I qlloo('36?­ { DESIGNATE LANDS IN LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST AS WILDERNESS

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBOOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIO LANDS OF THE OOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESK' )O~ ...... ~ • ONE HUNDRED FIRS~"~~IQI:N~ mJ};)'r:\tf~t. t V·~· FIRST SESSION ON AUG 2? 1991 H.R. 1473, . . .." TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN LOS PADRE~\~A~I6NAL FOREST· AS WILDERNESS, TO DESIGNATE SESPE CREEK AND THE:··SISQUOC·RIVER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS WILD;)~.ND SCENIC RIVERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC JULY 18, 1989

Serial No. 101-35

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

43-252,=< WASHINGTON: 1991

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Chairman GEORGE MILLER, California DON YOUNG, Alaska, PIDLIP R. SHARP, Indiana Ranking Republican Member EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania RON MARLENEE, Montana NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota DENNY SMITH, Oregon PAT WILLIAMS, Montana JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah BEVERLY B. BYRON, Maryland BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands BEN BLAZ, Guam SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. RHODES III, Arizona PETER H. KOSTMA YER, Pennsylvania ELTON GALLEGLY, California RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California STAN PARRIS, Virginia BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming JAIME B. FUSTER, Puerto Rico JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee MEL LEVINE, California JAMES McCLURE CLARKE, North Carolina WAYNE OWENS, Utah JOHN LEWIS, Georgia BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa JAMES A. McDERMOTT, Washington STANLEY SCOVILLE, Staff Director and Counsel Roy JONES, Associate Staff Director and Counsel LEE McELVAIN, General Counsel RICHARD A. AGNEW, Chief Minority Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania RON MARLENEE, Montana NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BEVERLY B. BYRON, Maryland JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands BEN BLAZ, Guam PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania JOHN J. RHODES III, Arizona RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico STAN PARRIS, Virginia GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon PETTER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa JAIME B. FUSTER, Puerto Rico CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming MEL LEVINE, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee JAMES McCLURE CLARKE, North Carolina DON YOUNG, Alaska WAYNE OWENS, Utah JOHN LEWIS, Georgia BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon JAMES A. McDERMOTT, Washington MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona DALE CRANE, Staff Director JAMES (JIM) BRADLEY, Professional Staff Member FABRIZIA HAWES, Staff Assistant STEPHEN HODAPP, Republican Consultant on National Parks and Recreation NOTE.-The first listed minority member is counterpart tothe subcommittee chairman:

(II) CONTENTS

Page Hearing held: July 18, 1989...... 1 Text of the bill: H.R. 1473...... 8

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Statements: Overbay, James, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture...... 16 Panel consisting of: Sally Reid, vice president, Sierra Club, San Francisco ...... 34 Gene Marshall, coalition for Ventura County Wilderness, Ventura, California...... 49 Kevin Coyle, vice president and conservation director, American Rivers, Washington, DC...... 57 Panel consisting of: Fred Gientke, general manager, United Water Conservation District, Santa Clara, California...... 79 Sheldon Berger, treasurer and secretary, United Water Conservation District, Oxnard, California ...... 91 Chuck Bennett, Oxnard and Ventura Chambers of Commerce and Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County, OJAI, California 98 Carolyn Leavens, Leavens Ranches and chairman of the Water Com­ mittee of the Economic Development Association, Ventura, Califor- nia...... 108 Panel consisting of: Alan Coles, Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club, Long Beach, California ...... 117 Steven Evans, associate conservation director, Friends of the River, Sacramento, California ...... 129 Phillip White, consulting engineer, Ventura, California...... 133 Steven Barnard, president of Mission Produce and officer of Ventura County Taxpayers Association, Santa Paula, California ...... 134 Panel consisting of: Carla Bard, realtor, OJAI, California...... 137 Rex Laird, general manager, Ventura County Farm Bureau, Ven- tura, California...... 139 Patricia Clark, Ranch Owner, OJAI, California...... 140 APPENDIX

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Additional Material Submitted for the Hearing Record: Statement of Congressman Leon Panetta ...... 151 Statement of Raymond D. Green ...... 155 Additional testimony submitted by Steven L. Evans...... 159 Letter from Mark H. Capelli, dated March 31, 1989...... 163 Letter from Bruce Franks, dated May 2, 1989...... 165 Letter from James J. Henry, dated June 8, 1989...... 166 Letter from Stan Greene, dated JUly 12, 1989...... 168 Letter from Frank DePasquale, dated July 12, 1989 ...... 169 Letter submitted by Jane Figen, dated July 12, 1989...... 170 Letter from Frank Brommenschenkel, dated July 13, 1989...... 177

