-mans land between the Mexican border and 

Interstate 8 and Hiqhway 98 where an illegal alien or smuggler will be 

free to roam at will or hide on United States soil until conditions are right for them to safely make their way further into the united states. 

There is also a safety factor involved for our officers as well as numerous rescue operations of people caught in this desolate terrain 
432 

Page 3 

without proper food and water, as is often the case. we did not keep 

statistics on the number of deaths occurring in the desert prior to 

1985. At that time with the cooperation of the Mexican officials we attempted to educate the potential entrant{s) as to the dangers of 

attempting to cross into the United States through the deserts. We also 

altered our operations to ensure timely responses to any indicated 

traffic through the desert. The proposed Jacumba and Fish creek 

wilderness areas have proven to be the most popular for use by aliens 

entering and attempting to walk around our Highway 86 traffic check 

operation. Since 1985 there have been 31 deaths in these desert areas. Our officers have rescued 81 people that would have died had our officers not rescued them when they did. These people were already 

dehydrated and in bad shape. During this same time frame, we made about 

900 other apprehensions, all of which had the same potential for 

disaster. I might add that a number of these rescues were made by our pilots who located the people and were able to land and administer first 

aid until a mobil unit arrived. 

We understand that someone has proposed to change the language of the 

bill to give us access to a 60 or 100 foot strip along the border. I, 

think, you can see from earlier discussions in this letter how in 

reality this would be of only very limited benefit. For a sucessful 

interdiction program we must have total and unlimited access to these areas. We have gone on record stating that we will assist any law 

enforcement agency in enforcing whatever restrictions are finally arrived at for these areas. We feel that our presence will enhance and 

help to ensure the safety of the public that will be utilizing these areas. We must have motorized access to these areas to perform our duties and ensure the integrity of our borders. 

I hope this information will be of help to you. 

anything more we will be pleased to do so. 

sincerely, d 

WI 0:/ l JJJu.l!l\Ji~s, Jr. 

Deputy Chief Pa rol Agent 

If we can provide 
438 

D!PARTMlNT OF FISH AND OM\f "'"-- , ... .,._ -C4-

.:June u, un 

fba Rono~abla ~lok t.h~an 

U. 1. Houea of aapraaantat1vaa 1115 Longworth HOUle Office 8uildil'l9 

Waahin;ton, o.c, 20515•0519 

o.v COJI9raHUn LeMan: 

IlK Will ..... -

!l'h~ caUtornia Dtlpuuent or Fbh elld Gau b vii:ally intu .. ted in the protacrtion of \:he aoutbarn C.Utornia ca .. ut, 

J'Olt: Mny y.ara, OlD' ataft 11aa wol'k..S vtth t.ha publlo, hncl ownan, an4 o\:hR lt.ata an4 F..snal •t•nc1ea to •na9• and PJCCI'teat the tleh, wUIIUta, ancS native plants i:hat. Uva t:hera, While i~aalng OU1t: aolentitio knowlacl;a of the 11vin9 deaart.. 

X '-ll.V. that YOUlt: bl1l a.a. 111 offalt:a a uana to further 

aat!IIJilllrd t:ha cauromle daaatt, but I u concerned tbat. neither our Pepartlaallt • a .1aportant affo'lt:ta at .c1-tit1o raauroh an4 

.,an•tini '1ill411fe k. torecload nor tbe buntint _put>Uo be ahut out of thla ntlort va bella biat.orioally ~d. Tllia h 

particularly orltioal 1n tha S.at Mojave and a¥Pana1ona ot Death 

Valley.· .-' .· .. .. 1nta!n1nt heal~ v11d11fe populationa in .thla deaett envlron~~ent rtoqUir• ac·t:1-, not pa1ah•al UMt_t, ancl hlmtint 

!a lnt..,ral to tbat •Mo; .. ent. h'otaot on for: the da .. rt abo11ld 

110re adequately DZ'OYide for o~Ul:lla lt:acrMUon and t:ha 

••nav-t ot' vs.l«U.t•• ro~ . theaa zoe .. on• we ll¥'y• t:hat t:h• 

ltlarHa ot Land Mabateaant (lUI') ~etaln 'uridicrt on over the J:ut 

Ko:J.,. and 'tbe 11\mter l'lountetn{La•t Chance knt• expe.naiona ot 

Death vau.,., or at a •lnU.U. ·you oon.:l.der •~rational tH•erv•• et.at- for ~ •rea•. 
~he Honorable RiCk Lehman 

June 11, 1993 

Pa9e Two 

434 

now 771 auch water lite~ for wildlife in lan Bernardino County, an4 their periodic repair require• heavy oenent bag•. and 

equipment that cannot be carried in on foot. Muoh of thi• effort 

haa coma from vol~teera and privata donation• that from 1969 to 

1992 totaled mora than 22,000 daye ot labor and ••teriala worth 

nearly $1.5 million. 

aeoauae or our active mana;ement in the deaert, tba.biqhorn aheep baa come back !rom ita low levele ot the e~rly 1!001 to the 

viable population that californian• enjoy today. For the ~aet 

twenty y•are, we have worked with the ~LM, the Dilitary, and many privata oonaervation and huntin9 organiaationa to build catchment· 

basins to replace da9raded aprin9s and to capture bighorn cheep 

to reestablish population• in hiatorical habitata trom which they 

hftd long been qone. 

The b19horn aheep population in the Old Dad Mountains ot the 

!alt Mojave 11 our source atock tor reestabliahinq eheep populatlcne elaewhere in their hi1torio ranqa. From th1• 

productive herd we have captured and relocated ~ora than 200 

bi;horn ahaap safely, efficiently, and with ainimua diaturbance 

to the desert, because we have been able to use vehiolea and 

hel1coptera. I am oo~cerned that National Park wilderneea statue 

tor the !aat Mojave could aeverely curtail what baa bean a real auoceaa atory in bighorn ahaep management. 

I am aleo deeply concerned with preaervinq 'hUntinq in the 

Zest Kojeve and elaewhere. Huntere in California may appear to 

have hU9\ territories in which to hunt, but the reality ot 

population qrowth and recreation demande in thia State make• it 

increaain9ly more difficult for the huntinq public to enjoy a day in the field. In the East Mojave and the Death Valley expansions into Hunter Mountain and Last Chance Ranqe, where the imprint of 

hunters has been hardly noticeable and tneir contributions to 

wildlife ccn5iderable, hunter• could be 1ealed off from a vast 

reqion in which bunting !a compatible with desert preservation. That ap1r1t ot conservation ~ust not be dampened by cloa1nq ott 

theae ar••• to huntinq. 

For decad•• this ruqqed country haa provided the public with aome fine upland 9ame hunting--particularly quail, chu~ar, dove, 

and rabbit••aa wall as dear and, in recent yaare, bighorn sheep. The huntere, in turn, 9iva a booet to lo~el restaurants, notala, and gas atationa. ln the Ea1t Mojave, for example, upland qarne hunters have apent more than 110,000 recreation• days annually. 8eeause our manaqement has helped brinq back bighorn sheep, we have been able to ot!er some limited sheep huntinq, the permits !or Which have produced mora than S5oo,ooo--all· used to expand populations ot bighorn ahaep. 
~· Mono~able Rick ~n June 11, ltU P•v• Three 

435 

x want to aeaure you that the Department and tha california 

Pith an~ oa~• co .. leaion clo•aly re;ul•t• buntinq. Through huntinv eea•ona, bag limite, big va~ permit•, and the vtyoroua enforcement of all huntinq lava and revulationt, wa balp naura oonearvation of both wildlife and the privileqea of tha hunting public. · 

certainly the .•ore ~lftioult·burdl• ~th for huhtint and our Oep~rt~ant•a ability to.continue aoiantit1c •tudy and mana9e 

wildlife there ia the plaoinq of tha taet Mojave and the Hunter 

Mountain{Laat Chance Ranve expansion of Death Valley under the ~urbcUotion of the N.ationel Park Serviee (l'IPS) rather than the aureau of Land Manavemant. Throu9h tradition and law, the HPS 

has exolu~ed huntinq in the National Parks and not looked 

tavorably upon aotlva state vil~lira manaqa~ent or lands under 

itl jurisdiction. 

It ia ay understandin; that Conqresa haa aade exceptions to 

thie, however, in the "ps category of "Mat1onal Preserves.• 

While we would prefer that juriadictlon of the East Mojave vildernesa an4 of the Hunter Mountain/Last Chenoa ~anqa 

expanaiona or Death Valley remain in the. DLM, I woul~ ur9e that 

fOU oonaidar "National Preeerva" su.tus ae e poesi))le alternative/ with explicit language that preserves buntinq and our continued acoaaa for carryinq out our reapon&ibilitie& for 

acientific ,-esearch and wildlife aanaq-ent. In all JLM 

wildernaae araaa, wa n•ed •iailar lan9ua~e to guarantee our access to conduct res·earch and 111anaqa w11411te. 

% ~o want to ~easaure you that this Department is dedicated 

to prot~otion of the desert eooay1tem. contiAuad huntin9 in, and 

thia Department•• accee• to, thle region 1e in harmony with that i~~Portant fOal. . . 

I will ~ pleased to work further with you and your atatt to •n•ure the beet waya to further wildlife conservation throuqh this landmark let1elat1on. 

BO:vp 

aoyc! 

r~ 

Gib.bone 

Director 
436 

oo a 'lba Bonorule Geol'fl• IIJ.llu 

Bou•• or JtepraHntatlvtl• 

The Hon0%able Bruoa Vento 

Bouae of Jtepr••ont.tiva• 

The Honorable Don Young ~o~ of a.pre .. ntativ•• 
437 

~he Honorable Rick Lehman 

June 11, 1113 

~CCI Ma. Mary McDonald 

Governor•• waabington, D.c. ottioa 

The Honorable 3oaeph D. Rodota ~ Cabin•t Sa~etary, Governor'• Offiea 

The Hono~able Douqlas P. Wheeler Secrta~y for Resources 

Mr~ Bank! Curti• 

Deputy D rector 

Mr. T•rry Kanafiel<S 

Chiat, 11KD 

Mr. Pre4 Worthley Re9ional Kanavert Region 5 
438 

SIERRA CLUB + TIIE FUND FOR ANIMALS 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

TIIE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

June 29, 1993 

Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands 

812 O'Neil House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

Thank you for holding an excellent hearing on June 15, 1993 on H.R. 518, the California Desert 

Protection Act, and for your strong support of this important legislation. 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Representative Lehman responding to a letter from Mr. Boyd 

Gibbons, Director, California Department of Fish and Game, concerning the effect of H.R. 518 

on wildlife management in the California Desert. We felt it was essential to respond directly to 

the misleading and inaccurate statements contained in Mr. Gibbons' letter, and we respectfully 

request that the enclosed letter be made part of the official hearing record on H.R. 518. 

In addition, we are writing to request the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest 

convenience to discuss the outlook for H.R. 518, and in particular, the amendment that may be 

proposed by Representative LaRocco. 

Thank you for accommodating this submission to the record and for considering our request for 

a meeting. 

Sincerely, 

lAidcird~ William J. Chandler 

Director of Conservation 

National Parks and Conservation Assn. 

~ (L..tfL. 

Wayne Pacelle 

National Director 

The Fund for Animals 
Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

June 29, 1993 

Page 2 of2 

Debbie Sease 

Legislative Director 

Sierra Club 

439 

Brien F. Culhane 

Director, National Parks Program 

The Wilderness Societv 
440 

SIERRA CLUB t THE FUND FOR ANIMALS 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

THE WILDERl\'ESS SOCIETY 

June 29, 1993 

Honorable Rick Lehman 

1226 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Lehman: 

Thank you for your continued leadership on the California Desert Protection Act. Following the 

successful hearing on H.R. 518 on June 15, 1993, we are enthusiastic about prompt action by 

the 103rd Congress to approve this importan.t national interest legislation. 

We write at this time to submit additional views regarding. wildlife management in the area 

proposed as Mojave National Monument. By copy of this letter to Chairman Vento, we are 

requesting that this letter be made part of the official hearing record on H. R. 518. 

In particular, we would like to address several issues raised in the June 11, 1993 letter to you 

from Mr. Boyd Gibbons, Director of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The 

premise of Mr. Gibbons' letter is that designation of the proposed Mojave National Monument 

and the elimination of hunting in that area will unduly interfere with the Department of Fish and 

Game's "responsibilities for scientific research and wildlife management" in the California 

Desert. This assertion is false on all counts. 

Hunting Opportunity in the California Desert 

Testimony presented to the subcommittee has described the hunting activity in the East Mojave 

region as extremely limited. Mr. Gibbons cites a figure of 110,000 hunter days annually for the 

East Mojave area. This is a 1989 CDFG figure for all of San Bernadino County, of which the 

East Mojave comprises just 12 percent. Furthermore, we consider this figure to be vastly 

overstated due to inaccurate and deeply flawed counting methods. The Fund for Animals 

addressed this subject in detail in testimony on June 15, 1993. 

Designation of Mojave National Monument will flQ1 end bighorn sheep hunting in the California 

Desert, as Mr. Gibbons implies. Of the three bighorn sheep hunting areas in the California 

Desert, one is completely outside the proposed Mojave National Monument, and another is only 

partially within the proposed park boundary. In 1992, five of the eleven bighorn taken by 

hunters were killed outside the area proposed for the park. 
Honorable Rick Lehman 

June 29, 1993 

Page 2 of 5 

441 

Protection of the bighorn sheep herds in the Old Dad Mountains, Last Chance Range, and 

Hunter Mountain area will provide a permanent source of animals that can be hunted outside 

National Park Service-administered areas or used to replenish herds elsewhere. 

Wildlife Management 

The written statement and oral testimony of the National Parks and Conservation Association 

at the June 15, 1993 hearing offered evidence that national monument status for the East Mojave 

will not limit active management to benefit desert wildlife. 

Active vs. Passive Mana~:ement 

It is amply clear from the current literature on park stewardship and biological conservation, 

numerous. examples of managemenf actions from around the National Park System, and the 

National Park Service's own statements of goals (such as the 1991 Vail A&enda) that the NPS 

has already entered an era of active management of park resources and must be even more active 

managers in the future. We disagree ·with the premise· that "active resource management" 

requires permitting hunting in national parks and national monuments, but we support many 

appropriate active measures that the NPS now takes to protect and nurture park wildlife. 

Water for Wildlife 

Mr. Gibbons references "771 such water sites for wildlife in San Bernadino County" and that 

their periodic maintenance requires motorized access. Mr. Gibbons does not provide details as 

to how many of these sites are within areas proposed for national park status. 

Existing NPS policies permit the development and maintenance of water "guzzlers" for wildlife 

within parks and wilderness areas. For example, five such wildlife water facilities have been 

placed and maintained within Joshua Tree National Monument. 

Mr. Gibbons also notes that "some natural springs have been damaged by concentrations of wild 

burros and invaded by salt cedar, • and suggests that NPS management may not be suitable for 

addressing such situations. NPS policies for controlling exotic plants and animals actually 

provide greater management authority and flexibility to address these cases. Not only does the 

NPS aggressively eliminate tamarisk (salt cedar) in many parks, the agency has the ability to 

control feral burros, since the NPS is exempt from the Wild Horses and Burros Act. 

Even so, we would also point out that there has been no scientific study that proves that watering 

devices actually benefit herd size or health in the California Desert. There have been two 

documented cases where guzzlers in the California Desert have resulted in the deaths of bighorn 
Honorable Rick Lehman 

June 29, 1993 

Page 3 of5 

442 

sheep that fell in and drowned. Bird guzzlers actually function more like death traps since they 

artificially concentrate wildlife in areas that lack adequate protective cover. We also reiterate our 

belief that more enlightened grazing management practices in the California Desert has 

significant potential to benefit wildlife. 

Bighorn Sheep Translocation 

NPS policies also clearly permit capture of animals for research purposes and translocation of 

animals (such as bighorn sheep) to repopulate other areas. Both the NPS Management Policies 

[NPS Mana~ement Policies, Chapter 4:6] and the NPS "Natural Resources Management 

Guideline" [Natural Resources Management Guideline, NPS-77, Chapter 2, pp. 36-37] include 

detailed guidelim:s on this subject. 

Removing surplus bighorn sheep from large, protected herds for reintroduction elsewhere is far 

more valuable to hunters than the half-dozen hunting tags currently issued for bighorns _in the 

proposed Mojave National.Monument area. Over the past decade, NPS-rnanaged Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area (NV/AZ) has provided over 600 bighorn sheep for transplantation 

programs in Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, and Arizona. The NPS is the 

biggest source of bighorn sheep for reintroduction programs. 

Even with park and wilderness designation, the NPS can continue these programs as it sees fit. 

Thus, there is no reason to conclude that park status for the East Mojave "could severely curtail 

what has been a real success story in bighorn sheep management," as Mr. Gibbons suggests. In 

fact, this success story should continue to progress and improve. 

Scientific Research 

While Mr. Gibbons questions his "Department's ability to continue scientific study ... under 

the National Park Service," the fact is that National Park System status for the East Mojave will 

afford a great opportunity to enhance scientific study of the desert. In fact, some 1,600 scientists 

and academicians nationwide have endorsed the California Desert Protection Act, including 136 

scientists at UCLA and UC/Berkeley alone. 

Mr. Gibbons repeatedly claims that "scientific research" values may be affected by H.R. 518, 

but specifies none. Inventory and monitoring of herd sizes used solely to set hunting seasons and 

harvest limits are not necessarily meaningful "research" designed to understand, or maintain the 

health of ecosystems. National Park System status for the East Mojave will actually create 

unequalled opportunities to study desert ecology and desert wildlife free from many impacts, 

including that of hunting. 
Honorable Rick Lehman 

June 29, 1993 

Page 4 of S 

Hunting-Related Revenue 

Hunting Licenses and Tags 

Mr. Gibbons submits that more than $500,000 for bighorn sheep recovery and management has 

been raised from the auction of bighorn sheep hunting permits, implying that this revenue will 

be lost to the state if Mojave National Monument is designated. 

As noted above, designation of Mojave National Monument will not end bighorn sheep hunting 

in the California Desert; hunters have taken a significant portion of the total annual kill outside 

of the area proposed for the monument. 

Income to the state from application fees for bighorn sheep tags totaled $19,939.50 in 1~92. No 

significant· changes in this revenue would be expected due to closure of the East Mojave to 

hunting. Actual numbers of applications have ranged from a low of 2,591 in 1990 to a high of 

4,066 in 1987 with no apparent correlation witl_t the actual number of bighorn tags available. 

The issuance of fund-raising tags would not be affected and, in fact, could mean higher prices 

at auction for the highly-coveted "first kill" tags. Furthermore, the California state legislature 

has actually authorized the issuance of up to three fund-raising tags. Any revenue loss to the 

state due to elimination of hunting in Mojave National Monument would be insubstantial, and 

certainly recoverable by issuing another fund-raising tag. 

Tourism and Volunteers 

Mr. Gibbons notes that "hunters . . . give a boost to local restaurants, motels, and g;~S stations. • 

Tourism-related revenues due to national park designation, however, will far outstrip huntingrelated contributions to the local economy. According to National Park Service estimates, Death 

Valley and Joshua Tree national monuments each currently contribute approximately $60 million 

annually to the local economy. We anticipate that designation of Mojave National Monument 

would have similar, if not greater, positive economic impacts. 

Mr. Gibbons also notes the contributions of volunteers toward developing and maintaining water 

sources for desert wildlife. We see no reason for this strong public support for wildlife not to 

continue when such areas are designated as national parks or BLM wilderness. National parks 

are dearly beloved by the American public. From June 1992 to July 1993, the National Park 

Service benefitted from approximately 3 million hours of volunteer service worth approximately 

$32 million. 

72-354 0 - 93 - 15 
Honorable Rick Lehman 

June 29, 1993 

Page 5 of 5 

In summary, we believe that the California Desert Protection Act-provides an appropriate 

balance between park preservation and maintenance of hunting opportunities. The preponderance 

of evidence (including public opinion polls in California) indicates that hunting is an 

inappropriate activity for the Mojave under any circumstanees of National Park Service 

administration. 

We oppose "national preserve• status for the East Mojave. This area clearly qualifies for the 

highest level of protection afforded other national parks, as was emphasized by Interior Secretary 

Babbitt in his testimony on H.R. 518 on June 15, 1993. National preserve designation opens the 

door to lower protection standards. Furthermore, should Coogress fail to designate a national 

park or national monument in the East Mojave, an area of extremely limited huQting, we fear 

that it would signal the end of establishing !Y!l new national park free from this activity. 