(III) IV Page Letter from Harvard G. Ayers, dated July 13,1989...... 178 Letter from Russ and Pat Baggerly, dated July 14,1989...... 179 Letter from Jack O'Connell, dated July 14, 1989...... 180 Letter from Patrice Davison, dated July 17,1989...... 181 Letter from Steve Kuehl, dated July 18, 1989...... 182 Letter from Dana Bell, dated July 18, 1989...... 184 Letter from Todd Ourston, dated July 20, 1989...... 185 Letter from Alan Coles, dated July 24, 1989 (attached is copy of letter from E.R. Blakley) ...... 187 Letter from Phil White, dated July 29, 1989...... 190 List of endorsers...... 194 Sample of form letter ...... 195 Sample of petition...... 196 Editorial submitted by Congressman Lagomarsino...... 197 Letter from Yvon Chouinard to Alasdair Coyne, dated July 12,1989...... 198 DESIGNATE LANDS IN LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST AS WILDERNESS

rUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chair­ man of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come to order. Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 1473, a bill introduced by my colleague on the subcommittee, Mr. Lagomarsino. This bill would designate three areas of the Los Padres National Forest in southern California as wilderness. These areas would become the Sespe Wilderness, the Matilija Wilderness and the La Brea Addi­ tion to the existing San Rafael Wilderness. These new additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System would total almost 245,000 acres. The bill also would add two waterways in the Los Padres Nation­ al Forest to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. They are 27.5 miles of Sespe Creek and 31 miles of the Sisquoc River. Both would be designated as wild rivers. I spent Memorial Day recess visiting this area. It was a good visit. We had a good day. We had some good food. I think we learned something about the area that we are going to be setting policy for. But I think this hearing also will be very helpful to air some of the differences. There has been a forest management plan that has received a lot of attention from the community and from constitu­ ent groups that are interested in the issue. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and taking the time to come all the way from the West Coast. I particularly appreciate that. Without objection, all of the statements will be made a part of the record. Because we have a large number of witnesses today, we will limit the witnesses to 5 minutes in terms of presenting their oral testi­ mony, and try to limit ourselves to get through in an orderly manner today. I may be called away, because we have the S&L conference going on downstairs. From time to time, they need my presence at that. (1) 2 At that point, we will hand the gavel over to someone else, and be able to keep moving along. Congressman Lagomarsino. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Until Mr. Panetta comes, I will go ahead. When he does appear, I would ask that we interrupt my statement, if I am still giving it, to allow him to proceed. I would like to thank you for putting all of the statements in the record. I have a much longer one that I am going to present, and I appreciate that being in the record. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this timely hearing on my bill, H.R. 1473, and very much appreciate your coop­ eration and that of the subcommittee staff on this issue of impor­ tance to me and Ventura County. As you will recall, I introduced similar legislation, H.R. 4746, along with Senator Pete Wilson last Congress. Unfortunately, we adjourned before being able to consider it. My legislation before us today, H.R. 1473, would designate two wild and scenic rivers, two new wilderness areas and expand an ex­ isting wilderness all within Los Padres National Forest. This meas­ ure would implement key recommendations of the U.S. Forest Service following completion of the final management plan for the forest. All of these areas lie within my Congressional District or the neighboring Twenty-First District represented by our colleague on the subcommittee, Elton Gallegly, who is an original co-sponsor of this bilL My bill proposes to add approximately 58.5 miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through designation of segments of Sespe Creek and Sisquoc River. As proposed by the Forest Service following completion of the forest plan, the 27.5-mile segment of Sespe Creek extending from its junction with Trout Creek just east of the popular Lions Campground to the Devil's Gate Area north of Fillmore would be designated as a wild river. As the river winds through the National Forest, it offers numer­ ous scenic and recreational opportunities. It is important habitat for many varieties of animal and plant life. The Sespe is also known as an excellent trout fishery and a portion of the river was recently designated as a State wild trout stream. Mr. Chairman, as you may recall my telling you during our hike along the Sespe a month and a half ago, I have many fond memo­ ries-some old, some new-of enjoying this area. My family has been in Ventura County for quite some time; we are now on our fifth generation. I remember hiking, fishing and hunting in this se­ cluded area as a boy. Riding with friends along the many trails still is a favorite pastime. Not long ago, I introduced the fifth generation of Lagomarsinos, my granddaughter, Kelly, to the Sespe area by taking her fishing at a quiet spot. It is only fair that my granddaughter, Kelly, be able to take her grandchildren to this same spot to teach them to fish, learn about nature and enjoy the unmarred, pristine wilder­ ness. My bill will allow for just that. The 31-mile segment of the Sisquoc River that flows entirely through the San Rafael Wilderness would be designated as a wild river. It is known for its recreational opportunities and diverse ter- 3 rain. It, too, is the home to many diverse plant and animal life, in­ cluding black bear and deer. With regard to wilderness areas, my legislation would establish the Sespe and Matilija Wilderness areas and expand the existing San Rafael Wilderness. The proposed 197,000 Sespe Wilderness begins just east of the Dick Smith Wilderness, which was established largely through my efforts with the passage of the 1984 California Wilderness Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman, from your personal inspection, this area is characterized by rugged and diverse topography and serves as a major watershed for the Piru, Sespe and Cuyama Rivers. It is also an important habitat for many sensitive bird and animal spe­ cies, including the recently reintroduced bighorn sheep and endan­ gered California condor. I have included in my bill provisions to ensure that any oil and gas exploration and development in this area must be conducted in an environmentally safe manner from outside the sanctuary. Recreational access to Sespe Hot Springs would be allowed to continue via the Johnson Ridge Trail pending completion of a study by the Forest Service to determine appropriate future man­ agement of the area. My legislation would also establish the Matilija Wilderness, en­ compassing 30,000 acres in the Santa Ynez Mountains. Finally, my bill would establish the La Brea Addition to the existing San Rafael Wilderness. I would like to emphasize that careful effort has gone into craft­ ing this legislation. It is based on the Forest Service recommenda­ tions which were completed last year under the competent leader­ ship of Supervisor Art Carroll and only after extensive professional and public input, from all those interested in the forest. H.R. 1473 represents a very careful balance among all the com­ peting needs of the region, from water development to environmen­ tal preservation. The broad base of support it has, from local farm­ ers and economic development interests to environmentalists and the whole spectrum of recreational interests is testimony to its re­ sponsible drafting. While I recognize that some claim it does not go far enough and others claim that it goes too far, my bill clearly establishes the middle ground, forging a very reasonable and acceptable compro­ mise for all. Debate has arisen about the proposed wild and scenic designation for the Sespe River. I know that our expert witnesses today will expand upon this issue. I strongly believe that portions of Sespe Creek merit protection for the enjoyment of today's visitors as well as future generations. After extensive study by the Forest Service, some areas were not recommended and have not been proposed. Mr. Chairman, you may recall, we landed near one such segment, the "river" was no more than a trickle, and that was in May. It will all be underground there next month, in August. Most of this portion of the Sespe is right next to State Highway 33. Furthermore, all the areas to be designated by my bill lie within the boundaries of the National Forest. At least 4 miles of the Sespe, running through North Fillmore, traverses through private, 4 already developed property. You will recall the producing oil wells. Wild and scenic is, therefore, not recommended for these parts, either. During this morning's testimony, the issues of dams on the Sespe will arise. My legislation wisely, I believe, does not preclude the option for two possible future sites. The site water interests have determined to be the best for a dam, the Topatopa site, is precluded from any development, as it is located in the heart of the wilder­ ness and the wild and scenic designation area. My bill is silent on dams. It only leaves the option for the future open. This option is necessary, and some of the witnesses will elaborate on the real water needs, present and future, of the region. There already have been dams on the Sespe. There is a diversion struc­ ture there today near Devil's Gate, and the remnants of a dam exist in North Fillmore. Yes, the cost of a dam may seem too steep today, but then again, who would have believed 20 years ago when gas cost a quarter that I would be paying $1.30 a gallon today. And we have the technolo­ gy today to design stable dams in earthquake country. The dams at Piru, Casitas and Cachuma corroborate that. We can build dams today that allow for silt bypass and fish access. My colleagues may also recall that the House has already appro­ priated over $11 million to help build the Freeman Diversion Dam on the Santa Clara River to catch Sespe runoff and recharge the Oxnard Plain aquifer. But, the "all at once" nature of the Oxnard plain water table could mean some sort of development on the Sespe is needed in the future. The Freeman Diversion is a popular, responsible way to help manage water resources, but it does not work alone. My legislation does satisfactorily address this angle. Presently, there are neither plans nor proposals for a dam. There may never be. But the serious, real water concerns dictate that we not rule out such possibilities today. Of course, should there be any proposal, it would come under intense-I mean really intense­ public scrutiny and debate, accompanied by numerous environmen­ tal impact studies, Congressional approval, local bond issues, elec­ tions, and so on. Incidentally, many of the wild and scenic rivers in California, like the Kern and Tuolumne, have dams on them. I should point out that some key local groups, the chambers of commerce, the Ventura County Economic Development Associa­ tion, the local Farm Bureau, and many prominent local families, were opposed to my bill, believing it went "too far." They have come to understand the issues and agreed to this responsible com­ promise. They now back my bill, as they will testify today. However, if we expand the provisions, as some testifying today will recommend, that support representing a very large segment of the local popula­ tion, will be lost. Frankly, this is not a question of dams or no dams. The legisla­ tion is "dam neutral." We should not let this issue become an ob­ stacle to our primary goal, to preserve and protect in perpetuity some of our most serene and secluded canyons, rivers and peaks and their environments. 5 Please remember that this bill also includes other important wil­ derness proposals, like the La Brea Addition, the Sespe Wilderness, the Matilija Wilderness and the Sisquoc River designation. In closing, I would again like to thank you, Chairman Vento, for holding this hearing. I would also like to welcome our witnesses, especially those "locals" who have come all the way from Califor­ nia, like Art Carroll, Chuck Bennett, Fred Gientke, Rex Laird, Carolyn Leavens, Gene Marshall, Steve Barnhard, Sheldon Berger, Pat Clark, Carla Bard, Phillip White and Allasdair Coyne. I look forward to their testimony and to moving ahead on pre­ serving these outstanding parts of the Los Padres National Forest. Mr. VENTO. Some people might not think it is a penalty to go out there. Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of comments at the outset to say that I was listening with a great deal of interest, particularly to Mr. Lagomarsino's very thoughtful and apt description of the legislation. I come here with an open mind. But I do want both the chair­ man and the author to know, as I have mentioned to each of them privately, that I have received a number of phone calls in the past several weeks from interested people in and around my area, which is very near both Mr. Lagomarsino's district and Mr. Gal­ legly's district, raising the question as to whether this provides enough protection. I think Mr. Lagomarsino outlined in his remarks the debate and the discussions. I really am going to be listening to the testimony very carefully, with three questions in mind. Let me just lay them out so that the witnesses will be aware of the questions that I have. They all go to the question of whether this legislation provides enough protection. I think they can be subdivided into three cate­ gories. The first is the Sespe be given enough wild and scenic desig­ nation. Should the Sespe be given greater wild and scenic designa­ tion beyond the 27.5 projected miles? No.2, should we be precluding the two dams at this point in time, or making it dam neutral, d-a-m neutral, as the author sug­ gests? And No.3, is the wilderness designation adequate. I honestly have not come to a final conclusion on my own on these issues, but these questions have been raised to me by enough people with enough concern that I want to analyze those three issues myself as well. And, so, I just lay them out as questions I would appreciate the witnesses addressing themselves to, on what­ ever side of the issue they may be, as they testify. I want to compliment both the author and the chairman for their thoughtfulness in bringing this legislation forward. I am always pleased to hear about the chairman's California trips, and I agree, they aren't necessarily a burden. We welcome him in California as often as we can get him there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his concerns and presence today. Mr. Gallegly, who accompanied me on the field visit. I was appre­ ciative of that. Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 6 I would just like to take a moment here and express my recogni­ tion of the tremendous amount of work that Congressman Lago­ marsino has put into drafting this legislation. It wasn't something that was just done overnight. There have been months of effort and a lot of hard work put into it. Of course, with the effect that it has on my District, I have a keen interest in this legislation as well. I would like to thank the chairman for making the trip out to California. It is a dirty job, but someone has to do it, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know that I really appreciated the effort that you put forth. You asked a lot of hard, tough questions, and plus you are a real trooper on the trail. I have to tell you that had I had a cardiologist with me at the end of the day, we would have been able to really check my heart out well after climbing up and down the hills and tramping through the canyons there. Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to see if that hip really hurt that badly. Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hear­ ing the testimony of so many of our friends from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Marlenee, do you have any words of wisdom for us this morning. These mikes, incidentally, are live all the time. Mr. MARLENEE. The chairman makes a point. Unfortunately, my card shows about five committee hearings and two different full committees today. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't. I am going to observe the legislation, evaluate the legislation. I note that there is some deviance from standard wilderness leg­ islation here. I hope that when we eventually-if we ever do-look at a Montana wilderness bill, that some of that deviation can be entered in the Montana wilderness legislation. Did you say, don't hold your breath, Mr. Smith? Mr. ROBERT SMITH. No; I was just taking a breath. Mr. VENTO. As soon as you introduce a bill for 2 million acres, we will look at the deviations, Mr. Marlenee. Mr. MARLENEE. The Sespe condor sanction water, I do have a question on that. If I might ask that question? How big an area is this? Mr. LAGOMARSINO. 53,000 acres. Mr. VENTO. It has been established as a special area already by Executive order, I believe, for the last 40 years. I would be happy to look at that problem in Montana. For every condor. Mr. MARLENEE. OK. That is one of the only questions I had. I thank the chairman. Mr. VENTO. There is some special language in the bill that we will be looking at carefully. We did, in the end, work out some spe­ cial language for some of the Montana areas, and when and if we get back to that, I would be open to those types of discussions. Mr. Smith. Mr. ROBERT SMITH. Thank you. 7 I don't have a statement. Mr. VENTO. Thank you for being present. Before proceeding to our first witness, and without objection, let us have printed at this point in the hearing record, a copy of the bill, H.R. 1473. [The bill, H.R., 1473 follows:] 8