Thank you for considerfng our views. 

Sincerely, 

William J. Chandler 

Director of Conservation 

National Parks and Conservation Assn. 

Debbie Sease 

Legislative Director 

Sierra Club 

cc: Honorable George Miller 

Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

J?.;0 C-2.ef'-. 

Wayne Pacelle 

National Director 

The Fund for Animals 

Brien F. Culhane 

Director, National Parks Program 

The Wilderness Society 
445 

awiiJ 

zc;:x THE WILDLIFE LEGISLATIVE FuND OF AMERICA 'l.'b proc.ect Uw n.n-.. «UM American Sport.t::rs:w1 to hunt. to &had to U.p. 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

U.S. House of Represootatives 

2304 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 2051S 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

July 22, 1993 

National Affairs Offu:e JOOO Connct;ticut Avenue, N. W'. Suite 1202 Wuhinatoo. D.C. 20036 202/<M-4407 FAX 2021466-8727 

On Monday, July 19, 1993, a coalition of environmental organizations placed an 

advertisement in Tlu! Washington Post regarding S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act. 

The article ignored and distorted several key points in this debate that we want to call to your 

attention. 

First, the National Rifle Association is not the only group supporting this important 

change to S. 21/H.R. 518. As the signatures below attest, the NRA is one of several members 

of a coalition of sportsmen and women's organizations that are committed to preventing the 

closure of public lands that are now open to bunting. The five Congressmen representing the 

affected areas, who have been ignored during the debate on this bill, also oppose this legislation. 

There is no opposition to tmnsfening managemeot of these lands from the Bureau of 

Land Managemeot to the National Park Service from any of the members of this coalition. In 

fact, the only point of contention is whether or not hunting will be allowed to conlinue on 1.5 

million acres of land in the Bast Mojave Desert. According to the California Department of Fish 

and Game, "maintaining healthy wildlife populations in this desert environment requires active, 

not passive, management, and hunting is integral to that management. • Last year huoters spent 

more than 110,000 recreation days in the East Mojave region. To allow this important 

management and recreational activity to continue, we urge the acceptance of the m!ll 

"compromise" offered in the debate about this issue. 

Despite the claims of the ad, hunting is currently conducted on 44 units of Park Service 

lands, including the Gland Teton National Park. But to avoid any semblence of expanding 

hunting in National Parks, the coalition language specifically uses the "preserve• designation 

created by Congress in the 1970s to allow hunting on Park Service lands. By accepting the 

proposed changes, the East Mojave would fall into the same category as Big Cypress National 

Preserve in Florida and Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas. Such a designation would 

provide National Park Service management, as sought by the proponents of the bill, while 

affording sportsmen and women the ability to continue hunting. The compromise language 

would also stipulate that administration of wildlife managment programs within the preserve 

would continue under the California Departmeot of Fish and Game. 
This coalition docs not wish to expand lnmtiDg iaiD any areas wbcrc it is not currently 

allowed. The language we have offCR'd, wbich is auacbrd for your review, is the only true 

"compromise" in this debate, providing botll sides with their sbled objc::clives. Copies of the 

letter outlining the positioll of the California Deputmellt of Fish aDd Game in support of 

"preserve• designation, as wen as the Naliooal Pad: Servia! documeut deWiing those units of 

the National Paik System wbcrc lnmtiDg is allowed m; eacloacd for your review. We bope tbat 

you will coosider this evideDce and support the adoptiol1 of the LaRocco ameadment when 

presented before the Hause NaiUral Resources COIIIIIIillec. 

Richard K. Storey 

Executive Director 

Wildlife Legislative Fund 

. of America 

Michael B. Berger 

Bxecutive Director 

United Conservation 

Alliance 

Sillcerely, 

NP~ k.TJ1..ns) 

Susan Lamson, Director 

Federal Affit.irs 

National Rifle Association 

R. Douglas Yajko 

~ 

Safari Club I:ntemational 
Congressman Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee 

447 

To saferuard for wise ami reverent use by this and succeeding generations those desert tutas of unique scenic, scientific. historical, spiritual 

and recreationa/11aiUt and to educate b)' all appropriate means children 

and adults to a better undt!rstanding of the desert. 

Elden Hughes 

14045 Honeysuckle Lane 

Whittier, CA 90604 

310 941-5306 

June 21, 1993 

National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

RE: Hearing, June 15, 1993, California Desert Protection Act 

In the oral testimony two numbers were given for the number 

of visitors to the "Glamis" or Algodones Dunes. Kurt Hathaway 

of the American Motorcycle Association stated the number of 

visitors to Glamis was 2.8 million. Congressman Randy cunningham 

stated the number of visitors was 4.6 million. 

The official BLM visitor count for the entire Imperial Dunes 

Management Area which includes Mammoth Wash, Glamis, North and 

South Algodones WSA's, Patton Valley, Dunebuggy flats, and 

Buttercup is 284,690. Enclosed is the BLM "Annual Visitor Use 

in Reccreation Management Areas Detail Listing" for FY92 report. 

Note that the 284,690 count includes 93,741 visitors who were not 

there for ORV travel. 

I would appreciate your including this letter in the hearing 

record. 
. ' . 

I 

,. . 

~ ! :~ = 
The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman 

449 

June 20, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

United States Bouse of Representatives 

2304 Rayburn Bouse Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for the oppo~tunity to speak before the 

Subcommittee. Enclosed is pertinent information related to 

my testimony prefaced by this letter of explanation of a small portion of my testimony. 

It has come to my attention that at the Bearing on HR 518 

held in Washington D.C. on June 15, there was some question 

regarding the 2.8 million visitor use figure for the South 

Algodones Dunes. 

According to the BLM California Desert District Office there are two figures available on visitor use in the South 

Algodones Dunes. 

A figure of 284,000 for CA-0-67-02 (California/Desert/El 

Centro/Mexican border north through the North Algodones 

Dunes area) has been released through the Recreation 

Management System, a Bureau wide recreation data base 

system. This figure is based on random aerial and on-site 

visitor counts. This figure was adjusted in 1992. 

A second figure of 810,000 vehicles with a standard BLM 

average of 3.5 passengers per vehicle has been released by 

the BLM El Centro Resource Area. This figure is based on four counters at the most used access routes in the South 

Algodones Dunes Area only(off of major through routes). The 

counters were set for incoming traffic only and calibrated 

to count any vehicle as one, regardless of the number of 

axles or weight. This results in that a motorhome towing a trailer is counted the same as a jeep or a passenger car. 

Maximum extrapolation from the above figure of 810,000 

vehicles with an average of 3.5 passengers would equal 

2,835,000 visitors to the dune areas. However, these 

figures are recognized as raw data in that they do not 

account for the percentage of vehicles that exit and then 

re-enter or accidentally trigger the counter upon exiting. 

Nor does the count include those visitors entering the dune 
system from a large number of other legal access points. It 

is equally important to consider that one of the counters was broken for six weeks. 

For the sake of argument we will use a conservative figure 

of 2 million visitors. The lands administered by the BLMCalifornia consist of 18,708,004 acres rounded to 18 

million. In 1992 these lands received 26 million 

recreational visitors(BLH Newsbeat, February-March 1993 

Edition).It is conservative to say that using the BLM's own numbers that 7.7% of the use of BLM public lands in all of 

California may occur at the South Algodones Dunes complex. 

These 132,400 acres(rounded off to 135,000) comprise 0.075% 

of BLM public lands in all of California. The ten percent 

estimate of use in WSA 362 equates to 200,000 visitors. 

using these conservative figures that is 0.75% of all the 

visitors to California's BLH public lands. The changes 

proposed under BR 518 and S21 to this dune complex obviously can not occur without major socio-economic impacts and 

possible cumulative impacts to other public lands. 

The South Algodones Dunes WSA 362 has traditionally acted as a dispersement area for the OBV recreationists who desire 

the same opportunities for solitude as Wilderness hikers. 

It is akin to going cross country skiing rather than alpine 

skiing to the OBV visitors of this area. 

Alternatives have been suggested to Senator Feinstein that 

address the resource, management and recreational concerns that continue to plague the proposed designation of the 

South Algodones Dunes Wilderness. 

The American Motorcyclist Association, California 

Association of Fourwheel Drive Clubs and the California OffRoad Vehicle Association urge that the Subcommittee, as we have implored Senator Feinstein and the Senate Subcommittee on Public lands, National Parks and Forests to please 

consider the alternatives before forcing upon Imperial 

County an unnecessary displacement ani reduction of OHV 

recreationists and the monies that they bring in to the 

economy. 

Sincerely, 

~~ c. Congressman James v. Hansen 
451 

'1'JII CALIPOBifiA DUBD PL11 IS A 1fOJUtiiiG OIIGOIIIG .PBOCISS 

Many arguments have been put forth that the valuable resources of the California Desert are not being protected by the Desert Plan process. This is just not the case, and we would like to put forth two examples. 

MANAGBMBN'l' PL!\N FOR AFTON CANXON NATURAL AREA ANP THE 

SQRROUNDING AREA 

The Afton Canyon planning area is located approximately 37 

miles east of Barstow in central San Bernardino County, California. The planning area boundary encompasses 

approximately 41,500 acres, of which about 23,600 acres (57%) are public lands administered by the BLM. The 

planning area includes the Afton Canyon Natural Area, an area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and those 

public lands which have an influence on the ACEC. 

This planning process went through the NEPA process and was tiered off of the California Desert Plan. All interested 

parties had a say and provided input and ideas as to how to 

provide recreation and protect resources at the same time. 

Enclosed are maps that depict the motorized access routes 

that exist today and those that existed in 1988 prior to 

this planning process. 75 miles of legal routes exist today 

and it is estimated by the BLM that this is a 60-75% 

reduction from the routes shown on the enclosed map entitled 

"Existing Vehicle Routes (1989)". 

The Management Plan that evolved was not well received by 

the motorized access groups but at least they were included 

in the process and had the options afforded with in the 

framework of environmental law. A prime proponent of BR 518 

and S-21, ~he Wilderness Society, in their work entitled 

"Failure in the Desert" stated, concerning the Afton canyon 

Manag ... nt Plan, "If no weakening changes are aade in the 

final version of this plan it will go a long way toward 

preventing further unnecessary daaage to the tra.endous resources of Afton Canyon" 
452 

RNIJ) IIOUJilfAX•S-PRBJIOI',f vutp JIJUIAGDIBR'l' PLU' 

The Rand Mountains/Fremont Valley Management Area is located 

in the southern portion of the Ridgecrest Resource Area of 

the BLM California Desert District. The area consists of 

approximately 65,020 acres included in the Rand Mountains, 

Fremont Valley, and Koehn Dry Lake. 

This planning process went through the NBPA process and was tiered off of the California Desert Plan. The driving force 

behind this management plan was that at the time there was little data on what was causing declines in desert tortoise 

population numbers. The OHV recreation community voluntarily entered into this process as a means to provide a short term solution until data could be collected to allow 

long term solutions. All interested parties had a say and 

provided input aud ideas as to how to provide recreation and 

protect resources at the same time. 

The legal OHV and access routes in the area were reduced by over 80% as a part of this process. OHV volunteers are active in educating and signing in the area to this day. 

These two ex&~~ples show how the Desert Plan :.:espoads to the 

challenges that occur in the .ana~nt of public lands in a way that proaotes participation of all use groups and vests 

those groups in the successful aanag ... nt of those lands. 
453 

Newsbeat Soeciai '::dirion 
454 

R.b.CR.b.ATION 

1990 1991 1992 

26.5 25.6 2o 

1,12.5 1,533 1,751 

Recreation Visits (millions) 

Special Recreation Permits Issued 

Receipts from Permits $225,569 $351,931 $368,049 

Grants Issued 

Applications Processed 

1990 

181 

467 

1991 

139 

192 

1992 

167. 

206 

60lL. AIR.. 6 \'v'ATb.R R.b.60UR.Cb.6 

Soil, Air & Water lnvento<y 

SoH Surveys (acres) 

Water Rights Do<:um..ntation 

Watershed Project Maintenance 

Watershed Improvements 

Watershed Monitoring Sites 

Air Monitoring Stations 

Excess Animals Removed from Public: l..mds 

Excess Animals Removed from 

Military/Forest Service l..mds 

Animals Adopted 

TIUeslssued 

1990 

72.000 

123 

0 

22 

122 

0 

1990 

306 

334 

422 

393 

1991 

1,000 

24,000 

245 

0 

20 

149 

I 

1991 

318 

567 

616 

300 

1992 

63,000 

16,000 

51 

21 

22 

137 

2 

1992 

452 

342 

766 

382 
455 

California O.partaant of Fish and Gaae 

Resources Buildinq 

1416 Ninth str .. t 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Hunter qame take questionnaires were aailed to 16,226 rancloaly 

selected huntinq licensees in July• of 1992, six aontb• later tban 

lolllal· These individuals represented approxiaately 4.4 percent of 

the total nWIIDir of licenses sold (371,878) in 1991. One follow-up 

mailinq, as compared to two in previous yesra, was .. nt to 

nonrespondents tour weeks after the initial aailinq. There were 439 questionnaires returned undeliverable, which left a total of 

15,787 possil:lle respondents. A total of 8,888 person~~ returned the 

questionnaire, representi1:19 approxiaate1y 2.4 percent of all 

huntinq licen~~e l:luyers, and a response rate of only 54.8 percent, 

down 20.6 percent fro• 1990. It was deterained throuqh the 

analysis of the survey that there was a hunti1:19 effort of 

approximately 371,878 hunting licensees who spent 4,951,716 days in 

the field. 

For the past several years, follow-up aailinqs to nonrespondents 

have significantly increased response to the questionnaires. This 

year only one follow-up aailinq was sent out, due to fiscal and 

personnel constraints, which resulted~ ... a clecres- of 20.6 percent 

in returns as c:oapared to 1990. The incresse of follow-up aaili1:19s 

reduces nonresponse l:liaa, the phenoaenon of -re auc:c:eaatul 

individuals (e.q., huntera) l:leinq 110ra inclined to return a questionnaire than unsucceasful or nonparticipatifl9 individuals. 

Nonresponse !:lias is one of the principle caues of inflated baCJ and 

hunter-use fiqures in surveys of this type. However, statistical 

analysis of survey data indicated hiqh validity tor species puraued 

by larqe nu.bers of hunters. 

HUnters frgw License Sales 

Hunting Licenses•• 

Deer Hunters (applications) 

Deer Tags 

Bear 1'&'.JS 

Federal OV.ck St01ps 

State Duck Staapa 

1990 

376,935 

249,129 

267,668 8,51$ 

59,784 

66,994 

1991 

371,878 

174,426 

253,308 

11.,468 

68,837 

68,380 

Percent 

Cbanqe 

Frpa 1990 

-1 

-30 

-5 

+25 

+13 

+2 

* Questionnaires usually sent out in January or the year. ** Values tend to increase slightly over the followinq year. 
456 

'P"!JMI IMJILanpw CD-I 

PPM• cteotMSM •nu•M'I» 

colorado Riur Zone no lon9er exception for li•its on redheads and 

canvasbacU· 

Merioy C!M\ u• cr='D IHrllM 

concurrent with duclt ... son, except ~t huntil\9 -y continue 

durinq the interia between ae;aenta or split duck aeaaona. 

co1on4o Uur 

Split aeason fro. the Friday after the first Saturday in October 

extendil\9 for 10 days and fro. the third· Monday in lfovellber 

extendift9 for 49 days. 

19Ja»en •u .tagpia yang All of ltinqs and Tulare counties and that portion of KAtrn county 

north of the southern CAlifornia zone waterfowl .. ason outlinecl. 

•uualllltO yang Area extendecl southerly alOI\9 the Sacra.ento River to tha town of 

Grt.es on tha Gr~a-Arbuckle Road. 

teatioa 507.1. ti\le 14. ega 

Staal shot requirecl stat-ide for waterfowl, ~ric:en Coot and 

coaaon Moorhen Huntinq. 

n•aau\• 

Bag and poa .. aaion li•ita cover entire atata. 

exceptions. 

m&&U 

llo county 

Del Horta, ~ldt, Laa .. n, Modoc, and siakiyoq counti .. addecl to 

balance of atata season. Entire counties of Lassen an4 MOdoc addecl 

to additional .. ason for .ountain quail • 

... lrpgM 

counti .. defined as areas. central Lassen Area outlinad. litu.ber 

of par~~ita c:lulnqecl: Eaat u .. en Ar .. - 32!5, central Laseen Area -

100, lforth Mono Araa - 4!50, South Mono and Inyo Ar.a - 125. 

Outline for parait application redefined. 

llpetlgfft4 tropse 

Pos .. asion luit incraasecl to four in the aiJIJrAOJAta of both 

apaciaa. 

QUt=Wltt ftHJlipa 

Perait nu.bara and guidelines delated. 
457 

rupqJ>gn M.Ulqe Ash creek Junior Antelope Hunt defined. hnaits chanqed to license 

tags: 665 Buck, 355 Doe. Authorization redefined. License taq distribution and conditions redefined. 

~ Penaits chanqed to License taqs. Guidelin .. redefined. 

T!llt Ilk 

Peraits chanqed to taqa. Guidelinea redefined. 

Jiqbon llleep Peraits chanqed to license taqs. Guidelines redefined. 

til« liq 

Eastern TehaJM County added to balance of state. 

IIO!Jiltaip Liop 

Mountain Lion (qenua Felis) reaoved trOll •aiq Gne• definition. 

Sport huntinq of aountain lions prohibited. 

ARRlicatiop/DiatribQt'~a of Qttr zaqa Redefined to incl' .e new areas and •pacific applicant qualifications. 

lac CooP 

Rifles added to method of take. 

ZnpUII 

Unpadded leq-hold traps prohibited statewide. Leq-hold traps aust 

be padded, contain anchor chains which are attached to center ot trap and swivels at both endll. Shock abaorbinq device and a pan 

tension adjustinq device .ust be included in padded traps. All 

padded traps aust be aaintained in qood condition and trapped furbearinq and nonqaae ....ala aust be killed or released 

immediately. Trapping area redefined. 
louOlUJl1if 

A 

D-ll 

D-16 

D-11 

S-1 

S-2 

s-7 

S-9 

S-16 

S-23 

S-25 

S-26 

S-27 

S-28 

S-29 

S-30 - S-40 

X-3a 

x-sa 

X-Sb 

x-sc 

X-6a 

X-6b 

X-7a 

X-7b 

x-8 

X-9a 

X-9b 

x-9c 

X-10 

X-11 

X-12 

458 

g»apg•• crow 1110 

65000 taqs. 

7000 taqs. 4500 taqs. Area red.erined.. 

500 taqs. 

Season chanqe and special condition applied. Special condition applied.. Special condition applied.. Deleted. 

300 taqs for auzzle-loadinq rifle. 

100 taqs Cor archery. Area and season redefined.. 

Season redefined.. 

Area, season, liaita, and special conditions 

defined.. 90 taqa. Season redefined. 

Area, season, liaita, and special conditions 

defined. 20 taqa. 

Special condition r .. oved. 

Areas, seasons, liaits, and special conditions 

defined. Taq nu.bers lieted. 

Number of taqs • 1250. 

One season openinq on the first Saturday in 

October and extendinq Cor 16 consecutive days. 275 taqa. one season openinq on the first Saturday in 

october and extendinq Cor 16 consecutive days. 500 taqa. one season openinq on the Cirst saturday in 

October and extandin9 Cor 16 consecutive days. 

Special conditions ra.oved. 750 taqs. Area redefined. 

1200 taqs. Area, season, and limits defined. 

2450 taqs. 1360 taqs. 580 taqs. 900 taqs. 850 taqs. Area redefined. 

300 taqs. Area, season, and liait defined.. 

850 taqs. Seasons and special conditions redefined. 