101sT CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H R 1473 • •

To designate certain lands in Los Padres National Forest as wilderness, to designate Sespe Creek and the Sisquoc River in the State of California as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes. I I

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1989 Mr. LAGOMARSINO (for himself and Mr. GALLEGLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

A BILL To designate certain lands in Los Padres National Forest as wilderness, to designate Sespe. Creek and the Sisquoc River in the State of California as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 titles of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND POLICY. 4 The Congress finds that- 5 (1) areas of undeveloped National Forest System 6 land on Los Padres National Forest have outstanding 7 natural characteristics giving them high value as wil- S derness and will, if properly preserved, contribute as 9

2 1 an enduring resource of wilderness for the benefit of 2 the American people; 3 (2) it is in the national interest that certain of 4 these areas be promptly designated as components of 5 the National Wilderness Preservation System in order 6 to preserve such areas as an enduring resource of wil- 7 derness which shall be managed to promote and per-

8 petuate the wilderness character of the land and -it~_ 9 specific multiple values for watershed preservation, 10 wildlife habitat protection, scenic and historic preserva- 11 tion, scientific research and educational use, primitive 12 recreation, solitude, physical and mental challenge, and 13 inspiration for the benefit of all of the American people 14 of present and future generations; and 15 (3) geologic evidence and production data suggest 16 that a producing oil and gas field adjacent to the pro- 17 posed Sespe Wilderness extends into such area.

18 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 19 In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act, 20 the following National Forest System lands are hereby desig- 21 nated as wilderness and, therefore, as components of the Na- 22 tional Wilderness Preservation System- 23 (1) certain lands in Los Padres National Forest, 24 California, which comprise about 197,047 acres, which 25 are generally depicte9. on a map dated May 1988, enti-

eRR 1473· m 10

3 1 tied "Sespe Wilderness Area-Proposed", and shall be 2 known as the Sespe Wilderness; 3 (2) certain lands in Los Padres National Forest, 4 California, which comprise about 30,017 acres, which 5 are generally depicted on a map dated May 1988,and 6 entitled "Matilija Wilderness Area-Proposed", and 7 shall be known as the Matilija Wilderness; and 8 (3) certain lands in Los Padres National Forest, 9 California, which comprise about 16,516 acres, which 10 are generally depicted on a map dated May 1988, and 11 entitled "San Rafael Wilderness Addition-Proposed", 12 and which lands are hereby incorporated in, and shall 13 be deemed to be a part of, the San Rafael Wilderness.

14 SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 15 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, each 16 wilderness area designated by this Act shall be administered 17 by the Ser.retary of Agriculture in accordance with the provi- 18 sions of the Wilderness Act. Any reference in such provisions 19 to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to 20 be a reference to the effective date of this Act.

21 (b) FIRE PREVENTION AND WATERSHED PROTEC- 22 TION.-Notwithstanding any provision of the Wilderness 23 Act, in order to provide for the continued viability of the 24 watershed affected by these wilderness designations, and to 25 provide for the continued health and safety of the communi-

eRR 1473 ill 11

4 1 ties serviced by such watersheds, the Secretary of Agricul- 2 ture is authorized to take whatever actions in the Sespe, Ma- 3 tilija, and San Rafael Wilderness areas which are deemed 4 necessary for fire prevention and watershed protection in- 5 eluding, but not limited to, fire presuppression and fire sup- 6 pression measures and techniques utilized elsewhere on the 7 National Forest System. 8 (c) SESPE CONDOR SANCTUARy.-Notwithstanding 9 any provision of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et 10 seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may take such measures 11 and utilize such facilities as are necessary for the manage- 12 ment of the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, ineluding (but not limit- 13 ed to) road, vehicular, and helicopter access, and related fa- 14 cilities. Such measures are to be taken only for the preserva- 15 tion and protection of the California Condor and related habi- 16 tat as part of the recovery program for the Condor. 17 (d) SPECIAL MANAGEMENT RESTRICTION.-Notwith- 18 standing any provision of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 19 1131 et seq.) and section 5112 of the Federal Onshore Oil 20 and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 226-3), the 21 Secretary of the Interior may, under existing authority, issue 22 oil and gas leases for the subsurface of the Sespe Wilderness. 23 Such leases shall not allow surface occupancy and may be 24 entered only by I,lirectional drilling from outside the Sespe 25 Wilderness.

eRR 1478 IH 12

5 1 (e) BUFFER ZONEs.-The Congress does not intend 2 that wilderness areas designated under this Act lead to the 3 creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around such 4 wilderness areas. The fact that nonwilderness activities or 5 uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness 6 shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the 7 boundary of the wilderness area.

8 SEC. 4. FILING OF MAPS AND DESCRIPTIONS. 9 As soon as practicable after enactment of this Act, a 10 map and a legal description of each wilderness area designat- 11 ed in section 2 shall be filed with the Committee on Energy 12 and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 13 Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, 14 and each such map and description shall have the same force 15 and effect as if included in this Act. Correction of clerical and 16 typographical errors in each such legal description and map 17 may be made. Each such map and legal description shall be ( 18 oiMile and available for public inspection in the Office of the 19 Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, 20 Washington, District of Columbia.

21 SEC. 5. RELEASE OF SESPE-FRAZIER AND MATILIJA WILDER-

22 NESS STUDY AREAS. 23 The table contained in section 111(e) of the California 24 Wilderness Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 163;1) is amended by 25 striking-

eHR 1473 ill 13

6 1 (1) the line relating to the Matilija further plan- 2 ning area, Los Padres National Forest, area identifica- 3 tion number 05129, and 4 (2) the line relating to the Sespe-Frazier· further 5 planning area, Los Padres National Forest, area identi- 6 fication number 05002.

7 SEC. 6. JOHNSTON RIDGE TRAIL STUDY. 8 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Agriculture is di- 9 rected to conduct a study of the Johnston Ridge Trail located 10 on the Ojai Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, for 11 the purposes of ascertaining the appropriate management of 12 the trail in relation to other portions of the Ojai Ranger Dis- 13 trict. Management options to be considered shall include a 14 range of alternatives including both closure and maintenance 15 of existing uses. In particular, the study will consider the 16 environmental impacts of mechanized vehicles. The study 17 may be prepared in the context of ongoing land management

18 planning for Los Padres National Forest, or in such o~r 19 context as the Secretary of Agriculture deems appropriate, 20 and the study shall only require preparation of an environ- 21 mental assessment. The study shall be completed within two 22 years of the date of enactment of this Act and submitted to 23 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 24 Senate, and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of 25 the House of Repre,sentatives .

• HR 1473 IH 14

7 1 (b) OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE.-Pending comple- 2 tion of the study required by this section and a final manage- 3 ment determination by Congress, it is the intent of Congress 4 that the trail shall remain open to off-highway vehicle use 5 subject to applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing 6 such use. Nothing herein shall preclude management actions 7 deemed necessary or desirable by the Forest Service to pre- 8 vent considerable adverse effects on soil, vegetation, wildlife, 9 -wildlife habitat, adjacent wilderness, other recreation uses or 10 facilities, or cultural or historic resources within Los Padres 11 National Forest.