Period 1 - 500 taqs. Period 2 - 500 taqs. 1050 taqs. 
459 

TABLE 1 

ESTIMATED BAG AND HUNTER EFFORT BY SPECIES UPLAND GAME 

Percent 

ll2.2 llil. ~ 

PHtASAHTS 

Statewide Bag 242,136 255,024 +5 

Hunters Reported 76,059 87,150 +13 

Average Seasonal Bag 3.2 2.9 -9 

Total Days Hunted 323,082 384,090 +16 

Average Days Hunted 4.3 4.4 +2 

2YAil. 

statewide Bag 865,728 821,688 -s 

Hunters Reported 100,683 87,024 -14 

Average Seasonal Bag 8.2 9.4 +13 

Total Days Hunted 577,962 507,108 -12 

Average Days Hunted 5.7 5.8 +2 

~ 

Statewide Bag 1,651,590 1,922,340 +14 

Hunters Reported 111,807 124,782 +10 

Average Seasonal Bag 14.8 15.4 +4 

Total Days Hunted 427,437 517,482 +17 

Average Days Hunted 3.8 4.2 +9 

DAND-TAI~Q ~l~~QH~ 

Statewide Bag 28,674 26,964 -6 

Hunters Reported 10,152 8,442 -17 

Average Seasonal Bag 2.8 3.2 +12 

Total Days Hunted 26,595 23,100 -l3 

Average Days Hunted 2.6 2.7 +4 

~~ I!AEl:RI~t: 

Statewide Bag 43,794 58,128 +25 

Hunters Reported 12,312 9,618 -22 

Average Seasonal Bag 3.6 6.0 +40 

Total Days Hunted 43,443 35,574 -18 

Average Days Hunted 3.5 3.7 +5 
460 

TABLE 1 

(continued) 

Percent 

lli!l. ~ 

liill!ii liBQUiiiE 

Statewide Baq 1,944 -162 -76 

Hunters Reported 1, 7!5!5 -120 -76 

Averaqe Seasonal Bag 1.1 1.1 0 

Total Days Hunted 2,538 8-10 -67 

Average Days Hunted 1.!5 2.0 +25 

~~ElBUIIE~ §BQUSi 

Statewide Baq 7,716 10,920 +29 

Hunters Reported 6,183 5,628 -9 

Average Seasonal Bag 1.3 1.9 +32 

Total Days Hunted 23,166 26,712 +13 

Average Days Hunted 3.8 ••• +21 

.IA~JS BADDilS 

Statewide Bag 286,875 220,668 -23 

Hunters Reported 31,-182 25,2-12 -20 

Average seasonal Bag 9.1 8.7 

Total Days Hunted 290,628 270,522 -· -7 

Average Days Hunted 9.2 10.7 +U 

~QIIQHIAI~lDBUiiiH BADli\Illii 

Statewide Bag 170,964 116,886 -32 

Hunters Reported 32,103 20,706 -35 

Averaqe Seasonal Bag 5.3 5.7 +1 

Total Days Hunted 180,198 l-12,758 -21 

Average Days Hunted 5.6 6.9 +19 

IBE:E: !:i2.l.!U!lli~ 

Statewide Bag 123,228 111,720 -9 

Hunters Reported 29,214 23,436 -20 

Average Seasonal Bag 4.2 4.8 +12 

Total Days Hunted 161,487 146,496 -9 

Average Oays Hunted 5.5 6.3 +13 

WI~t! TURKEJC 

Statewide Bag 10,611 8,022 -24 

Hunters Reported 25,839 21,210 -18 

Average Seasonal Bag 0.4 0.4 0 

Total Oays Hunted 87,372 72,492 -17 

Average Oays Hunted 3.4 3.4 0 
461 

TABLE 1 

(continued) 

Percent 

l.ii.2 ~ 

~ 

Statewide Bag 1,027,647 1,297,254 +21 

Hunters Reported 73,710 87,360 +16 

Average Seaaonal Bag 13.9 14.9 +7 

Total Days HUnted 564,138 676,074 +17 

Average Days HUnted 7.7 7.7 0 

iiiU 

Statewide Baq 109,674 122,976 +ll 

Hunters Reported 35,883 33,474 -7 

Average s-sonal Bac; 3.1 3.7 +16 

Total Days HUnted 3()6,963 346,542 +11 

Averac;e Days Hunted 8.15 10.4 +17 

g~EB (8Ynt•t 5Y~•xl 

Statewide Bag 64,017 39,102 -39 

Hunters Reported 304,803 174,426 -u 

Total Days Hunted 2,231,307· 1,316,070 -41 

Average Days Hunted 7.3 7.6 +4 

lmEB Cl:l!ll B•t:Ylllll 

Statewide BaCJ 26,736 26,340 -2 

Daer Taq Sales 267,668 253,308 -5 

DEAB CHYDt•t 5yrvev1 

Statewide Baq 1,755 1,218 -31 

Hunters Reported 12,150 8,232 -32 

Total Days Hunted 83,754 64,260 -23 

Average Days Hunted 6.9 7.8 .+12 

lii~AB (l:ll$1 Re~u1111l 

Statewide Bag 1,187 1,493 +20 

Bear Taq Sales 8,615 11,468 +25 

WILD PIGS 

Statewide Baq 43,011 22,386 -48 

Hunters· Reported 54,729 31,206 -43 

Average Seasonal Baq 0.8 0.7 -12 

Total Days Hunted 367,848 190,764 -48 

Averaqe Days Hunted 6.7 6.1 -9 
462 

TABLE 2 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED STATEWIDE BAG - 1991 

Chanqe 

Averaqe from 

S!il!IS<.i.ll l2U-l2112 ~ .au ~ 

Pheasant 344,144• 242,136 255,024 +St 

Quail 1,041,871 865,728 821,688 -st 

Dove 2,298,251 1,651,590 1,922,340 +14t 

Chukar Partridge 43,724 43,794 58,128 +25l 

Sage Grouse 939*"' 1,944 462 -76\ 

Blue/RUffed Grouse 7,964 7,776 10,920 +29t 

Band-tailed Pigeons· 75,518 28,674 26,964 -6\ 

Wild Turkeys 7,533 10,611 8,022 -2n 

J'ac:k Rabbits 316,806 286,875 220,668 -23\ 

cottontail Rabbits 278,154 170,964 116,886 -32l 

Tree Squirrels 144,282 123,228 111,720 -n 

Ducks 1,305,355 1,027,647 1,297,254 +2U 

Geese 124' 592 109,674 122,976 +11, 

Jacksnipe 22,936 22,842 31,458 +27, 

Coots 61,058 11,69.1 13,524 +13\ 

Deer (Hunter Survey) 59,012 64,017 39,102 -39t 

Deer (Tag Returns)*** 29,210 26,736 26,340 -2t 

Bear (Hunter Survey) 1,518 1,755 1,218 -Jll 

Bear (Taq Returns) 1,150 1,187 1,493 +20l 

Wild Piqs 44,041 43,011 22,386 -48l 

Note: 1989 numbers are rounded to nearest hundred. 

* 1988 pheasant data not comparable to previoua years or 1989 data. 

** Saqe qrouse season closed troa 1983-1986, data represents 1987-89. 

***Taq return numbers are not rounded because they are not estiaates. 
463 

!l ~~~~;-~ i~!~~;~~~~1~~~~~~~~! ll!_ 

Iii:;~=~~ s 

IS!U;; f f ~;~~i!~-!~i~5i!~$ii~ ... 

II .... tii•tt ii~~;Nji;~~iti~NSi~a ;I; :: p-~- e 

.. 

II !.~--~--~ ~{··~~~~~~~(~~~~~~~~ I -~i!! 1::~ ~~aa~~~~·· ~Ea!~3~~· i .. - ,.; 

i I U!iUi ~-~~~~~!!!IJ~JII~I!! ! 

~ ~;tj:~'lii ii~~:i!i!t~~iii!~i~i· i _,.. .. ~ li~iHi! i!ii!f~!!s~ii~J!II!I ! ' !I ; sia=ii i~~~iii~~· iii6~iaiN i 

... · ! 

.. i • :ii5!USS; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~~\~~ • j i !~t .. ·~i l"'--~i~~a·a~jl!i6~~=~· _,. - ~ ~ 

! ~!Uiaiii -~=~-~! !~~·-~~1!;ae ~ !I $ -·~· :;; ~ l::tiC 

ill ,!-~=-~'i ~,~~ii~~a•a~i~i(i~i~ I. ~ -.. - .. 

! u;;~~e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ! i. ~ ~ 9~g::·~i ~~ -t!~~~~d~=1!~!i~~ t 

i _.,. - ~· 

I l!li!UJ -~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ il fii~isi ~~ ~~~~~· elsi~!;~· fllttl't --

_,. - ~ 

~ ~~ I.. .. I . e 

L i afil f! J j_, I !_,_ bJll:•t l . iiJt!! ~~~~f· i1 iJii IJ i 

JUJU llJJil!li:J11illlili I 
TAIU 4 

STATEIIIDf IUITU$ 1911·19111 

--Ell Ull .1!Ji 3m l!li .I!IZ 

- Ca,pllutl .. Soldl 271,906 2n,m M0,26Z 295,220 232,041 2

_,_.,............,, :561,5:18 2116,1114 JZJ,596 JOO,SU 254,721 J

- Ca,pltUCI- lotdl 14,571 11,017 11,944 9,1164 11,971 

_,_.,............,, 15,1150 ,, .. 14,40t 10,914 11,1R 

lllld ..... J9,JIO Jt,IOI 45,129 49,929 44,472 

-· ur,zzo 146, .. 115,241 12,124 16,951 l

-·· 

145,110 1D,tt2 125,419 101,011 10J,t46 1

- 175,550 ID,IIO lts,S71 ua.- t54,m 1

__ ", .. 

19,2:18 tt,ZIO 15,925 14,512 IZ,»o 

.... -...,, ... - 5,200 5,724 6,951 4,947 5,57t 

--- a.- a.- a.- a.- .,. 

.-.reiiiOIIPI- 25,550 25,112 11,130 14,~ 14,156 

...,._, .. 64,630 110,410 42,511 JZ,51t 54, ... 

c.tt-•11 ....... 67,1150 14,541 46, .. , 40,1J7 ••• 

, ................ JI,JIO 3.'1,941 41,lrt 3.'1,742 )4,610 5

...... "'·'"' IJI,MO 111,Zl7 

··- ,, ... 

- l4,S11 51,104 61,446 J7,610 Jl,l'M J

- "·- 12,616 7,497 4,410 4,551 

........ ,. ··-5,076 J,7Z4 1,951 1,972 

""-' '""'• IJ,110 ,.,.., 14,11U 14,5» 11,174 
465 

TABLE S 

TOP TEll COUNTIES FOR TAKE OF SEL!CTEII GAME SPECIES - 1991 

' OF STATE ' OF STATE 

PHEASANTS :mw. JACX RAIJIIS :mw. 

l> COW SA 15.0 l> SAN JIUNAJll)INO 11.1 

2> YOtD 13.5 2> YOtD 9.5 

3> SOLANO 8.6 3> SAN JOAQUIN 8.8 

4> SU'ITEil 8.2 4> SOLANO 6.1 

S> SACIWWITO 7.5 5> Tt1LARE 5.6 

6> lltlTrE 6.5 6> ltEIUf 5.5 

7> SAN JOAQUIN 6.4 7> SISKIYOU 4.8 

8> GLEIIN 5.4 8> lliVEKSIDE 4.1 

9> STANISLAUS 4.6 9> SA.CilA!Il!NTO 3.6 

10> PLACER 2.8 10> MODOC 3.0 

!mAil. CO'l"''ONT61L II.AIIIIlD 

1> SAN IIERlWl.DINO 10.3 l> SAN IIIIUWtDDIO 19.6 

2> JtEIUf 9.8 2> I.IV!llSIDl 8.9 

3> lt'IVEII.SIDE 5.1 3> ltEIUf 7.4 

4> HUKIIOLDT 5.0 4> IMPEI.lAL 5.3 

5> LOS ANGELES 4.1 5> STANISLAUS 5.2 

6> TII.INITY 4.0 6> VllftUIA 4.0 

7> FltESNO 3.9 7> SAil Dl£00 4.0 

8> Tt1LARE 3.9 8> PI.ESIIO 3.6 

9> IKPEitiAL 3.7 9> LOS ANGELES 3.1 

10> SISKIYOU 3.2 10> SACIAKEIITO 3.1 

~ mDi 

1> FltESNO 10.3 1> COLUSA 17.0 

2> JtEIUf 9.1 2> IIIICID 14.7 

3> RIVERSIDE 9.1 3> $0Lo\l(() 9.4 

4> IKPEitlAL 8.6 4> JUTrE 6.3 

5> TI1LAU 7.7 5> svrn:a 4.5 

6> SAN IIERlWl.DINO 3.1 6> DI1'IRIAL 3.4 

7> SAil J'o.\QUDI 3.7 7> l.lVDSIDI 3.3 

8> KADEaA 3.5 8> SAil .JOAQUlll 3.3 

9> STANISLAUS 3.4 9> YOtD 3.2 

10> KIJfCS 3.3 10> n.ESliO 3.1 

11AHD-I6UIR lJ:~I!OIIs alii 

1> MORTEU:Y 1.9 1> COLUSA 26.0 

2> KENOOCllfO 7.0 2> I11I'TI 11.2 

3> TI.INITY 5.3 3> liDDOC 9.1 

4> mrn: 5.1 4> GUIIIIf 9.0 

5> SAN WIS OIISPO 5.1 5> SISKIYOU 8.7 

6> SISKIYOU 4.8 6> DIPII.lAL 8.6 

7> AIW)Oit 4.5 7> ltlaCID 4.0 

8> SAN aERlWl.DINO 4.2 8> IUn1llt 2.5 

,9> SANTA CRUZ 4.2 9> STAlllSLAUS 2.3 

10> !WliN 3.9 10> SAil JOAQUlll 1.9 
466 

!I • ~ • "! .. ; :1 I s .. :.:; 

i IJ ~ • ... "t ;:! ~ I ::1 i ..: N 

:: !I .. .. ... • 0 

.,; l I 

= 

..: ~ :; i II .. • "! .. 8 3 I • ..: ::i .. It 

i 

i !I "': .. .. 

- ~ ::! ! I ~ =i ..: ~ I 

II i II ~ .. N .. .. ~ I ! ~ i. i i. 

i 

;; • i 

i = :1 

• Iii :i !I • N • ... "! ~ I i .. 15 .. ... ~ .. IIi • ... I ;:; .. s a II ... .. • ... .. :J ! I i .. ; .. .. ~ 

I e 

a 

! !I "' • "! • 3 I i ~ = ::1 II i 

= I II • ~ "! • "'! ~ I .. 

• ~ ;; • Rl 

!I .. "! • ~ ... .. .. ~ I !:! .. .. 

I II ... ... • "! .. .; ... "' 3 I 

= ... 

- N ..,_ .. fll' 

I I I I I I 
!AILE 1 

DISTRIIUTIOII Df IUHER EFFOIT IY GAME SPECIES • 1991 

NUIIber of IILI'Itera 

il!l£in ll&al1ll1 !.!nlt.SEIIIhd !i1ll. .I!5Wl

Door J4,27Z 140,154 174,426 19.

.... 1,211 7,014 1,232 ·14.

lltld Pig 10,542 20,664 31,206 33.

toyoto 7,196 6,384 14,2110 55.

-·t 294 156 1,050 21.

CrOll 4,116 462 4,511 19.

,.. ...... 59,220 27,930 17,150 61.

O...or Portrldgo 6,611 2,940 9,611 69.

-II 67,200 19,124 17,024 77.

Dovel 112,770 12,012 124,712 90.4 

lond·totlod ,._. 5,670 2,m 1,442 67.

._, ..... 252 161 420 60.

11 .. /luffod Gr ... o ],731 1,190 5,621 66.4 

Jock lobbltl 20,190 4,452 25,242 13.

Troo SC,.irrolo 11,606 4,130 23,436 79.4 

cou ... totl lobbitl 17,094 3,612 20,706 12.6 

lltld Turkoyo 6,J42 14,161 21,210 29.9 

Ducko 77,994 9,366 17,360 19.3 

-· 23,226 10,241 ]3,474 69.4 

Jock lnipo 2,142 294 2,436 17.9 

Cooto 1,631 161 1,106 90.7 

T7.l,5N., 

All ...,ton • 371,171 

Due to - hunter often turt:tr~~ ..-e th .. - epec:IH. the percent of All eew.ten per ~p~eln totela to ..,

•••- tho totol ..-.of lluntoro r-tod (]71,171). 
468 

TABLE I 

HUNT!a SUCCESS 1960·91 

Aa Reported by Hunter Survey Re•pondent• 

(Percentaae) 

Hunted Hunted 

Did Hot Hunt UNJlSceufully Sucetufully 

1960 7 211 65 

1961 8 21 64 

1962 8 28 64 

1963 9 25 66 

1964 7 23 70 

1965 10 24 67 

1966 11 23 66 

1967 10 22 61 

1968 10 22 61 

1969 10 21 69 

1970 11 22 67 

1971 l3 23 64 

1972 12 23 65 

1973 10 25 65 

1974 10 22 61 

1975 12 23 65 

1976 11 25 64 

1977 11 25 64 

1978 14 24 62 

1979 14 22 63 

1980 11 26 64 

1981 13 29 58 

1982 12 32 56 

1983 12 31 57 

1984 14 27 59 

1985 13 28 59 

1986 13 30 57 

1987 17 26 57 

1988 10 29 61 

1989 11 27 62 

1990 11 31 5I 

1991 12 25 63 
469 

II !!s•·~~!~~~~~-~!~~s~~~~~~~a~a-i!~~a~!~!!!!~s· a ~- "--~-N ~N ~ NN ~ N 

I ~·~-~!~~~~~~-~~!~··~-·~·~--~·-~{-IIJ!~i·J·•~• -·-· -=·-· " M ~ 4 - •N ""N N NN 

I •I =··~~~~a••••··~·~a~s·~-~•·••!~!s·•••·~a·~·=!a I -- - - - . 

1 ··~~~~·~~~~~--~~~sa~-~~!{·~~~-~~-~~~!~~·a·a~• -~·~ .MN• M M N • N N- -- - N- ·-

1 $~·~··•··~·s~~~~~~~•·•·~-~~-·~··~~~~~·~~~··•' - " . . "- -- " - =·-···- -

1 •·s~r~!·•~-~~-~~as~~·!=~~~~··••·~~••'~f•~·s•• - • •-• ·- ·- - s•-e•• -- -

i a··~~~~·~-~~~~~·•·~~=·~~~~~~~-~-~~~~~~s·~··!· • SN ·--- ~ N ·- ------- ·~-~-~ N 

.. 

-~ -•••as•~·~~~e~'l''~l~=•~••••a•·~·1a•~a•••a•·~· -·-·- -~·-~- ~ NM~ N a••--·- ~ ~ ~ -~-•~ N ~ N z 
470 

• •• !~;~··~-~~!~J ~ •. --- ~ 

I ~~~~-~~~~~l!~ ~ N -· .... ,..._._ f'lrf = 

.. 

~~ ~J·~~~!J!:~~! I 

§ i 

I -~-~~!~~~~~!~ • -- ·- ~-4~ M ! ~ 

i ~~~~-~~~~~~!~ ~ -~· == ~--s·--N s ! _ 

- ~ II !!lll!li!E~!f ~ f 

! 

I ~~!~~~-~-~~!- ~ j .... ·---.... --... tl -- - - N 1 

! 

i 
lAil£ 9 (coni: irutd) 

SJAtEVIDE MGt flUIIITEU. DA.$ 1991 

-· -IPE 

IA!I M1Ul I!AU IA!I IMll1!l WI IA!I 

Ill.- 1,512 126 672 0 0 0 0 

III.PIIE 0 62 e4 0 0 0 0 

- 210 210 2,1S6 0 a • 336 

IUfll 11,734 2,616 33,414 •n 126 198 I,OSO 

tALA- 0 14 126 0 0 0 0 

- 30,492 6,13Z 90,634 1,344 168 2,436 1,092 

CIIIIIA COllA ZS2 210 2,411 a 0 a 0 

HLIIOIIII 0 0 0 0 a 0 462 

n- 0 14 210 a a 0 0 

··- 1M 210 1,092 0 a a 84 

GI.M 11,046 1,!1'16 zz,oso 630 42 210 84 

_., 42 42 126 6,611 SM 5,696 1,512 

·-·Al 10,514 2,100 19,124 536 42 126 e4 

IIYD 210 1M 1,428 0 0 0 0 

ICfll 2911 462 4,511 IM 42 84 3,864 

··- 0 42 ZS2 0 0 a 0 

ua 42 42 420 536 42 84 0 

~· 924 462 2,:194 2V 42 14 0 

lGI-lU 1M 126 546 0 0 0 a 

- 0 126 2911 42 42 14 0 

lAIII 14 84 252 0 0 0 0 

IAIII'OIIA 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 

_,_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

- 4,914 1,932 2J,520 4,052 ZS2 1,050 14 

- 12,1154 2,114 13,566 126 14 126 0 

- 14 14 1,260 0 0 0 0 

.. , .. , a 0 0 0 0 a 0 

- IM 210 2,562 420 42 14 0 

- 42 42 a 0 0 0 a 

- • 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PI.Miil 630 546 5,5116 0 0 0 210 

- 210 126 546 0 0 0 0 

··-·· 2,114 1,610 15,6111 420 14 140 1,260 

-0 2,110 756 4,1150 210 42 14 2911 

NII(IIIIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 

.. ..-.. 1,932 504 ],654 0 0 0 0 

Ml OIEIO 1M 210 9116 0 0 0 140 

--·· 2,:194 19t 7,JGI 504 14 210 126 

MllUII.IIfG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

WIIIIEO 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 

NITA- 462 42 1,134 0 0 0 0 

NIIAC\MA 0 G 0 0 0 G 0 

NIIACIIIIl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

-ITA 1,512 620 Z,55Z 0 0 0 0 

SIEHA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
GEESE .IACXSIIIP£ IIIOTS 

l6li lllll!l.W M!! w lllll!l.W M!! lb& l!!lllW 

SIHIYOU 10,710 2,310 23,982 252 126 126 630 ·16

IIOUIO 882 198 224 1,050 126 1'118 546 8

- 42 84 378 3,150 84 1,092 0 

STAIIISLAIJS 2,m 252 4,9'18 a 0 0 0 

sunu ],066 1,596 17,SS6 420 84 420 ]78 4

fE- 210 210 see 0 0 0 0 

IIIIITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

fUUIE 1611 42 1,050 0 0 0 0 

fUOl- 126 84 1611 0 0 0 0 

ll!iiiTUIA 462 1611 4,116 9,744 126 2,11911 1611 4

YOlO 1,2f8 840 7,560 210 84 126 0 

1'11111 1,764 882 1,736 0 0 0 0 

-- 2,940 1,050 5,502 462 84 84 294 4

fOfAI. 12Z,976 33,474 346,542 ]1,451 2,436 15,540 11,524 1,110

• 1M fronclaco not ltatod •-• no h~Jntlng all- In cG~Jnty. 
473 

i !··~·~··r~:!··~!!··~·~!~·-~!··~~=·~=·!!~~~~~· 

il a··!•J••a~!~··~s~··a·!~!··~·!·t~•·~~-!~~-~·~· :_. - - - tit ... N "" --

1 ·····-l··~•!!!•··~••·····~a··~···········•·!~·!· N N' ..,..,.. .- N 

II ~~~~~~~~~~-~!!~S~~~~~~~!~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ I "~M·- -="-= ~ ~ .. ~- -· - N~~ ~~~ --~ N -- ~N 

1 ••~•t!!!!!!l~!J~·~~·•s•·i!~·a•lf!'l!!!i!li!li!l'l!!!!l·sa - "' .. ... 

i ·~·····~siE·t·•···s~··~·············iE···!~··a· 

i I ., ...... •s·····························a···,. 
474 

I •tl5.!i•••'•J I 

,; ::i 

I •••••••a••••= 
475 

~ J!!& 00 !~Ja~o!ooaooooo~o~!oo!o~aooooooooooo!! 

. ~ ~ 

I 

~~ -~······~··~·~········~·····!"1"""""········· 

I o!!·a··~!!~~O!DO!OOOOO~-·=····a·············a 

.. ~ 

I oo~~~o~~~-!~!·!•~!oo~o~~oo~!.!!·~··~~·~·a!~~~ 

- - - - - N - - - -

72-354 0 - 93 -- 16 
476 

11 g•ca•~ls~··!g ; 

.. 

I ~··~·~~!···~· I 

.. 

I t••····~····~ I 

.: - .. i 

g J~~~-·~~!a!·g ~ 

- 1:1 

I aag~·~!!•lf•! J .: .: • f 

g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ s ···~~= •Nc~s ~ J 

1i II ~!!!!!!~·~~~! ~ i 

I 

I ~~-~~~~~~~~~~ ~ J :!ICI:IIl:C ="':lll:li:; ! 

! 

I 

I 

! I = II I ! !lllllil il I I 
i 

477 

i ··!!·•~··~····~·!·a·~-.~~·s·····~!-~!, ••••••. - - ~ M -

1 ··•a·!···e····•·a·!·~·!••·a···!·!•·•~•··••··· - ~ • j • ~ 

i t·!·,~~··•··~!~--~9·!·!9Jis~····!•!~~~!·s•··· 

I II ~·•·•!~··~·~~~~··al·!·'a!aa~~--·~~~~~···•···· I - -

1 ~·g·!~~··g·~s~~--~~-~-~~~~~~s···•s•••••·~···· - - • H- : 4 -

i l·~~!~~~~~~~~s~~=·•~s·=~~--~·-~-~~•··~~-~~~~· -• ~~ •e • •N • ~- • Na~ a 

I

I •~•~!~~··~~~~~~~~~'~'·'~J·•!··~·J~!•'~'·a!''. I ~ s- N• - - - N N ~ • 
478 

I ~~~~!·!~-~!=! 5 

•I !!•••·~!···~~ ~ 

11 ~~~~~--~~~u-. ,.. __ ... - - I ~ 

II a••= ~~~~~~-~~--~- ( ,. :::.a=rl"""' .. i 

.! 

I ~~~~~~~~--~~- ~ 1 ·~·••• : ~·· I i 

II ~(~~-~~~--~~~ ~ I 

-· ··- N ·N- ' I 

II ililll~1··~~~ I ) ~=~=i~ ~ ~·· E I 

I 

I 

I ! = II I ! !1111111 il I ~ 
479 

Mr. Rob Blair 

711 Ranoh 

P.O. Box 8 

Bssex, CA 92332-0008 

June 17, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

National Parks, Forest & Public Lands Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

I am writing as a follow-up to the hearing held on June 15, 

1993 regarding H.R. 518. I respectfully request that this letter 

be incorporated into the record of that hearing as both an attachment and follow-up to the testimony presented in order to 

clarify questions asked and statements made during the hearing 

process. 

First, I would like to clarify the question over the language 

that allows the Director of the National Parks Service to renew or not renew grazing permits. Yes, this language is similar to the 

language that allows the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 

to renew or not renew grazing permits. However, these are two 

different agencies under two different mandates. The National 

Parks Service does not allow grazing in any parks we know of, as it 

does not fit into the management of parks per their mandate from 

Congress. On the other hand, the Bureau of Land Management is a multiple use land management agency that is mandated for multiple use by Congress, especially in the case of desert ranchers who have 

preferential AUM's that are tied to private property per the Taylor 

Grazing Act. In that case, the Bureau of Land Management must 

almost always reissue grazing permits as they expire. Therefore, we oppose giving the National Parks Service Director the authority 

to review our grazing permits at the end of the term under the 25 

year probation period. Of course, in no case do we approve having our lands stolen from us at the end of 25 years, or at any other 

time. 
480 

Page 2. 

Additionally, the spokesperson for the Wilderness Society 

mentioned that cattle grazing would not be a factor based upon the 

Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. This is entirely false. We are currently working with the Bureau of Land Management and the United 

States Fish & Wildlife Service on both a Section 7 Consultation 

Package and the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan and have found both 

agencies to be very informative and cooperative in working with us. But, because of our preferential AUM' s tied to our private property 

rights, it appears that Desert Tortoise management schemes should 

not substantially effect cattle grazing in the Mahave Desert as was reported in the subcommittee. 

Finally, it appears through comments expressed at the hearing 

that some on the subcommittee make light of our industry, as it was suggested that the hunting issue be solved by allowing hunters to 

hunt cows. Unfortunately, this is the livelihood into which we have poured our multi-generations of sweat, hard work, dedication, 

and commitment. We feel that it is unfortunate that we fly to our nation's Capitol to have elected officials make light of our way of 

life, our heritage, our traditions, and all of the hard work that we have put forth to carve a nitch in this society as productive 

members, voters, and tax payers of the United States of America. 

Again Chairman Vento, thank you for allowing us to comment at 

the subcommittee hearing. We hope the subcommittee will see fit 

not to steal the land from the tax payers of the United States. 

Sincerely, 

Rob Blair 

California Cattleman 

cc: High Desert Cattlemen's Association 

California Cattlemen's Association 

National Cattlemen's Association 

Public Lands Council 

California Wood Growers Association 

Agricultural Council of California 
481 

CALIFORNIA ENDURO RIDERS ASSOCIATION 

P .0. DOH 4461 

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95054 

June 14, 1993 

Hon. Bruce Vento 

Chrmn, Subcommitte on 

National Parks & Public Lands 

ATTN: C. Stanley Sloss 

H1-812 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

The California Enduro Riders Association wishes to submit the 

following information concerning the hearings proposed for HR-518, 

the "California Desert Protection Act•. We wish to have all of the 

following information incorporated into the public record of these 

hearings. 

We support many programs to protect the California Desert from 

degradation of many forms, but we OPPOSE HR-518 because it 

attempts to accomplish the protections we all desire by merely 

closing off the desert to many forms of legitimate recreation. These 

forms of recreation have had negligible overall impact upon the 

California desert. 

Much of the testimony you will obtain during your hearings will be 

contradictory, and require that your subcommittee weigh not only 

what is said, but the credibility of who said what. 

The Sierra Club wrote the original version of this bill, and is its 

primary sponsor. As documented by the Federal Elections 

Commisison, the Sierra Club has provided financial contributions to 

all of the US Senators and members of the US House of 

Representatives who have sponsored this proposed legislation. The 

Sierra Club has also provided financial contributions to most of the 

majority party's members in both the House and Senate working 

committees who will pass committee judgement on this proposed 

legislation. The Sierra Club has also provided financial contributions 
482 

to the Chairmen of both the House and Senate Committees who will 

lead consideration of this proposed legislation. 

We believe that the Sierra Club's claims about the extent, nature and 

source of environmental problems in the California desert are 

exxagerated in most cases, untrue in several cases, and overall 

reflect a phony crisis-du-jour mentality. This type of "hype" from 

the Sierra Club across a broad range of environmental issues has not 

gone un-noticed by responsible elected public officials. 

We wish to enter into the public record for the hearings on HR-518 

the following letter from Governor Walter J. Hickel of the State of 

Alaska, to the Sierra Club's executive director, a Mr. Carl Pope. This 

letter identifies the same phony crisis-du-jour exxagerations and 

untrue statements that have become calling cards of the Sierra Club 

to elected public officials, such as the House Subcommittee on 

National Parks and Public Lands. 

We wish to have members of the House Subcommittee on National 

Parks and Public Lands recognize that the point-by-point 

declarations made by Governor Walter J. Hickel of Alaska to the 

phony pronouncements by the Sierra Club to activities in Alaska can 

be equally applied to the many phony pronouncements made by the 

Sierra Club to activities in the California desert. 

~ trulgours, 

I 't:A..i 6:-,'%. u.__ 

Tony Pav ne 
483 

Altvdat L'halleuge.\· Sierra L'lttb! 

s-ofAltub 

0/fk• oftlu Go•mwr Gov.mor"• LMtw to: 

Mr.c.tFopc 

&ec:athoeDbclor,SierraCiab 

,. ........ S.~CA94109 

Dar Mr. Pope: 

IDCCd"fOIII:bclp. 

Receadyak:as'wid:J)'OIII'siplan,.. 

ICDI.OIIIl~-~.,n:pelllll 

tbcSiaraOab. 

..... Hlw.yoaiOellil'l _ kre8dlikeapiDceoat 

AIMb.mdmryftCipicatofdiiiiNW, ____ 

isaviclilaol~'Ille~ 

.._, 

tbllorpaizatioadilcora~aboat 

ourpe.illllalefor1bc**JU1101eollaDdraisinJ. Wboeverllllllddl-.lflllllnlllly belieWI dill railiq mc.y Is more ilapwtanllllllldletndb. 

I kDow die Siena CJaab m.n:aDy bas 

supponed lOGie IIOii8 c... - idelll. 'Ibilletler,bonw:a',CJOIIIC!dtbeliDeiO 

flaaticiml. Aadta.icia.DO-bow welliJIIeDtiQacd.tl'ldlpleldlehdl. 

Ica..atbdiml)wt~W'Oald 

suppontdyiaaoalieiiOnile.-eyfrom 

deceatAIDerlcalll. PleMepermilmeiO 

paelll 10 )'0111' membenbip • poial-bypoiDtr..-eotbil ....... cW.: SllrnCIU: .. Alllb. ... iailllbobladl 

ofpowerfal-wboa~to 

dclln)yAlllb'apo::iollawilda." 

FACl: LeadllamiHIIIIolm.eper· ceoaotAllilb.•boeadeftJoped. Alld 

IIlii ba beea doae Clftllally, wida llriet 

envirtllalc:alll)ll'OMICtioll.lllowlifc:CiDo, 

m will proMbly DC¥11' * m~e pacaat ol 

--- SiwnCJU,• ... - .... pvw~~:~ ............... ~m-. .. FACT: Webbelbetwo ... .._. 

foreltllalbeUailedS-. n...ilvlrbt-- allynologilltMal.tltiatpiDia ... !5.6 lllillioa.-zeCIIupc:Jii~Polelc.Of 

Tell Your fr1ocnds .tbout 

81uocl1tbhon M •9 ILin~' 

J..,.Imlr ... u 
484 

IEXECUTIVfi 

OFFICI 

MOTORCYCLE 

INDUSTRY 

COUNCIL, INC. 2 Jenner Street. Stlta 150, lrw1e. CA 92718-3812 • (714J 727-4211 • FAX {714!727-4217 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks & Public lands 

Hl-812, U.S. Houseof.Representalives 

Washington, D.C. 20S1S 

Attn: Mr. Stanley Sloss 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

June 10, 1993 

Please find attached an official position Slalement from the Motorcycle Industry Council 

regarding the Callfonlia Delert Protedloll Act (H.R. 518). We are submittla& this for 

the record for the heuiap scbecluled for Juae 15, 1,3. 

Our association anticipates significant economic i.mplct should this bill become law in ita 

curmtt form. California's economic recovery is stilllaging bebind the rest of the nation 

and can ill-afford further banbhip. Statewide, it hu been estimated that California has lost 

800,000 jobs as a IIIIIUlt of lhe curmtt R'JCCSSion. The rural communities in lhe desert 

regions have been lhe most affected, with unemployment pmendy at 33" in Imperial 

County alone. Theile farming and resource-based counties will be dealt a serious blow by 

8.21. 

We mge you to give due eonsidaation to lhe argumenta bc::in& made by lhe opponenta of this 

bill. By doing 10, we believe a more Jelllible piece of J .. slatjon can be c:neated to protect 

lhe desert without placing unnecessary burden on California's ec:onomic recovery. 

The Motorcycle Industry Council would be plealed to work with you and the Subcommittee 

staff to arrive at a JII(D blllanced proposal. Feel free to contact us if we can provide 

additional informldon. 

c:c: Honorable Ridlanl Lellman 
MOTORCYCLE 

INDUSTRY 

COUNCIL, INC. 

485 

EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE 

2 Jenner Street, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92718-3812 • [714) 727-4211 • FAX (7141727-4217 

rosmoN STATEMENT 

CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT (S.21 & H.R. 518) 

The Motorcycle Industry Council opposes the California Desert 

Protection Act in its present form. We believe it is unnecessary and 

overly restrictive in its approach. Many activities, including recreational 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, would be eliminated or severely curtailed 

should this legislation be enacted. 

We estimate that there are 268,200 off-highway motorcycles and ATVs in 

use in Southern California, and approximately 670,500 operators. Over 

seven hundred retail outlets employ approximately 4,000 people. The 

estimated economic value of this marketplace exceeds $234 million 

annually. The CDPA would make almost three-fourths of the presently 

accessible desert (about 12 million acres) unaccessible to any form of 

mechanized transport. We feel that a closure of this magnitude will 

seriously impact the OHV marketplace. In addition, we estimate losses in 

the millions to governmental bodies in the form of state sales taxes, 

personal income taxes, and vehicle registration fees. 

As an alternative to the proposed legislation, we would urge the Congress 

to incorporate significant changes to S.21 & H.R. 518 to reduce the 

devastating impacts to OHV recreation. Specific proposals pave been 

submitted by various user groups including the American Motorcyclist 

Association and the California Association of Four-Wheel Drive Clubs. 

These changes would preserve traditional OHV use areas and protect key 

access routes without compromising the intent of the legislation. The MIC 

endorses these recommendations and urges the Congress to incorporate 

them into S.21 & H.R. 518 in their entirety. 

Tile MOIOI'r:yCk llltbulry CoMN:il (MIC) is t1 lfDitJ1fYift lltJiiolltllll'tllk tJ.UociiJiioft reprrsmtill1 1fiiiiiii/OC1llren 

tJIId tlimfiHIIon of ~Is. ~k pti1U tJIId ~. tJIId mmriJers of tJili«< tl'tlda. 
486 

UNOCALe 

J. WIUIMI lcbard Dlndor, ~ AftaU 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chainaan 

June 25, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 

and PUblic Lands 

812 O'Neill House Office Buildinq 

washinqton, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of Molycorp, Inc., a Unocal company, I am writinq 

to request that the enclosed statement by Mr. Robert A. seqa of 

Molycorp be aade part of the Subcommittee's record for the July 15 hearinq on H.R. 518, California Desert Protection Act of 1993. 

Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. 

Enclosure 
487 

Statement for the Hearing Record 

of 

Robert A. Seqa 

Manager, Mountain Pass Plant 

Molycorp, Incorporated 

on 

H.R. 518 

California Desert Protection Act of 1993 

Before the 

National Parks, Forests and PUblic Lands subcommittee 

of the Committee on Natural Resources 

United states House of Representatives 

Washington, D.c. 
488 

-1-

On behalf of Molycorp, Incorporated, this testimony is 

submitted for the hearing record on H.R. 518, the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1993. Molycorp opposes enactment of this 

legislation as written. 

Molycorp, Incorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unocal 

Corporation in Los Angeles, California, mines and processes 

lanthanides, or rare earths, at Mountain Pass, California. 

Molycorp is the only primary domestic producer of lanthanides in a non-coiDlllunist country. Lanthanides are critical strategic elements 

which have widely diverse applications and uses such as: 

1) Automobile exhaust catalysts and other emission controls; 

2) Application in the area of high temperature 

superconductors where both lanthanum and yttrium are used; 

3) Ultra high strength permanent magnets (electric motors); 

4) Solid state lasers (medical and industrial uses); 

5) Missile guidance systems and microwave communications; 

6) Catalysts for petroleum refining (essential for gasoline production); 

7) Color TV phosphors and personal computers. 

Molycorp believes that the close proximity to and partial 

inclusion of its Mountain Pass mining operation in a new national 

park would severely impact its operations. This presents issues 

for the existing facility in the areas of air quality, the 

potential claim of degradation of scenic vistas, and in noise 

generated outside the park. 

In addition, future exploration and mining activities within 

the proposed East Mojave Park would in effect be eliminated, 

notwithstanding prior existing claims. The subcommittee should 

also recognize that the international economics of mining require that we seek to develop the most productive deposits of minerals, 

not merely those that may exist outside some arbitrary park 

boundary. 

At stake in the California Desert is this country's richest, 

most diversely mineralized region. More than 65 mineral 

coJDlllodities are known to occur in the Desert. These minerals are important in national and international markets and have strategic applications. These coiDlllodities are not duplicated in content, 

quality or quantity in another location in the world. 
489 

-2-

The ability of some of this country's most prominent mining companies to keep producing these materials is threatened by this 

legislative proposal. 

As a basic industry, mineral exploration and development is 

delicately woven into the supply and demand which drives the 

economic system. Discovery of minerals may be stimulated by market 

opportunities, or -- as in the case of lanthanides -- discovery of 

minerals creates new needs. A forecast of the material needs and 

economic conditions of the coming decades is beyond any realm of 

possibility. 

Exploration is an on-going dynamic process. No single company or source can document every mineral site. As an example, a new yttrium deposit in the Mojave Desert is under consideration in 

Riverside County in a program unrelated to Molycorp. Also, over half of California's known geothermal resource areas are in the 

California Desert. Unocal's Geothermal Division and other 

companies have interests in many prospective areas within the 

boundaries proposed by H.R. 518. 

A guiding force of geology which should be considered by all 

of those with responsibility for land use decisions is: the absence 

of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

The minerals industry is constantly being changed by the 

dynamics of both economics and technology. Technological advances 

in exploration, equipment and processing techniques have made 

deposits economic today that could not be mined economically two 

decades ago. 