12 SEC. 7. DESIGNATION OF WILD RIVERS. IS In order to preserve and protect for present and future 14 generations the outstandingly remarkable values of Sespe 15 Creek and the Sisquoc River, both in California, section 3(a) 16 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is 17 amended by adding the following new paragraphs at the end: 18 "() SESPE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.-The 27.5-mile 19 segment of the creek extending from its confluence with 20 Trout Creek downstream _to where it leaves section 26, 21 township 5 north, range 20 west, to be administered by the 22 Secretary of Agriculture as a wild river. 23 "() SISQUOC RIVER, CALIFORNIA.-The 31-mile 24 segment of the river extending from its origin downstream to

eRR 1473 IH 15

8 1 its confluence with Burro Creek, to be administered by the 2 Secretary of Agriculture as a wild river." .

• HR 1473 IH 16 Mr. VENTO. I notice Mr. Panetta has not arrived, so we will move ahead with the schedule and ask Mr. James Overbay and Art Car­ roll to come forward. Mr. Overbay is the Deputy Chief for the Na­ tional Forest System, and Art is the Forest Supervisor of the Los Padres National Forest and was with us on our trip. Welcome to the committee. Again, my thanks to you, Art, and your crew out there that worked with us. Jim, your statement is part of the record. It is a brief statement. You can read or summarize it, whatever you choose. STATEMENT OF JAMES OVERBAY, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR THE NA­ TIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY ART CARROLL, FOREST SUPERVISOR, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST Mr. OVERBAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I do appreciate the opportunity to offer the Department of Agriculture's views on H.R. 1473. The bill would designate certain lands in the Los Padres National Forest as wilderness. It would also designate portions of Sespe Creek and the Sisquoc River in California as wild rivers. I am accompanied today by Art Carroll, Supervisor of the Los Padres National Forest. The Department of Agriculture recommends that H.R. 1473 be enacted, if it is amended as we recommended. We would like to first commend Congressman Lagomarsino for all of the effort and work he has put into sponsoring this bill, and are very pleased that the subcommittee is holding hearings on this bill today. H.R. 1473 would designate the 197,000-acre Sespe Wilderness and the 30,000-acre Matilija Wilderness, and add over 16,000 acres to the existing San Rafael Wilderness. The bill would also add 27.5 miles of Sespe Creek and 31 miles of the Sisquoc River to the Na­ tional Wild and Scenic Rivers System. We support these designations, which are generally consistent with the recommendations in the Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. We also ask the subcommittee to consider amending the bill to include other areas that are included in forest plan recommendations for wilderness or 'Vild and scenic river designation. We would be pleased to provide the committee information on these plan recommendations. The forest plan recommends that the Sespe Wilderness boundary coincide with the geographic watershed boundary between Thorn Point and San Rafael Peak. We recommend that the forest plan boundary be adopted. This would require that the Johnston Ridge Trail be closed to motorized vehicles, because there is no reasona­ ble way to accommodate the objectives of wilderness and keep the trail open to motorized use. If the boundary recommended in the forest plan were estab­ lished, the proposed Johnston Ridge Trail study, as would be re­ quired by section 6 of H.R. 1473, could not consider off-highway ve­ hicle use, since motorized use of the trail would be in conflict with the wilderness designation. 17 Therefore, we recommend that section 6 be deleted. However, if the subcommittee believes such a study would be worthwhile, we will respond to your direction. The other wilderness boundary in the bill which differs from the forest plan is at the southern terminus of the Sespe Wild and Scenic River, and protects the option of a proposed water develop­ ment known as the Oat Mountain Reservoir. Specific information regarding this development was not avail­ able at the time the forest plan was completed, otherwise it is likely that it would have influenced our final boundary recommen­ dation. Therefore, we have no objection to this proposed change in the wilderness boundary to accommodate the possible future devel­ opment of that reservoir. Section 3 would authorize certain activities within the wilderness areas designated by the bill to accommodate special needs related to fire prevention and watershed protection, the preservation and protection of the California condor and related habitat, and the is­ suance of oil and gas leases. Section 3 would also make it clear that the Congress does not intend that "buffer zones" be created around the wilderness areas that would be designated by the bill. We support the provisions of this section. In summary, we recommend that H.R. 1473 be enacted if the boundary of the Sespe Wilderness is the same as recommended in the forest plan, and if the Johnston Ridge Trail study is deleted. Art Carroll and I would be pleased to respond to any questions the subcommittee members may have. Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. Art, you didn't have a general statement for us? Maybe you would like to point out that the Los Padres National Forest plan recommends other areas in the wild and scenic rivers designation besides those in the bill. The question to us is, should these be added to the bill? Maybe you would like to point those out, Art, on the map that we have to our left. Mr. CARROLL. For the benefit of the committee, the other recom­ mendations that we were referring to in the testimony, there is the recommendation of proposal, Garcia Mountain Wilderness, from about 10,000 acres here. This is up in San Louis Obispo County, Congressman Bill Thomas' District. We need to go up higher on the map. Over here in the Monterey County, Congressman Leon Panet­ ta's District, we have a formal recommendation to recommend 14.4 miles of the Big Sur River for wild status. Those are the two other recommendations in the forest plan. Mr. VENTO. Those are the two absent from the formal plan. Mr. CARROLL. Yes, but from the Forest Service's point of view, we are supportive of those being considered. Mr. VENTO. There are no wilderness changes up in Panetta's area? Mr. CARROLL. None recommended. Mr. VENTO. I understand that there are some negotiations going on between American Rivers, a conservation group, and others who have appealed the wild and scenic river recommendation to the forest plan. I understand that you may be close to an agreement in 18 which you would recommend