Thirty years ago Mountain Pass had little or no value. Today 

many high-tech industries depend upon its minerals. The point is 

that no one can predict which minerals will be valuable or useful 

in the future. If these lands are withdrawn from mineral entry and 

multiple use it will preclude any future mineral discovery or extraction from them. 

There are many points about this legislation's impact on the 

desert's mineral production potential. To mention just a few: 

-- Mining is compatible with the environment. The Desert Plan 

requirements, coupled with the state of California's stringent rules, create the most intense regulatory framework for mining 

operations in this country. 

-- Mineral resources are not a "bankable" option for the 

future if they cannot be discovered. Availability of tomorrow's resources rests exclusively on today•s exploration. 
490 

-3-

-- Minerals can only be taken from where they are located. 

They cannot be planted, created by artificial means or moved 

without mining. 

-- California Desert producers have documented their pending depletion of reserves and forecast future commodity demands which 

will not be met without access to the Desert's mineral deposits. 

That direct.economic impact on the people of the desert and the 

people of Southern California also is documented. 

-- Language purporting to safeguard the mining industry's ability to operate by recognizing "valid and existing rights" is 

shown by exa.ple and legal precedent to be ineffective. 

Molycorp believes that the close proximity to a new National 

Park would severely impact its operations. The proximity problem 

presents issues for the existing facility in areas of air quality, the concept of degradation of scenic vistas and in noise generated 

outside the Park. The proposed Park boundaries are less than 1\ 

miles away from the operating mine property. 

As a practical matter, future exploration will be eliminated 

inside park boundaries and new mining activities precluded as well. 

We are not aware of any mine in operation in a national park or monument even though the legislation that created several parks contained specific guarantees similar to those in H.R. 518. 

-- The mining industry recognizes the need for special 

designations to protect unique areas of environmental sensitivity. The industry ultimately accepted the BLM Desert Plan process. As 

predicted in 1980 , the Desert Plan is a difficult management 

program for minerals extraction. 

-- An area as vast as the California Desert, located in such 

proximity to Southern California's urbanized regions, deserves and 

requires a dynamic management program that is publicly responsive. 

Molycorp, Inc., has a specific and perhaps unique interest in 

this legislation. The operation is located on the northeastern 

boundary of the proposed Mojave National Park about 50 miles 

southwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The unique orebody at Mountain 

Pass provides the United States with a domestic supply of 

lanthanides for aany defense and high technology uses as well as a significant export business to help the balance of payments. Molycorp is the only primary producer of lanthanides in the non- Communist world. 

Holycorp has four specific concerns regarding the effect of 

H.R. 518 on our Mountain Pass lanthanide mine which we submit for 

the hearing record of the subcommittee. 
491 

-4-

These concerns are the maintenance of a buffer zone around the mine 

and the claim block, the safeguarding of the mine's existing water 

supply and the continuance of our pipeline rights-of-way. · 

A. Buffer Zone -- The present boundary of the proposed 

Mojave National Park takes 125 acres from our northern 

claim block and about 1600 acres of our southern claim 

block and includes these lands inside the park. 

CUrrently active mine rock dumps are only 1.3 miles from 

the boundary as drawn. Therefore, the boundary is too 

close to an active work site. This raises issues for the 

existing facility in the areas of air quality, the 

concept of degradation of scenic vistas and in noise 

originating outside the Park. Moving the boundary 

approximately two miles on the north, 2-3/4 miles on the 

west, and four miles on the south would satisfy our 

concerns for a buffer zone. Moving the boundary simply 

allows BLM management of a corridor of lands between the 

operating property and the Park. 

B. Water Permits -- As currently drawn (along Nipton 

Road) , the Park boundary includes 548 acres of our 

privately owned land which is the source of our underground water for processing at the mine. This 

wellfield includes 8 wells. Molycorp is very concerned 

about the protection of our water permits. It is not a 

satisfactory solution to leave this issue unresolved or 

subject to litigation. To provide guaranteed water 

supplies for the mine's continued operation, we request 

a boundary change so Molycorp will be able to retain its 

surface ownership of the land overlying the underground 

aquifer. 

c. Rights-of-Way -- H.R. 518 as written does not 

include pipeline rights-of-way for water or processing 

water lines. Molycorp has three BLM utility rights-ofway that roughly parallel I-15 and are inside the 

proposed Park boundary and are necessary for the 

operation of the mine. Well water from the Shadow Valley area 10 miles west of Mountain Pass is pumped via 

pipeline and right-of-way through a six-mile long portion 

of the Park. Water from the Nipton Road wellfield is 

pumped via right-of-way through 6 miles of Park, east of 

Mountain Pass. Process waste waters from the mine 

traverse a three-mile section of the Park via a BLM 

right-of-way to our Ivanpah Evaporation Pond five miles 

north of the Park. Molycorp requests inclusion of water 

and waste-water pipeline rights-of-way. 
492 

-5-

D. Scenic Vistas/Air Quality -- There are several 

issues concerning compliance with scenic vista 

regulations and air quality standards that need to be 

addressed by the Committee. For example, the Mountain 

Pass mine will be visible from Clark Mountain, which is 

within the proposed boundary of the East Mojave National 

Park. Certainly, the intent of H.R. 518 is not to shut 

the mine down. Therefore, appropriate language should be 

added to the legislation to address the protection of 

prior existing rights. 

Molycorp offers you their cooperation to clarify any material 

concerning the devastating impacts of this proposed legislation on our ability to continue producing the materials upon which America 

is dependent. 
498 

Stateaent ot Position tor the Recqrd 

Opposition to Bill 821 Desert Protection 4ct 

UNITED FOUR WHEEL 

DRIVE ASSOCIATIONS 

of U.S. and CANADA 

ted Four Wbeel Drive Associations, an association or associations 

from all over the United States and Canada, representin€ several thousands of recreational four wheel drive owners feels it has a •oral obligation to 

oppose 821 (The California Desert Protection 4ct). Meabers fro• all over the Countr~ have expressed their outra~e over such an t .. oral piece of 

lecislatlon .. It is I'Oinat af"teet each and every AJ.erican. Naturally so•e more 

than others. No one will truly benefit from this act, except those strictly 

livinc to •eet a political a~enda. Not only is mechanized recreation coinc to suffer a •ajor loss, the national and many local econo111ies are ~toinar to be 

severely hurt. Jobs will be lost. Rare ainerals will be locked away. Faailies 

will be driven fro• their property. That is immoral. The followinc points. none ot which ate positive. have been reasons for 

concern by our •eabership and interested parties. . 1.) The BLM (Bureau of Land Mana~rement) has already spent so•e (II) eight 

aillion dollars on Wilderness study, only to find this area unsuitable. 

2.) Several hundreds of thousands of acres or private land would be taken 

away fro• families. One estimate was at a cost of $500,000,000.00 to the u.s. tax payer~ 

3.) There are several desert co .. unities and towns that are very dependent on 

mechanized recreation, includin~ four wheel drive as well as raininc. This 

bill would wipe out these ~ta.jor sources ot incoae. 

4.) Four wheel drive organizations have done conservation/wildlife projects in •any parts of this area, with aaazing success. Under the rules of 

"Wilderness."' •ost ot these would have to be rellloved. 

5.) Approxi•ately 8.5 aillion acres are slated for this "protection???'• Tbis 

would force the recreationalists to a very s•all area, creating an over use 

condition and could easily becoae unsafe, due to too many users. 

6.) Recreational four wheel drive is one of the fastest growin11: forms of outdoor recreat\on. Demand tor open areas to enjoy this sport is every 

increasin~r;. Why are so•e of our elected officisls lookine to take these 

opportunities away? 

7.) Closing a vast area such as this will siaply leave it open to the 

renegades that abu.se tbe land.. The responsible, caring user wi 11 obey the 

closure. Hence, it there are really any current abuse proble•s existinc, they 

will continue, if not increase. This closure will be unenforceable. 

8.) This is likely the most i•portant point. This is public owned, 

"Multiple-Use" land. This area, as with any public owned land, should •anared 

for the people, not troa the people. 

Please keep these thoughts in •ind when you are considering whether to support or o-ppose this bill. Are the recreationalists and •iners really 

hurtin~ any thing? Aren't the people and their well beinc worth preservin~, 

or is keepinc the desert sand free of tire tracks more iaportant? Is keeping 

mining co•panies: out of the desert cood tor the owners of this land? How 

about the taailies ot these miners and businesses. that would certainl¥ be 

shut down? Please. help to preserve a way ot life and protect our citi~ens 

and their jobs. Oppose S21. Introduce legislation desi~rned to see to it that 

this land is protected for the people, not from thea. 

,~~~ 

iaESTON~ 

Director of Environaental Affairs 

tRiAD LIGHTLY/ ON PUBLIC AND PRiVATE LAND 
494 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman Karch 1, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

812 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washinqton, DC 20515-6207 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Please support, co-sponsor, and work for prompt enactment of H.R. 

518, Representatives Georqe Miller's and Rick Lehman's excellent 

California Desert Protection Act. 

H.R. 518 would establish a new Mojave National Park, as well as expand the existing Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 

Monuments and redesignate them as national parks. H.R. 518 would 

also designate 4.1 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

H.R. 518 is necessary and appropriate legislation. It is 

necessary because BLM has a chronic record of UQt adequately 

protecting fragile and significant desert habitats. One 

egregious example of this BLM mismanagement has been the 

continuing decline of desert tortoise populations which resulted 

in listings under both the federal and state endangered species 

laws. In addition, several GAO reports have exposed BLM's 

repeated failures to implement promised desert conservation measures, particularly those included within the 1980 Desert 

Plan. 

As described in the attached Sacramento ~ editorial, H.R. 518 

is appropriate because it balances the needs of the military, 

miners, utilities, ranchers, and off-road vehicle recreationists. 

It is also appropriate because there is overwhelming public 

support for more effective desert conservation. A statewide 

public opinion poll indicated that 75' of Californians support 

stronger desert protection. Fifteen California counties have 

endorsed this legislation, representing almost two-thirds of 

California's population. Enactment of H.R. 518 would implement the position of the vast majority of Californians who want effective protection for desert species and habitats. 

Again, please actively support H.R. 518. 

Thank you very mucb for your consideration. 

Richard R~ Spotts 

california Representative 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Enclosure 

CALIFORNIA OffiCE' 1228 N ST., SUITE '6, SACRAMENTO, CA 9$814 • [916) ~42-6386 • FAX: (916) 442·6389 

NATIONAL OFFICE: 1244 NINETEENTH ST., NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • (:102) 659-9510 • FAX: [:102) 833-3349 
495 

The &M:r.unento Bee '----··:11- OPINION February 22, 1993 

paqe 84 ""... JMI&Suact,ATOfV . ..... ,.,.,., 

.~~TQ<Y.-.- ·-•• I!U!.OHORM~:C~.~<'ICHY.--·m . WALTS\P . .DIES.-. t-lliT4 C.X.MI:CI.I<TO<V.- liT .. ,_ 

GReooAYFAVAE,-- 1'ETEF4SO<IUG. __ _ 

,_A.J.WHITTAK!lA.-IIIId_._ 

(F ft. IQJ'\f \~\(':!Ju- u F. Y. I 

Preserving the desert 

F ollowiac in the footatepa of Alan Cranston, her predecesmr as C.alifomia's ... 

llior !Je!Wor, DiaJme Feinstein is sponsoring 

legislation desicned to protect one of Califor· 

Ilia's most Crqile aatural UMta: the desert. c~·s dlrts to~ such a bill ....re stymied for llix years by l'IISi.ltanee &om the 

Whito Howlrt <aDd fonDer Sens. Peto Wilaon and John Se,mourl. but Feinstein is blessed 

with a much -llnorable politic:U atznoe. 

phere, iaduding a fellow senator, Barbara 

Boxer, who ia a co-sponsor. That's good news for the desert. 

The bill. kMwn .. the California Desert 

Protection Aet <S 2ll, would desianate 4 mil· 

lion -ua1ly ~acres. now ad· 

ministered by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment. as wildemess areas. ensuring that 

they wiU remain that -Y for postority. !t . would also create national parks at three 

sites that are now national monuments: 

Death Vallay, Joshua Tree and Mojave. 

By creating that new designation. jurisdic· 

tion would be transferred from the BLM. which administers land for a variety of com· 

mercia! and publie plll'pllMS. to the National Park ServiC111, which baa a more strid:ly preservationist mandate. In addition. those sites 

would be e:<panded by a cumulative 3 mil· 

lion acres I which are already public landl. 

·• Critics of the act claim it will cost many 

deMrt residents their jobs.. That's unlikely 

because the act strikes a good balance be- tween protecting the environment and the 

regioli's economy. It indudes provisions that 

would allow livestock grazinc to continue for 

25 years in the Mojave, permit certain min· 

ing operations to remain (such as the one 

run by the V'u:eroy Gold Corp., w;here mora than 200 people are employed), and allow ' 

cotttinued militory use of China Lake Naval 

Weapons Center and Chocolate Mountoin 

Aerial Gunnery Rance· It would not restriet 

low-level overflights or military aircral\. 

Huntincwould be no more restricted than it 

is under uistiq state regulations. 

R

\ ep. Richard Lehman of Fresno has in· 

trodw:ed legislation nearly identic31 to 

Feihstein's itt the Rowse of Representatives. 

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. who 

ia expeeted to visit the desert in the coming 

weeks. has indicated he will support the 

bills. He also indialted his intention to put 

more money into the openltion 'or America's 

national parks. It looks, therefore. like one of California's treaaures will at last get the 

protection it deserves. 
ROBERT P WILL 

.JEfKIME C MUYS 

GAE:GOAY M_ P£NSAIIENE 

496 

WILL & MuYs, P.G ATTORNEYS AT t.AW 

SUITE 300 

101!) 16TH STREET. 1<i W. 

WASHINGTON~ o_c_ 200~ 

(202) <429-43<44 

TELECOPI£R 

(2QC) 421i1~434i: 

July 9, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests, and Public Lands 

A812 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

F'EiER CAR\..SON 

I.UJISI..Al'IVI: U'l:!;IA.UST 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California wishes to submit the following comments on H.R. 518, the California Desert Protect~on Act, and ask that they be made a part of the record of 

your hearings on this bill. 

The Metropolitan Water District operates an aqueduct and 

related facilities in the desert area. The Colorado River Aqueduct 

reaches 242 miles across the desert from Parker Dam on the Colorado 

River past the City of Palm Springs into the coastal plain of 

Southern California. Portions of its aqueduct, electric power 

transmission and communication lines, and other facilities were included in the original proposals designated as wilderness and as national park. 

During House consideration of H.R. 2929 in the 102d Congress, 

Metropolitan worked with the Interior and Insular Affairs commit- tee and the principal sponsor, Rep. Mel Levine, to exclude the 

aqueduct system from the wilderness and park areas in the Act. 

These changes were included on the maps used by the House Committee 

when it acted, and resulted in complete exclusion of all Metropoli- tan properties and facilities from the wilderness and park areas with the exception of those in the Coxcomb Mountain area of the 

proposed Joshua Tree National Park. In that area, certain 

aqueduct, power transmission, and communication facilities were included within the proposed park boundaries but excluded from 

proposed wilderness areas. Metropolitan also agreed to abandon three properties used as borrow and spoil areas within the proposed 

park were H.R. 2929 enacted. 

In order to protect Metropolitan within the proposed national 

park areas, the House included protective language in Section 306 
The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

July 9, 1993 

Page 2 

497 

of H.R. 2929 maintaining Metropolitan's property rights and 

operational capability as well as direction to the National Park 

Service to cooperate with Metropolitan in providing emergency access to Metropolitan's properties. 

In view of these actions by the House Committee, Metropolitan 

removed its objections to H.R. 2929. 

H.R. 518 at Section 306 includes the language accepted by the 

House during the l02d Congress and we are advised that the maps 

referenced in H.R. 518 will reflect the changes adopted on the maps 

used for H.R. 2929 with respect to Metropolitan's properties. 

Under these circumstances Metropolitan bas no objection to 

H.R. 518. 

Maps identifying Metropolitan's properties are available in 

my office should your committee desire further information. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

cc: Honorable James v. Hansen 

Ranking Minority Member 

~/t I 

~,;t:~;e/ for the Metropolitan Water 

District of southern california 
J;t.MES F SEELE'I' 

flPE!>Ao. L£<0!5<."''¥£ R£,..f$l!I<T,0.1'>¥lE 

{:202) :i .. ?-<>91!:1 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

House of Rq>resentatives 

498 

Rayburn House Office Bldg., Rm. 2304 

Washington, D. C. 20515-2304 

Dear Mr. Vento: 

June 7, 1993 

Stun :10.2 

w ... _,..,_., DC 20004 

lu .. c,;, NLCUSCM EIO<l54? 

FAX No. (;2'02) 3 .. 7·0illl9 

1 am writing on behalf of the City of Los Angeles to let you know of our 

support for S.21 and H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act (Act) introduced 

by Senator Feinstein and Congressman Lehman, respectively. The City supports this 

legislation because it provides permanent protection for environmentally sensitive 

areas, preserves areas of unique natural beauty for future generations to enjoy, allows 

for multiple recreational opportunities, and safeguards the City's vital utility 

corridors. 

Enclosed is a certified copy of the City Council's official action to support the 

Act as well as the remarks of City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter before the Senate 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests. I urge you to give careful 

consideration to the merits of this legislation and to support its swift passage. 

Enclosures 

JFS/agb 
J. Mkhael Carey 

EU<Miu Olfktt 

Whdi\II&IWttinquiriet 

~totbillftafter 

rdwtoFileNo. 

93-0002-874 

April 29, 1993 

499 

CITY OF Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA 

TOM BRADLEY 

........ CITY O.UUC 

Coadl aad r-... Semea 

•-»S.CiiJfWl 

IMA..-.CAMU 

ColmdlfiJt~·~ 

~ lwlonnMiow ~ ·~7t5 

RE: CITY SUPPORT OF S. 21 {FEINSTEIN) AND H.R. 518 {LEHMAN), THE 

CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached motion {Galanter- Braude), 

was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council at its meeting held 

April 27. 1993. 

ELIAS MARTINEZ, CITY CLERK 

By Y}tvvwk ~_tllnJjon) Deputy crm 
500 

MOTION 

The California desert is a unique place. It is a home to a growinq number of threatened or endangered plant and animal 

species, including our State reptile, the desert tortoise. 

The increasing urbanization of Southern California requires 

that we both protect the desert • • environmental riches and provide increased recreational and leisure opportunities for our residents 

and visitors alike. 

It is imperative that the Cali!ornia desert be protected and 

preserved in such a way as to balance the often competing needs and 

desires of the variou• concerned interests. Those interests 

include the protection of existing and future utility corridors as well as the Los Anqeles Aqueduct System, which are the lifelines to 

Los Anqeles that brinq in the electricity and other essential 

utility services that serve our homes, schools, and businesses. 

s. 21 (Feinstein) and H.R. 518 (Lehman) would achieve multiple 

goals by establishinq new national parks and new wilderness areas, 

while allowinq the current multiple uses of the desert to continue 

in a manner that is protective of the environment, respectful of 

the local economy, and mindful of the need to assure Southern 

California access to sources of important natural resources and 

enerqy. 

I THEREFORE MOVE that the City support s. 21 (Feinstein) and 

H.R. 518 (Lehman), the California Desert Protection Act, as part of 

its 1993-94 Federal Legislative Program. 

PRESENTED BY: 

SECONDED BY: 

"-- I 

APif'2 0 1993 1....-~~---·····-·-----
501 

TESTIMONY OF 

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCILWOMAN RUTH GALANTER 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 

OF THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

ON 

S. 21, '1'BE CALIFORNIA "DESERT PROTECTION ACT 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Ruth Galanter. I am a member of the Los Angeles City 

Council and I chair the Council's Environmental Quality Committee. 

It's a pleasure for me to testify today on behalf of the City in 

support of S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act. 

We were very pleased when Senator Feinstein announced that 

this legislation was one of her top priorities, and she has acted 

quickly to fulfill that pledge. We are also very encouraged by 

the fact that, for the first time since former Senator Cranston 

introduced his original bill, both of our senators from California 

support this important legislation. It is my hope, and that of 

the City of Los Angeles, that Congress will swiftly approve these 

necessary and overdue protections for the California desert. 

Mr. Chairman, the California desert has many unique 

characteristics. It is home to a growing number of threatened or 

endangered plant and animal species including our State Reptile, 

the desert tortoise. The increasing urbanization of southern 

California requires that we both protect the desert's 

environmental riches and provide increased recreational and 

leisure opportunities for our residents and visitors alike. This 

legislation will achieve both of those goals. It is also 

imperative that the desert be protected and preserved in a manner that balances the sometimes competing needs and desires of the 

variety of concerned interests. This legislation achieves that 

balance. 