more-and wild and scenic river des­ ignations than are currently in the plan or bilL Could you give us some insight into that, Art? Mr. CARROLL. There are four wild and scenic river appellants in response to the completed forest plan last year. Those appellants are American Rivers, Friends of the River, Sierra Club and Keep the Sespe Wild. I think representatives of. all four are probably here today. Mr. Bob Dreier of the Sierra Club's legal defense fund has been working and functioning very hard as a coordinator, that might be the best word, for all four appellants with the Los Padres National Forest and the regional office in San Francisco, and we will be working for months in terms of identifying issues to be resolved from the appeals to the final forest plan. And there are numerous points in the appeal that are being dis­ cussed. We feel Mr. Dreier and the appellants and we at the local forest level feel we are very near resolution of those appeals. There are probably a couple of significant items that are rele­ vant to this committee related to the resolution of the appeals. There is a small section of Sespe Creek, approximately 4 to 5 miles from Trout Creek upstream to the approximate location of an op­ tional dam site for Cold Springs, that in the course of negotiations, if that is the right word, with the appellants and Mr. Dreier, that we feel does fit a definition or would fit a definition of scenic status due to reconsiderations. So that is a possibility for consideration. Another issue that is relevant and important to the appellants is Piru Creek. Piru Creek was not recommended for any wild and scenic status in the forest plan, and is not by H.R. 1473. We have agreed, tentatively until the agreements are formal, that we would reassess Piru Creek. But not now, in the fact of the legislation, but we would reassess it as part of the resolution of the appeal and, of course, any reassessment or reevaluation is an open public process. So, we would envision doing that reassessment in the year or 2 years ahead that it would be an open public forum for discussions, consideration back in California with our local publics. Mr. VENTO. I think that it is encouraging to know that there is some discussions going on, because obviously these rivers have en­ gendered some degree of interest and probably controversy over what could or should be designated. So I would encourage that. Keep in contact with the subcommit­ tee so that we are aware of the conclusion. Then we can deal with that. I know that Congressman Lagomarsino hasn't indicated a po­ sition, I presume, on that. I would urge him to look favorably upon that type of an agree­ ment, if it is accomplished. I want to encourage that. There is some confusion about what is eligible and what is suita­ ble for designation. Mr. Carroll, maybe you could discuss that as we are going through the discussion about the Sespe. Apparently, that is rele­ vant to that river, especially. There is an extended length of it, 60 miles, that was eligible with the study, and then you made recom­ mendations on what was suitable. 19 The area that we saw that you talked about in negotiations is the area where there are these pools of water that are State desig­ nated areas right now. Is that correct? The middle segment, segment 2? Mr. CARROLL. Right. Segment 2. Mr. VENTO. Getting back to the frame of reference here, you might want to point it out on the map, because I don't think all of the members are as familiar with it as I and Congressman Lago­ marsino are. You might talk about the suitable issue for the bene­ fit of all of the members and those present today. Mr. CARROLL. It is going to be a little difficult to get definitive about the segments. But the important thing, I think, is that many folks believe the Sespe Wilderness is not long enough, meaning that the 27 miles isn't long enough. Basically, the Sespe watershed beginning at the forest boundary north of Fillmore, the blue sec­ tion right here, is called section 3, meaning the downstream sec­ tion. Segment 2 of the river begins down by Bear Creek. There is a tributary coming in called Bear Creek that is the delineation of the downstream and segment 2. That is segment 2, which is about 17 miles. Segment 1 goes from Crawdaddy Creek and follows all the way up to the upper reaches of the stream and crosses State Highway 33 to the west. In the forest planning process, our forest management team found as a result of the study that segment 1 was not eligible for wild and scenic status, but it did find that segment 2 and segment 3 were eligible. Now, the determination of eligibility is primarily a field evalua­ tion of an interdisciplinary team of evaluators. So, segment 2 and 3 were found to be eligible. You go through the second step of determining suitability. As a result of our forest planning process, we did recommend this sec­ tion, plus 2.5 miles of segment 2 downstream as being suitable. For the benefit of the committee, the area that is being discussed with the appellants and with the coordination of Bob Dreier, the next area, if I can just-- Mr. VENTO. I think we have a better map of the Sespe Creek. I don't know who provided it for us. It may not be your map, but I think we will use it. Mr. CARROLL. This would be good for this next point to try and summarize. The next little segment that is the focus of attention and focus of discussion with the appellants is this section here. In other words, the recommendation is to this point which is an optional site for future consideration for water development known as Cold Spring. This segment is about 4 to 5 miles. But 4.5 miles or 5 miles in here is the area where we believe in further discussions with the appellant and Bob Dreier that from the Forest Service's perspective, that may fit the definition of a scenic river. This is the balance of segment 2. The optional site for the Cold Springs reservoir as presented to us would probably inundate 27 miles. Mr. VENTO. If something were built there. Is that the area that we saw that had no water? 