S. 21 provides the necessary level of protection by 

establishing new national parks at Joshua Tree, Death Valley, and 

in the east Mojave and by creating dozens of new wilderness areas. 

These designations will preserve the unique and pristine features 

of numerous locations throughout the region as well as protecting 

their often fragile ecosystems. These new parks and wilderness areas will provide vast new recreational, learning and aesthetic 

benefits for the people of Los Angeles to enjoy. In addition, the 

increased number of visitors who will travel to enjoy the area and 

the new national parks will provide increased revenues to the 

local economies. But even more importantly, these new parks and 

wilderness areas create permanent opportunities for current and 

future generations to experience these irreplaceable lands. 
602 

S. 21 also recoqnizes the current multiple uses of the 

desert. It allows these multiple uses to continue in a 111anner 

that is concurrently protective of the environment, respectful of 

the local economy, and mindful of the need to assure that southern 

California continues to have access to sourcee of vital natural resources and energy. 

In this latter regard, Senator Feinstein has allowed for the 

protection of existing and future utility corridors as well as the 

Los Angeles Aqueduct System which runs adjacent to some of the 

desiqnated areas. These utility corridors were established by the 

Bureau of Land Management after a long and careful process 

involving extensive review, negotiation, and input from the public 

and desert users. These corridors are the lifelines to Los 

Anqelee that bring in the electricity and other essential utility 

services that light our homes, schools, and businesses. They 

provide the basis upon which Los Angeles and southern California can create new jobs and transform struggling defense and aerospace 

companies into exciting new industries. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to enter 

into the written record of this hearing a more detailed 

description and analysis of the agreements and provisions which 

have been made with regard to the City's water and power concerns. 

All of us who support permanent protection for the California 

desert are very pleased with the prospects of enactment of this 

legislation during this Congress. As you aware, Congressman 

Lehman has introduced a companion bill, HR 518, in the House and we are hopeful that his bill will also be considered in the near future. 

Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity to provide the 

subcommittee with this testimony. We believe this matter to be of utmost importance and deserving of swift action. On behalf of the 

City of Los Angeles, I urge you and your colleagues to approve S. 

21. Thank you. 
CITY OFFICES: 

& 136 ADOS£ ROAD 

P.O. BOX 995 

TWENTYNINE PALMS. CA 92177 

[6191 367-6799 

(619i 367-4890 (fAX) 

June 10, 1993 

Mr. Vento, Chairman 

National Parks, Forests 

and Public Lands 

O'Neill Buildinq 

Room 812 

Washington D.c. 20515 

Dear Mr. Vento: 

503 

COliNCIL MEMBERS 

t .~;st..:r \\'. i\.rushat. Mayor 

Eli£.abcth ll. "Lit." M..:yer. Mayur Pro Tcm 

lim Hagl'-1' 

Charles W. "Chvc;;"' Hell 

Christopher J. Dobler 

CITY MANAGER 

Jim Hart 

The City of Twentynine Palms has qone on record in strong opposition to Senate Bill 21 and HR 518 currently being considered 

before Conqress. The City of Twentynine Palms requests that no further action be taken on this legislation until the sponsors have 

held conqressional.Field Hearings in the California Desert, and 

until meetings with locally elected officials on the issues have 

been arranged. 

This is a bad piece of legislation drafted without the counsel of 

local government and directly affected communities. The economic 

loss and termination of jobs with these bill are unacceptable. 

Please take the issues in our Resolution 93-03 to the committee 

while this bill is beinq hear~ We are requesting you call for 

field hearinqs and meetings wi locally elected officials before 

this legislation is carried t the full Congress. A piece of 

leqislation of this maqnitude d serves this consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Lester Krushat 

Mayor 

JB:alb:dart.ltr 

Attach. 
504 

RBSOLUTION NO. 93•03 CERTIFIED COPY 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 

OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA, IN STRONG 

OPPOSITION TO BILL S-21 AND HR-518 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 as introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein, 

and H.R. 518 as introduced by Congressman Richard H. Lehman, would 

lock up over 8,500,000 acres of federal, state, and private lands 

for the permanent creation of wilderness and park service 

withdrawal in the California Desert without due process through the 

inclusion of public comment and intensive environmental and 

economic review. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 would end the fair and 

balanced management of public lands under the historic policies of 

Multiple Use, ending access to the culturally diverse heritage of 

the full spectrum of public access to public lands on the 

California Desert. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 would impose severe negative 

impacts to already faltering economies of the California Desert 

cities and counties through the elimination of jobs with the 

permanent termination of mining, livestock grazing, historic 

recreational access, and the taking of hundreds of thousands of acres from private property owners through implementation. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 contains exclusive water 

rights reservations detrimental to local and regional water needs 

for the express maintenance of created wilderness areas without 

regard to present and future human and environmental requirements. 

WHEREAS, the proponents and authors of Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 

have not sought or requested the counsel of local desert city or county governments regarding the impacts and enormous ramifications 

of this legislative imposition on the desert economy, it's human 

inhabitants, and historic character. 

WHEREAS, the sponsors of Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 have not 

conducted field hearings in the desert communities directly 

affected by this legislation, have not traveled to the California 

Desert to meet with local government leaders and interested 

citizens, have not specifically toured areas with constituents 

facing economic losses and the permanent termination of multigenerational access to our public lands. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 are blatant attempts to 

undermine the 17 years of open public process, formal public 

hearings, volumes of written public comment, objective 

environmental assessment, and millions of tax payer dollars 

expended to create a fair and balanced management plan under the 

Congressionally mandated original California Desert Conservation 

Area Act. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 are conservatively estimated 

to add a minimum of $610 million to the federal debt, and the costs 

to local economies and the State of California are calculated in 

the billions. These Bills are considered fiscally detrimental to 

the economic recovery of our Nation, the State of california, and 

the California Desert counties and cities. 
Resolution No. 93-03 

Page 2 

505 

HOW I'l' TBBRDOitB BB llBSOLVBD 'l'D'l' 

section ODt. The city Council of Twentynine Palms is adamantly opposed to Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 or any other att-pt at 

california Desert legislation that does not allow for the inclusion 

of local government participation and extensive open pUblic process by all interested persons and affected parties. 

Station rro. Copies of this resolution shall be sent by the City Clerk to; the President of the United States, the Governor of the 

State of California, the State of california's two elected 

senators, the City's elected member of the United States House of 

Representatives, the Honorable Jerry Lewis, Conqressman Al 

McCandless of Riverside County, the secretary of the Interior, the 

Director of the Bureau of Land Manaqe-nt, every member of the U.s. 

Senate Enerqy and Natural Resources Committee and the House of 

Representatives Natural Resources Committee, and to eacb mlmber of 

any COD!lllittee or the full COnuress that takes these bills into 

consideration, senator Bill Leonard, state Assemblyman Paul 

Woodruff, to each of san Bernardino County's supervisors, to each 

of the city councils in the Mountain Desert Division of the 

California League of Cities, the Board of Directors of the Leaque of California Cities, and copies with a general cpress release be 

sent to all local, county, and selected state and national media. 

APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of February 1 1993. 

~.k .l..:ltMAYOR 

ATTEST: 

~r·u:L 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City council of the City of Twentynine Palms at a special 

meeting thereof, held 6th day of February, 1993, by the following 

vote of the Council: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

council.laembers 

Council:members 

councillllembers 

Bagley, Bell, Dobler, Meyer, Krushat 

., 

1'1 
506 

Twentynine Palms Chamber of Commerce 

TWENTYNINE PALMS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Opposition to s 21 and HR 51 a 

Office: 6136 Adobe Road, 

Twentynine Palma, CA. 92277 

(619)367·3445 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 Diane Feinstein, and HR 5 I a as introduced by Congressman Richard 

Lehman, would lock up 8,500,000 acres of federal. state and private lands for the creation of 

wilderness in the California Desert, and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 would end the historic multiple use of public lands and eradicate 

a way of life that reflects the heritage of America, and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 would Impose severe negative impacts on the economy of the 

state of California, Cities. and Counties during a time of severe financial crisis and eliminate 

desperately needed jobs in the mining, cattle, recreational and tourist industries, and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 would be taking thousands of acres from private property owners 

and incur a cost to the taxpayers topping hundreds of millions of dollars when the federal 

government can least afford this debt, and 

WHEREAS. SB 21 and HR 518 contain detrimental exclusions of water rights without regard to 

present and future human and environmental needs. and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 51'8 proponents have not considered the desires or impacts of this 

legislation on residents. local or county economies. the history of the area or an established way 

of life. and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 authors and sponsors have not conducted field hearings in the 

desert communities directly affected by this legislation, have not met with local residents and 

govenment officials, and have not met with those who face the loss of jobs and homes in the 

California Desert, and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 undermine the will and desire of the people that was established 

under the original California Desert Conservation Area Act. and 

WHEREAS, SS 21 and HR 518 would reduce and eventually end the ability to mine current 

claims and explore new areas that provide minerals essential to national defense and medical 

research that can be found only in the California Desert, and 

WHEREAS, both SB 21 and HR 518 are cons1dered detrimental to the economic recovery of 

our local, state, and federal government, and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 does not take into consideration the city, county. and state 

officials who strongly oppose this legislation nor the overwhelming opposition from the public at 

tarve; 

Office: 6136 Adobe Road. Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 
507 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON ~DAY OF JANUARY, 1993 . 

.AC.--. {~ ..... -- PRESIDENT 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED THAT; 

The Twentynine Palms Chamber of Commerce vehemently opposes Senate Bill21 and HR 518 

or any other legislation that further destroys the economy, current and future job base, and locks 

the people out of land that Is rightfully theirs to enjoy under the current conservation plan. 

Copies of this resolution shall be sent to: 

President Bill Clinton 

Senator Feinstein 

Senator Boxer 

Congressman Lewis 

Congressman McCandles 

Secretary of the Interior 

House of Representatives Resource Committee 

Governor Pete Wilson 

Senator Bill Leonard 

Assemblyman Paul Woodruff 

Any Committee that takes these bills into consideralion 

California Chamber of Commerce 

CHy of Twentynine Palms 

SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL 

72-354 0 - 93 - 17 
June 10, 1993 

Bruce Vento 

Congressman 

508 

2304 Rayburn House Office Bldq. 

washinqton D.C. 20515 

Dear Conqressman Vento: 

To introduce myself, I am the Mayor of the City of 

Barstow and I am the President of the Desert/Mountain 

Division of the Leaque of California Cities. The 

Desert/Mountain Division covers fifteen cities, 

qenerally bounded on the South by Biq Bear, on the West 

by Lancaster/Palmdale, on the East by Needles, and on the North by Mammoth Lakes. 

At the May 28, 1993, qeneral meetinq of the 

Desert/Mountain Division of the Leaque of California 

Citites a resolution in stronq opposition to S-21 and 

HR 518 was adopted. 

The Division is most anxious that the authors of this 

bill meet with representatives of the Division in 

reqards to the bill. Elected officials effected by the 

bill feel that their input has not been asked for nor received. We, as local officials, live here each day 

and must answer numerous inquiries on a reqular basis 

about this matter. 

It is the opinion of the local elected officials that 

the au+-.hors of the bill should come to the area, meet with local officials and conduct public hearinqs for 

those who live in the area. Public hearinqs in the 

past have been nothinq more than media events and 

usually seem to be for the purpose of allowinq 

demonstrations from those who did not live in the area. 

The Desert/Mountain Division of the Leaque of 

California Cities respectfully requests that stronq 

consideration be qiven to meetinq with local elected 

officials and hearinqs be conducted before this 

leqislation is carried to the full Conqress. 

Leqislation of this maqnitude deserves much more consideration than it thus far has received. It is the 

local officials who must stand eye to eye with those 

who will loose jobs because of this bill, with those 

whose families will be uprooted and displaced, and with 

those whose lives will be chanqed forever. As an 
June 10, 1993 

Page -2-

509 

example, f-ilias who have had cattle ranches in the area for over ~ years will be displaced. This is grossly unfair. 

Your kind consideration in this matter is appreciated. 

·~•ly, 1 

:;.~f::::L President, Desert/Mountain Division 

League of California Cities 

M.W:tc 
510 

aBSOLtl'l'IOif lfO, 

A RUOLU'l'IOK OF 'l'H'B DUBRT/IfDml'l'AIJII DIVISIOJII OP TRB L!AGUB OP 

CALIPORlfiA CI'l'IU I1f STROJIIG OPPOSITION TO BILLS #S-21 AlfD 

#HR-!518. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 as introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein, 

and H.R. 511 as introduced by Congressman Richard H. Lehman, would 

lock up over 8,500,000 acres of federal, state, and private lands 

for the permanent creation of wilderness and park service 

withdrawal in the California Desert without due process through the 

inclusion of public comment and intensive environmental and 

economic review. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 would end the fair and 

balanced management of public lands under the historic policies of 

Multiple Use, ending access to the culturally diverse heritage of 

the full spectrua of public access to public lands on the 

California Desert. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 would impose severe negative impacts to alraady faltering economies of the California Desert 

cities. and counties throuqh the elimination of jobs with the 

permanent termination of mininq, livestock grazing, historic 

recreational access, and the taking of hundreds of thousands of acres fro• private property owners through implementation. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 contains exclusive water 

rights reservations detrimental to local and regional water needs 

for the express aalntenance of created wilderness areas without 

regard to present and future human and environmental requirements. 

WHEREAS, the proponents and authors of Senate Bill 21 and H.R, 518 

have not sought or requested the counsel of local desert city or county governments regarding the iapacts and enonoua ramifications 

of this legislative imposition on the desert econoay, it's human 

inhabitants, and historic charactar. 

WHEREAS, the sponsors of Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 have not 

conducted field hearings in the desert co .. unitiea directly affected by this legislation, have not traveled to the California 

Desert to meat with local government leaders and interested 

citizens, have not specifically toured areas with constituents 

facing econoaic losses and the permanent terai11ation of multigenerational ace••• to our public lands. · 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 are blatant attempts to 

underaine the 17 years of open public process, formal public hearings, volu.as of written public co .. ent, objective environmental assessment, and aillions of tax payer dollars 

expended to create a fair and balanced manaq ... nt plan under the 

congressionally mandated original California Desert Conservation 

Area Act. 

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 and H.R. 518 are conservatively esti•ated 

to add a minimum of $610 aillion to the federal debt, and the coats 

to local economies and the state of California are calculated in 

the pillions. These Billa are considered fiscally detrimental to 

the economic recovery of our Nation, the State of California, and 

the california Desert counties and cities. 
511 

HOW IT IS THDEFOU USOLVED THAT: 

Section One. The Desert/Mountain Division of the Leaque of 

California Cities ia adaaantly opposed to SB21, HR 518 or any 

other atta.pt at california Desert legislation that does not 

allow for the inclusion of local government participation and 

extensive open due process by all interested persona and 

affected parties. 

section two, Copiu of this resolution llhall be sent bY the 

Leaqua Staff to the President of the United States, the 

Governor of the state of California, the State of California's 

two elected Senators, to each city's elected llellber of the 

United States Houu of Representatives, each city•a elected 

As ... lbY and State Senate representatives, each city'• county supervisor, the Secretary of the Interior, tha Director of the 

Bur-u of Land Manaq ... nt, every llellber of the u.s. Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Comaittee, and tq each meaber qf 

any gqwgitte• qr tb• full Conqreaa that takes tba•• billa into 

cqnaideration. the Board of Directors of the Laaque of 

California Cities and copies with a qaneral preaa release to be 

sent ·to all local, county, and selected state and national 

media. 
512 

lliSlU:f I 

WA.TNB J. VAN D1! aJl.MAf m 1II!IIIBtMAH AYJt. CAI.!DOCD. a. tml 

.,...,. a 

~-~ sr.m.aMm>. CA...., ~Oarb Of "upertli&OrS 

~~ &unfu of ;Jmptrhtl MOW, ~ST., SUITH lll.I!L CI!H'DO. CA. mcJ 

llllmlCI'. 

lltAD UJCl(BY 

P.Q. .OX t%11, IIAWLBY. C.A tm7 

llllfltiCT • .... IIIAII' 6iO OUVB A VB., IG.TVIU.B, CA t'.I2St 

Honorable Bruce P Vento u.s.c~ 

June 9, 1993 

Rayburn Build:lDg, :aoa. 230C 

waahillgtoll, DC 20510 

ISUII.:IBCl': 1111818!' PIIII:II'JBCl'I<Ja AC'r 

Dear Congresaaan Vento: 

OOUN'TY .ADMIJrOaftA.,... CIHfB 

NO W, MAIN I'I'Uft, f:llll 

II.. Cltn'IW, CA ........,., 

TILIPHOifl: tiW) -...-

PAX::CJm:aa_,. 

This letter is intended to give :rou a brief synopsis of the reasons the IJ~P~Kial Coanty Bollrd of supervisors o~ the ne.ert 

Protection .!let. This .!let would place over 2.2 mllion acres in 

California an4 290,000 acres in lllparial County into a vilderneas area. 'rile IJ~P~Kial County Board of Superviaora is opposed to this 

bill until public haarings are held in I~~perial County and a CCIIIplete analysis of the environ.antal and econ~c impacts are fully d~ted and provided to the public. 

'rile IJ~P~Kial County Board of supervisors is oppoeed to the 

Desert Protection .!let for the following reaaons: 

1. Lack of local input in the davelOt-Dt process. 

2. Prohibits access to vital public agency seroricee. 

3. creates ~c disaster for the County. 

4. Creates substantial ecoftOIIlic burcl.en for the federal. g~t unnecessarily. 

5. Ignores professional input fro. federal agencies. 

A further discuallion of each concern ia herein provided. 

1. Lack of LCICial Input in tile Develo.-nt Prooell8 

!lone of the sponsoring legislators, Senator cranston, 

Senator Feinstein, Seuator Boxer or Congre8fDiall Let.an 

have __. held a public:: haar:lDg bare in IJOPGrial County 

oonoeruiug tile Uipact of their legislation on this ~ity. It is absolutely IIJlOOIUioionable that 11 County 
513 

June 10, 1993 

Desert Protection Act 

that would lose over 290,000 acres of land to this Act 

and not have the benefit of a single visit from any of 

the sponsoring legislators. The federal government has 

already expended a substantial amount of money for the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to design an effective 

desert utilization plan. In the development of its plan the BLM. held extensive public hearings both here in 

Imperial County and throughout the region to receive and 

take into consideration local resident concerns. That 

bas not been the case with this Act. 

2. Prohibita Accetl• to Vital Public Agency Bervicee 

This legislation would preclude access to over 290,000 acres by federal, state and local law enforcement 

agencies. Imperial County borders the Republic of Mexico 

and many of the areas to be closed are routinely used by 

criminal elements for illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Obviously these elements will not stop utilizing these areas simply because they are designated wilderness areas. In fact, you can expect significant increases in activity because law enforcement agencies will be prohibited from entering these areas. It simply doesn't make sense. 

The africanized honey bee will be arriving in California 

next year and it is critically important that access be 

available to those who can trap and control these 

dangerous pests. There are likewise many other pests that cannot be allowed to multiply in a protected area which resides in the middle of one of the Country's most 

productive agricultural areas. 

Wildlife management personnel must have access to maintain 

water sources for a wide variety of animal life that were cut 

off from such water by the construction of the Coachella 

Canal. These water sources are critical to the survival of 

such animals as big horn sheep and mule deer. 

The desert region is extremely hostile with summer temperatures exceeding 115 degrees. The mean temperature high is 89.6 degrees and rescue efforts in this 

environment are critical and access for these purposes 

must be provided. 

2 
514 

June 10, 1993 

Desert Protection Act 

3. Createe an ~c Diaaater tor the county 

The inclusion of the South Algodones Dunes in the Act 

will have disastrous economic impacts on the County. The 

County of Imperial bas a 25% unemployment rate and the 

lowest per capita income of all the 58 counties in 

California. The dunes attract literally tens of 

thousands of people from throughout Southern California 

who wish to recreate in this area. These "tourists" 

generate millions of dollars for the local economy. 

These particular 61,000 acres have been used for 

recreational purposes for decades. It appears a bit 

ludicrous to assume that simple passage of legislation 

will somehow automatically make this area a "wilderness 

area." 

'· Createe a Substantial :sc::ooo.J.c Burden for the 

J'aderal Goveru..mt UDD81':8884J:ily 

The passage of this legislation without millions of 

dollars of appropriations for personnel to control this area will render the Act useless. The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is already grossly understaffed to 

perform its existing duties. The passage of this 

legislation will mandate BLM or some other federal agency 

to add to its inventory of responsibility some 2.2 

million acres. It is estimated that the cost to the 

federal government to fully implement this legislation 

will be between $422 to $742 million based on analysis 

done by the California Desert Coalition. This will 

require the federal government to appropriate substantial 

federal dollars at a time when Congress is struggling 

with a spiraling federal deficit. Again, it seems ludricous that an economic impact study was not performed 

to clearly identify these sorts of impacts. 

5. Ignozes Professional Input of Paderal Agencies 

It would appear that good public policy would be to 

encourage and to solicit objective points of view from 

those federal agencies that will be most affected by thie 

legislation. The Bureau of Land Management, Customs 

Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Agriculture 

Department, u.s. Fish and Game Service, Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

and Department of Navy are some of the critical federal 

agencies that should express their concern with this 

proposed legislation. To ignore their professional input 

results in an injustice to the public. 

3 
515 
~ 

~-­ """'" 

516 

aialifnruia ~tau ~·mate 

SENATOR 

0 SACAAloEHTQOfflCE 

STAff; CAPITOl 

SACI'WIWNTO. ~ 9!tt-t 

9t&-44S-663"t 

0 P,O.I!k>XH't6 

6ARSTOW,CA 9Zl12-1116 

$1~l1t6 

MlACUl.lOAE IMO WAltA DON ROGERS 

"""""""' Sevmteeoth Senatorial Distriet 

0 P.O.SOX2Xi0 

HSURAHCE, Cl..MIIS AND HE~RIA.CA~ 

61~1171 

N!\TIJRAl~SAHO """"""'"""" 

\MI."'-"£ July 8, 1993 0 PO. BOXM725 PAI..MDALE,CA ii3MO 

~EMPLOYMENT A..o R€11......, --

F.U:!IOS-~12:}7 

AlJAAl CAUCUS 

Honorable Conqressman Bruce G. Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands 

O'Neill Building, Room 812 

washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

D P.O.BOX!I03 

RIOGECflEST.CA~ 

&1!J-31W·2515 

As you know, there are several bills now pending in the 

United States Senate and the House of Representatives that 

would significantly impact California desert lands. They are S 21, HR 518 and HR 2379. 

Before any further legislative action is taken on these measures, it is vital that on-site hearings be held and the 

views of impacted communities, businesses and other local 

interests be heard and made a matter of official record. 

With California's present severe economic and job situation, 

further aggravated by massive Department of Defense base 

closures, extreme care must be taken not to further weaken 

the state's economic health. 

While most respect and desire to preserve our priceless 

desert environment, there is no immediate danger that would 

force a rush to "lock upn seven million acres of desert land. 

Prudent enforcement of current rules and regulations will 

protect native flora and fauna. This is far too important an issue not to take the necessary time to carefully and fully 

explore all aspects of the proposed action. 

Therefore, I respectfully request that sponsors and 

staff of the proposed measures travel to the desert sites to receive and consider the views of local citizens. I ask for a favorable decision on this request. Thank you. 

DAR:llm 

cc: Jim Bagley, councilmember 

City of TWentynine Palms 
517 

SIERRA CLUB, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 

San Dic:gt> and lmperia1 CountiCs 

3820 Ray Street 

San Diego, CA 92104 

June 24, 1.993 

on. Bruce Vento, Chairman 

subcoamittee on National Parks and Public Lands u.s. House of Representatives 

washington, D.C. 2051~ 

re> California Desert Prot,ection Act {H .• R. Slll) 

Deal' Mr. Chairman: 

On behatf of our 15;000 local members who live adjacent to the c•aifornia desert I want to thank you for your unswerving 

support of real protection for California's desert wildlands. 

I have worked on desert issues generally. for 16 years nov and op' 

behalf of this bill since its original' introduction in Congress in 

1986. I have also volunteered< as a monitor for the BLM's 

El Centro jlesource office. · . · Over the years I have discussed and debated .the many issues with government land managers and many user groups,,t public 

forums, congressional hearings and in the media. some concerns expressed .have been very legitimate and all!'ost· al.l reasonable ones have aireadv been addressed iri the bill's manv reincarnations 

since 1986. Total acreage l,las 'been reduced by hundreds of thousands 

of acresr boundaries redrawn; wilderness study areas dropped; 

cherrystelllllled roa<la into wUderne'!S included: and protective language added for the mili tar}'• . , · . • With the newest round ·Of House hearings n.ow concluded and 

markup later this supu~~er, we are aware that. the.re will· be pressure for further •co,.promise• from some qUarters. I·n point of tact, 

H.R. 518 {and S.21) are compromise documents at t~is stage, we are at the point nov where further significant concessions could 

endanger the integrity of the legislation and the purposes for 

which it vas originally crafted. Diehard.opponents have never· been, and vill never be, satiafied with any concessions short of an emasculated or badly water~d-down sham version of real desert 

protection. · Opinion 'polis and the wei~ht of editorial positions in cali~ornia squarely atand for e strong bill, notwithstanding the 

load protests of •ell-organized but relativaly .. all single interest groups. . . . ' 

We beseech you to hold the line and use ·yoUD influence to create a new Mojave National Park/Monument without any sporthunting as part of a larger, compre~ensive bill devoid at false compromises whibh weaken its vision. 1 

Agai•j please aocept our gratitude for ·your past efforts. 

~rfia/t:to~ ~N~~k ~~n, Chair 

coaaervation committee 
518 

June 24, 1993 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands subcommittee 

Chairman Bruce Vento 

812 House Annex 1 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento, 

The membership of the Public Lands Foundation (PLF) is 

composed of retired Bureau of Land Management (BLM) career professional employees, many having worked with managing the 

public land and resources of the California Desert. Therefore the 

Foundation is uniquely qualified to judge the proposed 

legislation (H.R.518) California Desert Protection Act of 1993. 

We agree there is need for increased management and 

protection.of the public land resources of the California Desert. 

But as with most issues there are different alternatives and 

options to achieving this need in a way that best serves our Nation. The PLF's knowledge of this area suggests there are 

wilderness resources needing designation for BLM management 

and areas of public lands adjacent to the Joshua Tree and 

Death Valley Monuments that should be added to those units of the 

park system There is little justification to establish the East 

Mojave as a new unit under administration of the National Park 

Service (NPS). The many exceptions that have been made for this 

proposed new unit in and of itself illustrates the resources are 

not best suited to the preservation objectives of the National 

Park Service and the public expectations. 

Congress,est"ablished the California Oeser't Conset·vation /"{rea 

under FLPMA. But those that advocate this legislation made this 

proposal prior to the development and approval of the California 

Desert Plan. This proposed legislation still represents a single 

mind-set of a few who originated the idea in the 1970's. But 

many things have changed in the BLM management of the California 

Desert, mostly for the good. New management authorities and 

responsibilities as well as attitude changes by managing 

personnel have been important. The dedicated conservation 

philosophy of the on-the-ground employees is without question. An 

examination of the many actions taken by BLM to better manage and 

protect these lands substantiates this fact The BLM has 

developed a professional staff of the many and varied skills 

needed to manage and protect these public lands. We believe the 

improvements of the plan through the FLPMA procedures is a 

justifiable way to meet any added objectives. Everyone knows that 
519 

additional management resources of dollars and manpower are needed to do a better job of managing the demands of the using 

public. We can expect that fewer additional management dollars 

will be needed for more intensive BLM management because of 

established administrative infrastructure, than would be 

necessary for the Park Service to establish an entirely new unit 

and separate administration in the area. To further fragment ~n 

already difficult land management pattern into multiple agencies 

just adds to increased costs and duplicated federal efforts 

within the area. 

In recent testimony before your full House Committee on 

Natural Resources, Secretary Babbitt stated that BLM can also 

manage high recreation valued and sensitive lands and such land 

does not always have to be transferred to the Park Service. He 

also stated that BLM has done a creditable job in the management 

of the California Desert lands. We think this is especially 

noteworthy in light of the stingy budgetary allocations that both 

the Executive and Legislative branches have authorized for BLM. 

One of the biggest criticisms of the current situation is 

that the areas proposed for the park system cannot tolerate the 

indiscriminate and damaging activities that can and do occur 

under the non-discretionary provisions of the existing mining 

law. We agree with this! Reform of the mining law for the 

benefit of managing all public lands, many that have equal or 

greater public values to those in the California Desert, is what 

is really needed. Congress must get the political courage to 

enact such reform! The PLF encourages and has actively 

contributed to reform legislation. Withdrawing the East Mojave 

area until such reform is enacted would provide the needed 

protection under our recommendation. 

The PLF feels there are many areas of the California Desert 

that should be designated as Wilderness. Although this 

legislative proposal is excessive in this regard, the important 

thing at this phase of the legislative process is to do some fine 

tuning of selected boundaries. This will have tremendous public 

benefits both in terms of protecting the integrity of the 

wilderness values but also the savings of millions of dollars in 

long-term management costs. Some of the proposed boundat·ies are 

nearly impossible to administer and meet the objectives of the 

Wildness Act. This fine tuning would improve boundary 

identification for the using public and eliminate expected future 

resource use conflicts. We fully expect that the on-the-ground 

managers would be more that willing to identify these needed 

adjustments. 

The extensions of the proposed redesignated Death Valley 

National Park needs to be based on natural resource values and not political expediency. The expansions on the north and 

west split natural geographical and ecological areas and makes 

for near unmanageable boundaries and duplication in 

administrative presence by both BLM and NPS. Areas not included 

as a result of reduced additions could be designated as BLM 
Wilderness thereby ga~n~ng the needed protection and eliminating 

the problems created by this legislation. It is our understanding 

the field managers for BLM and the NPS have identified such 

boundary adjustments. 

The fragmented land ownersh}p in this area reflects the 

historical public land disposal laws and policies. There are very 

large amounts of State and private lands and other property 

rights within this proposed legislation. We appreciate that some 

of these lands need to be acquired to manage the significant 

public resource values. But we all know, once a line is drawn on 

a map that delineates a park, tremendous pressures will be 

applied by advocates to acquire all the inholdings as a matter of 

principle, but who do not know the real nature of the specific 

resources involved. This leads us to one of the major concerns of 

this proposal--What is the total land acquisition costs? 

Preliminary estimates indicate they are very high. In addition, 

our experience shows that the total cost of acquiring such large 

amounts of private property, both in terms.of the appraised value 

and also the administrative costs of the realty transactions are 

alwaY,s much greater than the original advocates think. We see no 

reason why we should thrust on future generations the added tax 

burden when the situation can be handled with less cost if left 

under BLM management. This would allow BLM, under existing 

authority to consolidate lands of high public values, while 

leaving areas lacking significant public resource values to 

remain in private and State ownership with allowances for 

cooperative management arrangements. 

Based on our members experiences, we are identifying the 

deficiencies in the land exchange provisions in this bill. The 

provisions allowing Catellus Corp. implied exchange rights and to 

select lands from anywhere in the United States will be fraught 

with the same problems that resulted in the statutory prohibition 

of interstate exchanges in existing authority. Questions were 

raised by Senators from other states on this provision at hearings on companion legislation in the Senate. The ability to 

select economically developable properties is a necessary 

incentive for inholders to pursue land exchanges. Department of 

the Interior managed lands, that meet disposal criteria, in the 

large quantities to meet the needs of this legislation will be 

most difficult to find. Past administrative as well as 

individually legislated exchanges demonstrate that tremendous 

objections can be expected from economic, political and public 

interest groups in the area where the selected land is located. 

In the end, we would expect little of Catellus Corporations 

desires to be satisfied, and then, only after lengthy and costly 

challenges through adininstrative and legal processes. The 

preferential land exchange provisions for both Catellus Corp., 

and their railroad land grant ownership, and the State of 

California lands, benefits the California State employees pension 

funds at the expense of the greater public interest. 

Additionally, this proposal requiring the Department to give 

priority to consolidating federal land ownership within the Parks 
521 

and Wilderness areas being designated in this legislation will 

have an alarming impact on current and future 

exchange/acquisition programs that benefit public land management 

throughout the West. We would expect a significant impact on the 

exchange program in California, which is primarily for ~he 

purpose of helping manage biodiversity for the preservation of 

threatened and endangered species: 

We disagree with the windfall gain of transferring the 

entire 20,500 acres of public land to the State of California for 

expansion of the Red Rock Canyon State Park. It is our 

understanding that the State Parks plan for this area does not 

even identify the need for such additions to manage the park 

values. Existing authorities provide the means and criteria to 

make future land transfers to the State Park, if and when needed. 

As a compromise solution, the PLF recommends this 

legislation be modified as follows: 

1. Designate a significant portion of the East Mojave as a 

National Monument under BLM management with hunting allowed. This 

would permit hunting to continue in the area without jeopardy to 

the policy of no hunting in areas administered by the NPS. 

2. Enlargement of the Death Valley NP should be restricted 

to the ecosystem in the area. 

3. The State of California should use existing means to 

fulfill additional needs for the Red Rock Canyon State Park. 

4. Make fine-tuning adjustments to wilderness boundaries to 

p1·otect tl1e integ1·ity 1)f the wilder·ness values and and provide 

manageability 

5. Modify the exchange provisions to eliminate any 

implied rights to exchanges and permit some Department of the 

Interior discretion. 

We these r-ecommendations as advantageous for overall 

eff iency in the Federal 

of Califot·nia and provide 

public lands We ask that this 

~" <hl looid•"'"· 

Vince~t Board of Jl~ Directors 

Public Lands Foundation 

PO Box 10403 

Mclean, VA 22102 

of public lands in this area 

table stewardship of these valued 

letter be made part of the hearing 
522 

TO: Senate Comaittee on Energy and Natural Resources 

House Subco.mittee on National Parks, Forests & Public Lands 

FROM: 8111 M1111 714·577·2423 

4900 Glenview, Anaheim CA 92807 

Recipient of 1992 Conservation Award f~ Ca1iforni4 BLM Desert 

District Advisor¥ Council 

DATE: June 10, 199) 

TOPIC: WHO WILL ENSURE QUALITY CONTROL IN 

THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT? 

That the California Desert Protection Act Is a sloppily crafted 

bargaining pos1t1on was proved last year by Senator Cranston's 

willingness to drop one million unspecified acres 1n his negot1attons wfth Senator Se¥MQur. Although that bargaining position became outdated 

after the November election, the legislation sponsors have not since 

adjusted the wilderness bOundaries to make them practical, enforceable, 

widely respected by the public, and conducive to w11derne5s e~ploration. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was intended to prevent future road 

devtlopMent in areas that are currently roadless. Nothing in the 

1•g1slat1on suggests that it ~as designed to ~lo'e e$Lablished veh1cle 

routes that have been adMinistratively approved or marked on standard 

road maps. Certainly tht Act ~as not intended to ma~e wilderness 

effectively 1ntccess1ble \O citizens who wish to visit and explore these 

remote natural areas. 

Nonetheless, S.21/H.R.S18 would close numerous established vehfcle routes 

that either have bien assigned BLM route numbers, are part of the 

BLM·approved East Mojave Heritage Trail, or are identffi.d on publ1she4 Auto Club countJ •aps: 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA ROUTE NAME ASSIGNMENT 

Saline Valley Saline-Eureka corridor BLM route F179Z 

Rodman Mountains Box Canyon BLM route OJ295 

Eagle Mountains Big Wuh BLM route J289 

Orocop1a Mountains Red Canyon BLM route SRZ013 

Turtle Mountains Gary Wash BLM route V493 

Bright Star Bright Star Road BLM route SC431 

Bristol Mountains Budweiser Wash Heritage Tl'ail 

Kingston Mountains Kingston Wash Heritage Trail 

Pfute Mountafns Fenner Pus Heritage f.l!>a11 

Old Woman Mtns Sheep Ca.p Spring Access Auto Club county m.p Cady Mountains Valle~ Center Road Auto Club county map Kelso Dunes Bri1tol Mfnt Road Auto Club county map Riverside Mtns Old Blythe-Vidal Road Auto Club county map 
Two of these vehicle routes deserve special comment: 

• The 35·mile·long Saline-Eureka Corridor is utilized by naturalists 

and packbackers for access fnto the Most remote p1rL of the 

California desart. Wilderness advocates want this route closed fn 

order to create the largest officfel wilderness area in the 

country-·an arrogant end ext~fst goal that displays ignorance of 

the land, values wilderness .. fnly as a legal abstraction, and 

disregards the safety and convenience of future wilderness visitors. 

The Desert Protection Act would trensfer the Saline Valley WSA to the 

National Park Service es part of Death Valley National Monument; yet wilderness boundaries in the profosed additions do not agree entirely with the Monument Superintendent s preferences. Regarding the 

Saline-Eureka Corridor, the Superfntendent recognizes advantages to 

continued vehicle access, and would prefer to be granted management flexibility ff the area is transferred to the Park Servica. 

* The 9-mile route through Box Canyon in the Rodman Mountains has an assigned BLM route number, is located on the Auto Club m•p of San 

Bernardino County, and is recu.nended for 4WD touring fn the 1987 

Sierra Club guidebook, Adventurin~ in the California Desert. What more I~ needed.to prove 1ts sufta 111ty for continued vehicle access? 

Vehicle travel down Box Canyon is Infrequent and confined to a single track on 1 sloping sandy floor, so a leisurely drfve through the 

canyon, with stops for local exploring, fs an enjoyable, high-quality wilderness experience. Closing the route to vehicles would eliminate 

most if not all visitation, because only the central portion of the 

route is scenic, and the hike fro. either end would be repetitive and 

somewhat arduous, through re1at1vely monotonous terrain. 

All of these established vehicle routes could be retained with minimal 

reductions of total wilderness acreage by adding cherrystems or creating· narrow corridors foMIId by subdividing WSA's into two wilderness areas that are both larger than the •fnfMYI size of 5,000 acres. 

In addition to the routes listed above, numerous smaller boundary adJustments are warranted to provide vehicle access to existing parking areas at trail heads, as indicated in MY 10-page critique of 2/10/93. 

These refinements to the legislation are widely supported by voluntaer 

trip leaders who have extensive personal knowledge of the California 

desert. 

Despite obvious •isapplicatfons of the 1964 Wilderness Act, during two 

days of lobbying fn Washington DC in early May, I learned that propects are poor for refinement of the California wilderness legfslatfon: 

• The two Calffornfa Senators and their staff have 1fnimal personal knowledge of the Calffornia desert, yet have ignored recommendations on wilderness boundary changes that,~ould facflftate wilderness 

visitation. 

• At the Senate coMiittee hearings of late April, Interior Secratary Babbitt abdicated hts responsibility to convey to Congre$$ the 

recommendations of both BLM and NPS professional staff regarding wilderness boundaries. 
524 

• Senators from other states are concerned about general policy issues 

in the California legislation, but not wilderness boundary locations; 

for reasons of protocol, senators of either party affiliation w111 

not challenge proposed boundary locations, no •attar how 1rrat1onal. 

* The House sponsors hope to rubber-stamp the Senate 1 5 final product without change, to avoid a House-Senate conference. 

Who, then, w1'11 provide quality control to tho definition of wilderness 

boundaries in the California Desert Protection Act? Members of Congress, please consider and raise this question during committee hearings and 

mark•up sessions on thfs legislation. 

To confin. tht value of existing vehicle routes for wilderness 

visitation, please contact the following environaent.l leaders and 

authorities on the California desert, with the understanding that each 

individual may be knowledgeable about nnty one or several of the routes 

listed above. 

Greg Davis 213~740-6726 Professor of Geology at USC, specializing on Mojave Desert geology 

Mary DeDecker 619-878-2389 Fore•ost authority on rare plants of 

the northarn desert: e~~mber of the 

BlM Desert Dis~r1ct Advisory Council 

Alan Roa1pert 714-449-7034 Ot$ert botanist; ~ontributor to 

East MoJave Heritage Trail Gufde 

Alan Schoenherr 714-494-0675 Professor of Ecology; author of 

6 Hatural Hfstorx of California 

Jon Stewart 619-346-5694 Desert botanical garden curator; environMental leader 1n Coachella 

V•lley 

Clifford Walker 619-256-5570 Desert historian; author of 

l!ck Qg~ to Cll1fornfa: The Storx 

2! ~he Jl~l § ~It Trall 
525 

CHAMBER oP CoMMERCE 

OPT"" 

UNITED STATES OP AMERICA 

WU.LIAM T. ARcH"" 

S!NIOa VIa PllutoeNT, Poucv 

AJrft) CoN<H~ZSSJONAL ArrAntS 

The Honorable Bruce F. VeniO 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parb, 

Forests, and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

WashingiOn, D.C. 20515-6201 

Dear Chairman VeniO: 

June 22, 1993 

1615 H S"""", N. W. 

Wu1GI'010M, D. C. 20062•2000 

202/4&3·5417 

The U.S. Chamber of Commmle Federation of state and local chambers of commerce, 

businesses, and associations appm:iata Ibis opportunity 10 present its views on H.R. 518, "The 

California Desert Protection Act. • 1bc Chamber Federation has identified sustainable use of 

the nation's natural resources as a National Business Agenda priority item. Primary resource 

industries, such as oil and gas cmaction, agriculture, silviculture, and mining account for at 

least 20 percent of U.S. Gross J:lomc3lic Product, involve millions of jobs, and their economic 

performance has powerful ripple: effects on all other sectors of the economy. 

The Chamber Federatioo believes that H.R. 518 will cause significant harm 10 various 

interests in the California dc3crt.. Dis k:Ucr summarizes the flaws and their economic impacts 

and outlines possible alternative approaches for the protection of this natural resource. 

SJun.inirl 

H.R. 518 will affect the profitability of thousands of businesses in the desert region as 

well as put in jeopardy the jobs of their employees. A great deal of the prosperity of these five 

counties is dependent upon the cbain of businesses that supplies or depends upon the mining, 

ranching, hunting and recreation firms that operate in the California desert. 

H.R. 518 would lock up nearly eight million acres of the California Desert Conservation 

Area by: 

• designating 73 BurQu of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness Areas covering 

4. 0 million acres 

• designating additiooal Dlllional park wilderness areas for the newly designated and 

expanded Death Valley National Park (3.18 million acres), Joshua Tree National 

Park (131,800 acres), and East Mojave National Monument (695,000 acres) 
526 

This legislation is being debated despite the fact that ae.vly six million acres included in 

the wilderness designalions of H.R. 518 have not been recommended for deaignation by BLM 

because either the lands do not meet wilderness criteria or the an:-.u are already receiving special 

protection under their current land classification. 

Economic Jnmacts 

The California desert sustains large mining, cattle, and recteation industries which 

provide the economic base for most of the desert region. The designation of such a large 

portion of the desert as wilderness and the expansion and creation of National Parle! threaten to 

destroy the economic base of the region. 

The California desert produces 34 mineral commodities worth an estimated $1.75 billion 

annually. To meet the future demand for key minerals in this country, exploration of the desert 

must be allowed to continue. Less than a 30-year life is expcded on about 60 percent of current 

mining rererves in the desert region, 'IIIith most remaining mines depleted after SO years. With 

exploration prohibited on the newly designated wilderness and national park lands, the mining 

industry will be forced to leave the desert region. 

The mining industry directly employs 16,640 persons in the desert counties, and 19,630 

people in southern California. Each $1 million in mineral production supports 15 jobs in the 

region. For every $1 million of mineral production lost, $335,000 in annual income and 

$29,000 in annual local tax revenue would disappear. 

If H.R. 518 is enacted, ranchers will lose more than $4 million due to the loss in range 

cattle and sheep production. The recreation industry will lose more than $90 million from lost 

recreational vehicle sales, service, travel expenditures, and registration fees. 

For all sectors of southern California, 20,354 jobs, $2 billion in annual GDP, $63 million 

in annual state tax revenue, $39 million in annual local tax revenue, and $450 million in annual 

wages would be lost. Most of the jobs lost will be in high unemployment desert counties with 

few employment alternatives. 

The East Mojave 

In 1990, the Bureau of Mines identified $7.7 billion of mineral resources and 701 mines 

and prospects in the East MQiave. The value of metallic resources (such as gold, iron, silver, 

molybdenum, and tungsten) was estimated to be $4.6 billion; the value of non-metallic resources 

(such as talc, clay, and fluorite), $3.1 billion. The uniqueness of these resources, plus their 

proximity to metropolitan areas and transportation systems, make these deposits far too valuable 

to be locked up. The study concluded that San Bernardino County would lose $2 billion in 

cumulative mining revenues, 2,300 jobs, and $620 million in personal earnings, property, sales 

taxes, and permit fees if a bill such as H.R. 518 is enacted. 
527 

H R 518 Will Increase the Federal Deficit 

Wilderness and land management, land acquisitions, and land exchanges cost the 

government millions of dollars. Approximately 600,000 acres of private property must be 

bought by the government ifH.R. 518 is enacted; the BLM has estimated it may cost more than 

$600 million to implement the bill. This cost would have to be absorbed at a time when there 

already exists a $2.2 billion operations and maintenance backlog within the existing national 

parks structure. If the nation's most important goals are deficit reduction and promoting longterm economic growth, the cost of implementing this bill cannot be justified. California is 

battling a severe recession and has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation. Neither 

California nor the fedmll government can afford this bill. 

An Alternative Amnoach- A Desert Plan Already Exists 

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directed the BLM to 

develop a plan to manage the California Desert Conservation Area under a multiple-use concept. 

While developing this plan, the BLM conducted more than 100 public hearings, completed 16 

environmental impact studies, and considered more than 40,000 public comments. The desert 

plan recommended protecting 700,000 acres as areas of critical environmental concern and 5.5 

million acres as wilderness study areas (2.3 million of these acres were recommended as suitable 

for wilderness). This plan was approved by both the Carter and Bush Administrations. The 

BLM desert conservation plan strikes a proper balance between wilderness and natural resource 

values in the region. 

Representative Jerry Lewis' bill, H.R. 2379, maintains the intent of FLPMA by 

recognizing the need to designate certain lands as wilderness areas while opening up nonwilderness areas to other resource uses. 

The Chamber appreciates this opportunity to present its views on H.R. 518 and requests 

that a copy of this letter be included in the hearing record. 

Sincerely, 
61301113 17:37:28 

528 

Poge10o111 

Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce 

P.O.BoxiOO 

Joshu1 TrM, CA 112252 

Phone: (t11) 388-3723 

RESOLUTION NO. 113-01 

ARESOI.UTIONOFTIEJOSHUATREECHAMBEROFCOMIIERCEINOPPOSITIONTOSENATEBLL21(FEINSTEIN)AND 

HOUSERESOUITION5111CLEHMAN~ TIE''CALIFORNIADESERTPROTECTIONACTOF111113". 

WHEREAS. Senale Bill 21 aa introduced by Senator Feinstein. and House Raeolution 518 aa introduced by 

. CongreMman Lll!lfWI, -.ld lock up.,.,. 8.5 million IICIW d -.a1, state and private lands in the California Oeoert from 

future use. by declaring them to be areae d permanent wi-s; and 

WHEREAS, S. 21 and HR 518 -.ld end the muftiple use policy currently being elliclently maowged by the U.S. 

Bureau d Land Management in the public intereet, oonducting an annual review prooeso, including an annual EIS; and 

WHEREAS, S. 21 and HR 518 -.ld negate the findings d CNer 100 public hearings, \/Oiumee d written public 

comment. 16 objecliwt ei'Nimnmantal impect studies and millions d ,_dollars having been e>epended to ~a lair 

and belanoed management plan under the Congreesionally Mandated California Deoert Conoervlllion Area Ad, which -

approwed by the Carter adminillnllion and raetlirmed by the Bush adrninillnllion; and 

WHEREAS, S. 21 and HR 518 -.ld lmpooe........., negatiwt eoonomic impecto to the Stated California, County 

d San Bernardino, other mountain I desert counties and cities, through the loos d jobs, property and sales m-. and other 

revenue 8IIOCialed with the mining, cattle, recreation and tourism industries; and 

WHEREAS, S. 21 and HR518-.Id, according to the U.S. BureaudMines, resul inlheCourtydSanBemardinolooing 

an estimoled S2 blion in cumWIMt mine ll!lll!l1ueo .,.,. 20 years and $620 miion in personal earnings, - and lees; and 

WHEREAS, the implementation coots d S. 21 and HR 518 -.ld add an estimated $610 million to the -.a1 delicit 

at a time when the national debt is $4.25 trillion; and 

WHEREAS, S. 21 and HR 518 contain detrimental exclusions d water rights without regard to present and future, 

regional and local, human and environmental needs; and 

WHEREAS, S. 21 and HR 518 would reduce, and within 10 years eliminate, the ability to mine cument claims and 

to explore .-areae that prollide minerals and ' rare earths ' that are essential to national defense and medical "'"earch which 

can only be found in the California Desert; and 

WHEREAS, the~ and authors dS.21 and HR 518 halle not oonducted field hearings in the California Oeoert 

areas directly -ed by this legislation, halle not conou•ed with local government ollicialo, nor met with local "'"-who face the looo d their jobs and ~lorna; and 

WHEREAS, the sponsors and~ d S. 21 and HR 518 by virtue d denying the public the opportunity to be 

heard, se\lerely limftl the ability and the constitutional rights d American citizens to participate in the governmental prooesa, and to expriiiS their concemo about the management d public lands; and 

WHEREAS, the authors and-- d S. 21 and HR 518 halle not ta1oen into consideration the CNerwhelrning 

oppooillon from state. county and City dficialo. and more importantly, the objeclionl d the public. 

NON, THEREFORE BE IT RESQ.VED THAT: The Joohua Tree ctarrbor d Cornmorca il oppooed to- 81121 

and House Reooii.Clon 518 or arry ather legillotion that -.ld flrtler destroy the econcrnv. currant and lutura job._., and locko 

the piAJic cut d p!Jllic land thai is rigltfuly lheirs to enjoy under the et.mlnl ~ Desert c:or-valion Area Ad. 

APPROVED AND AOOP'TED by the Joshua Tree a.nber d Commerce lhio 12th day d March, 1993. 

~d~ c.ole L Bergin • Pnsidonl 
529 

Associated Chambers of Commerce in the Morongo Basin 

Economic Development Committee 

Post Office Box 414 

Joshua Tree, CA 92252 

(800) 533-7104 

RESOI.UTIOH NO. fl3.01 

ARESO!..UTIONOFTHEMORONG08ASINECONOMICDEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEEINOPf'OSITIONTOSEHATEBILL21 

(FEINSTEIN)ANDHOIJSERESOLUTION5181LEHMAHJ, THE"CALIFORNIADESERTPftOTEC110NN:TOF1993". 

WHEREAS. Senate Bill 21 as intmdueed by Senator Feinstein, and House Resolution 518 as introduced by 

Congressman Lehman, would lock up <Ner 6.5 million acres of federal, state and private lands in the catifomia Deoert from 

future use, by declaring them to be areas of permanent wi-•: and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 would end the mu~iple uae policy currently being el!iciently managed by the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management in the public interest; and 

WHEREAS, sa 21 and HR 518 would impose severe negative economic impacts to the state of Galifomia, County 

of San Bernardino, - rnounblin /deoert counties and cities, through the loss of jobs, property and sales taxes, and other 

""""'Ue associated with the rni"ling, cattle, recreation and tourism industries: and 

WHEREAS, SB21 andHR518'110!Ad, aooordinglotheU.S. Bureau of Mines, resul intheCountyofSan Bemardimlosing 

an estimated $2 bibl in CUl'ltJiliM! mine revenues over 20 ye;m and $620 milion in personal earnings, 1a>es and tees; and 

WHEREAS, tHe implemeull!llion costs of SB 21 and HR 518 would add an estimated $610 milliOn to the federal deficit 

at a time when the national deb! is $4.25 trilliOn; and 

WHEREAS, SB 21 and HR 518 contain detrimental exclusions of water light. without regard to present and future, 

regional and local, human and erMJ'Onmental needs; and 

WHEREAS, SB21 and HR518 would reduce, and within 10 yea.s elirrnnate, the abil~to rrnne currentolaims and 

to explore new • .....,. lllat pnMde mlnenlls and • rare earths 'that are essential to national defenoe and medical research which 

can only be found in the ~ Deoert; and 

WHEREAS, the-- and al.llhoB of SB21 and HR 516 have not conducted field healings in the Gaillornia 

Deoert areas directly allecled by this ~lotion, have not consulted with local g<Nernmenl o1!icials, nor mel with local 

residents Who face the loss of their jObs and homeo: and 

WHEREAS, the SporJIOIS and proponents of SB 21 and HR 518 by Virtue of denying the public the opportun~ to be 

heard, severely limilllthe ability and the eoMtnutional right. of American citizens to participate in the g<Nernmentat process, 

and to """""'' their concems about the management of public lands; and 

WHEREAS. SB 21 and HR 518 would negale the findings of"""" 100 public tll!alings, ><>lumes of written public 

comment, 16 objec:tMo erMronmental impact studies and millions of ta.payer dollaJS haVing been expended to create a fair 

and balanced ~ plan under the Congressionally Mandated ca- Deoert ConseMition Area Act; and 

WHEREAS, the_,.,.. and-- of SB 21 and HR 516 have not taken into considefalionthe <Mifwhelrrnng 

opposmn from state, county and ely olfioials, and more importa~, the objections of the public at large. 

NCN'Y, THEREFORE BErT RESOLVED THAT: The Morongo Besln Economic Development Committee is opposed 

to Senate Bill 21 and House Resolution 518"' any other legislation thatwouid further destroy the economy, current and future 

job base, and locks the public out of public land that is rightfully theirs to enjoy under the current california Oeser! 

Conservation Aree Act 

APPROVED AND ADCPTED by the Morongo Basin Eeor>:lrrHc Qeo.elopment Comrmtee this 12th day d Mao::h, 1993. 
530 

IIITDIIATIOIIAL .. II I Uti 01' .AJaRII!A 

2242 AMIELA COlE, APT. NO. 18 

CAliF 11 1 CALFOIIIIIIA 81008 

TELEPHDNEII: (4011) 371-3247 IHOMEJ 

(4011) 582-2033 (WDIIIC) 

June 23, 1993 

National Parka, Forests and Public Lands Commttee 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

HoWle Annex l, Room 812 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

I, Paul Herren. and the J:Mt llojllft Property ow-~-. enunCiate 

dlaapproval for the s.tllojllft o-t Lockout BID IIIUS18, that Is being Introduced 

leglslatlvely, but wh1cb had not been communicated to us. We vigorously request that 

you acknowledge and accept our demand to stop the above-stated legislation. 

Our plans have taken yaua of preparation In laying the foundation for a future church 

(Chrlat In Mlnl8try Aasembly), an lntemaUonal school (lntemaUonallnsUtute of 

Amer1ca), and an open home for homeless chtldren and adults. 

The l'anlei•S87-01Sl-20 In Clma, Callfom1a Is a gtft from God, and Is to be our chtldren's and their chtldren's heritage. We have Invested lnftnlte phystcal and splrltual 

energy. 

In cloelng. we urge you to respect the dlllgent work we have begun. and to honor the 

prtv11egea that property ownership has enutled us. Aa a citizen of our Ualted State. of 

Aaaedca. It Is crucial that ._ communicate to you our democratic volcea of dlaapproval 

of your Intentions and actions In thla J:Mt Jlajae o-t Lockout Bm.IIIUSl IUid 

IIIUI2. Additionally, a Umely Iegtslatlve response, as woell as a written response. a.-c 

requested. 

I request thla o~ to be read Into the oftlclal minutes of the hearing on June 15, 

1993, concerning HOWle am HR5I8. 

Thank you. for your ume and careful attention In conaldmng this Important matter. 
531 

C'RYST'5U Cll'VT :MI:Nl:N(j CO:MP.Jt:NY 

402 1/2 Pafos '\lerdes 'Bfvtf. 

-&d:oru:fo 'Beacli, ex 90277 

(310) 373-8291 

* Please include this letter in the official records 

June 10, 1993 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Committee 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chainnan 

House Annex 1, Room 812 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Sir: 

We respectfully request your consideration to oppose the House Bill HR518. 

We have been engaged in the mining and development oftbe East Mojave area since 

1934. Our interest and effurts in the development of its resources and tbe protection of 

the natural environment has always been in place. 

We of course will respect and enforce any decision that may evolve. Limiting freedom of 

action and commercial development cannot be in the best interest of those striving to 

create commercial activity. 

Yours truly, 

~~~ 
532 

ARNOLD N. APPLEBAUM 1---P.O.Sox5n laMirada,CA 110637-0577 TEL:(714)522·7053 FAX:(714)522·7018 

June 12, 1993 

National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands Committee 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

House Annex 1, Room 812 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Re: California Desert Protection Act 

House Bill HR 518 

Dear Honorable Chairman Vento: 

As a land owner of over 1,000 acres in the East Mojave Desert, I 

strongly oppose the passage of HR 518. 

Myself and other land owners in the area oppose the California 

Desert Protection Act as it's function seems to (l) transfer the 

regulation and authority of the land from the BLM to the National 

Parks service so more parks and wilderness areas can be designated 

and regulated needlessly; (2) spend millions of dollars taking away 

the freedom of the people to use these lands; and (3) prevent 

private homeowners from building, expanding and using their land as they wish to, in addition to the fact that these private homeowners 

may have to sell their lands at way below market values to a government entity who has no funds with which to purchase them. 

(Or would the government exercise Public Domain and confiscate our 

property?) 

It would seem that since these lands are not really used that much, our government's focus is misdirected. Additionally, since 

California parti cularly is in an economic depression, it would be 

unwise for the government to spend millions of dollars in the 

middle of the desert when these funds can surely be put to better uses in our State; i.e., creating more jobs for the unemployed. 

I realize the environment is important to us all, but we have major problems in our cities with smog and hazardous waste issues that 

should be addressed -- not desert land in a highly unpopulated area that is basically doing fine on its own. "If it ain't broke; don't 

fix it." we believe this area is not broken. 
533 

The Honorable Bruce Vento 2 June 12, 1993 

I therefore urge you to reconsider your position on House Bill 518 

and the entire California Desert Protection Act and prohibit its 

passage in the House. 

~pp7!~~ AMA/cdp 

cc: The Honorable Jerry Lewis 

House of Representatives 

Washington D.C. 

Public Lands, national parks and Forests 

The Honorable Dale Bumpers, Chairman 

United States Senate 

Washington D.C. 20510 

East Mojave Property owners Association 

P.O. Box 103 

Cima, Calif. 92323 

Kathleen Honeycutt 

California Assemblywoman, 34th District 

P.O. Box 942849 

Sacramento, Calif. 94249-0001 

Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senator 

United States senate 

Washington, DC 20510-0504 

Barbara Boxer 

United States Senator 

United States senate 

washington, DC 20510-0504 

pf"'perty\ditMrt. pro 
534 

Bll 518 DESERT PROTBCTIOI ACT HBARIIGS - JUD 1!!5, 1993 

WRIT'IEI TESTiliDliY - TO BE READ IliTO THE RECORD. 

1111. .. MRS. VIRBIL A. .IIIRDOM 

"-'"-

---CA12341 

The Honorable Bruce Bento, Chair-n 

Subco111111ittee on Public Lands, Jrational Parks and Forests 

A 812 O'Ieill, H.O.R. 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Bento, 

am writing to you because I oppose HR 518. 

am an avid naturalist and dedicated rockhound who enjoys the 

desert with lilY family. 

HR 518 is too restrictive, closing vast areas of California desert 

to recreation and hobbies such as gem and mineral collecting. Of 

the presently available 9.7 million acres, 8.3 million acres would 

be set aside, leaving only 1.4 million acres open for public use. That 8.3 million acres effectively closes off eighty-fi~ percent 

of public lands now available. In addition to this, 14.7 million 

acres are already tied up in military property, cities, industry, 

communities, homes, State parks and Death Valley and Joshua Tree 

llational ll'onuments. 

I have been exploring the California desert with fellow rockhounds 

for over forty-five years, always following dirt roads, enjoying 

the ever changing scenes that the desert has to offer. 

Establishing a Iational Park in the desert would eliminate 

presently open areas, resulting in -ny of the desert scenes being 

lost to exploration, •ining, education and human view. 

I would like to request that the subcommittee convene in the 

southern California desert area and hold hearings to gain knowledge 

on how HR 518 would affect the entire ~·egion before finalizing its 

recommendations to Congress. 

Without bearings here in southern California, the constitutional 

phrase. "Government o'£ the people. by the people, -u would prove to 

be meaningless and oppressive. 

I urge you to oppose HR 518 in its present form. 

Thank you for this opportunity to express wy views. 

0 

72-354 (544} 



ISBN 0-16-041525-X