20 Mr. CARROLL. Right. We have landed in a helicopter from our field trip right about here, and then motored down the highway. We went through the gorge. You were impressed with the Sespe Gorge, and I think the folks that live in our communities in the Nehi Valley and the back side of the mountain, Sespe Gorge is a special place along highway 33. You commented on that. That is right about in here. Mr. LEVINE. Would the chairman yield a moment at that point? Is the reason that you have designated that boundary, in terms of the discussions with the appellants, at the point that you-the northern point, is that simply to cut it off just below where the pro­ posed reservoir would be, or is there another reason for that? Mr. CARROLL. To a large degree, that is the reason. The wilder­ ness boundary here, the wilderness boundary skirts the right-hand side. We didn't see any particular conflict with the proposed wil­ derness boundary. So I think to answer your question at this point in time to pro­ vide the option in the future, that is true. If you were to evaluate this whole segment, if the optional water site wasn't here, it is con­ ceivable a portion of the stream might be found scenic. I took another field trip to look at this area in the last couple of weeks, and without going into an educational process, there were three different status definitions of wild and scenic, wild and scenic and recreational in that order, in terms of classification. I wouldn't advocate that it all be scenic. Mr. LEVINE. But just in terms right now of the proposed delinea­ tion that you are discussing right now with the appellants, the principal reason for that boundary being at that spot would be for the Cold Springs Reservoir possibility? And at the same time, if I am not mistaken-the mile for the south was cut off was from the Oat Mountain Reservoir. So you are talking about this being established to provide for the option of the reservoir on the South Oak Mountain and the Oak Mountain Res­ ervoir, and on the north the Cold Springs Reservoir? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. Mr. VENTO. The point is that any designation that is recommend­ ed, wild and scenic, would not permit the water crossing, is that correct? Mr. CARROLL. Yes. Mr. VENTO. So it is a concern, however remote the possibility. But there are other aspects of it that make that segment not suita­ ble in the sense that it is not a free-flowing stream. That is one of the criteria. There is a portion of water in the east. As you move east, there is some water standing there. It comes apparently from springs. Mr. CARROLL. There is a significant portion of this stream, in the first four or five miles in segment 2, beginning here and going downstream. It is literally dry now or the water is underground right now. Mr. VENTO. So, it does not qualify under the criteria we have es­ tablished as recreational, scenic or wild. Normally, we get into some differences with the agencies because they say it is under pri­ vate land ownership, or there are other problems but we don't usu­ ally get into differences when there is no water running. 21 Mr. LEVINE. Would the chairman continue to yield for one second? I am confused. I thought that Mr. Carroll testified earlier that whereas segment 1 was deemed not eligible up at the top, that segment 2 was nevertheless deemed eligible, and then you get into a question about suitability. But that in terms of eligibility, but segments 2 and 3 are eligible according to the Forest Service, is that correct, Mr. Carroll? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. Mr. VENTO. I am sorry, I misspoke, I meant suitable. Mr. CARROLL. I think Mr. Vento meant suitability. Mr. VENTO. Well, very good. I have taken enough time. Mr. Lagomarsino. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Carroll, are the boundaries of the pro­ posed wilderness and particularly the Sespe, from your standpoint, the most effective, management wise? It is kind of a leading ques­ tion, because I think I know what you are going to say. But for the record? Mr. CARROLL. I truly believe so. When we completed our draft forest plan in the summer of 1986, the Sespe recommended for wil­ derness classification was about 135,000 acres. I need to share with you that we had many public meetings. We had two formal hear­ ings and another 10 public meetings up and down the stretch of the forest from Salinas up in Monterey County to Pasadena. And we had 1,800 different letters written, documents of input and over 10,000 comments to our forest plan. The reason I give you that background is we felt very positive about the quality of our public input. There were no orchestrated sessions of public involve­ ment. Ninety-one percent of that public input was separate letters from individuals throughout the six counties, with a surprising amount of interest from southern California and the Los Angeles basin. Aa result of that public involvement, we had a tremendous amount of interest. The most significant single item of interest as a result of our forest plan was the proposed Sespe-Frazier, as it was known then, wilderness. In that public input, there was a strong message that they preferred to see it larger. And in the final plan we have recommended a boundary that is 197,000 acres, which we feel is dramatic and very responsive to public input. For various interest groups from off-road recreational vehicles, oil and gas, considerations for the California condor, con­ siderations for other mineral interests on the west side of the boundary, and also considering manageability, we think the bound­ ary we recommended is a good, manageable boundary, and we think it is very responsive. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I might say that I received a telephone call today from the American Motorcycle Association which, of course, expresses support for the Johnston Ridge provision of the bill, but the point of my telling you that is that I am sure there would be others-everybody didn't know about the hearing, for one thing, or others would be here, and certainly if the bill had included any­ thing to the north of the present boundary, that roaded area where there are campgrounds and mineral interests and some oil inter­ ests, I am sure that the room would have been filled with people protesting that. 22 So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that when these people, as I am sure they will, make comments about it, that they be included in the record. Mr. VENTO. Without objection. The record will be open for 2 weeks. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Do you have figures on how many people use the Sespe? Rough figures? I know there would have to be, because there is no requirement that people check in or out? Mr. CARROLL. No, Mr. Lagomarsino, I don't have direct, accurate figures on the use of the Sespe. It has changed. As you know from a local basis years ago, there were about 18 miles of road down the Sespe used for all kinds of vehicle-oriented recreation, and part of the primary reason we have the opportunity today to consider the Sespe being as large as proposed is that the road has been closed just below Lion's Campgrounds. We visited that area at the end of our motor trip, and that reduced motorized access of about 18 miles. So, actual total visitor days is less than it used to be 10 or 15 years ago. But I am also hopeful that the quality of those recrea­ tion visits is on the positive side. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. So, most of the use is at Lion's Campgrounds? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, where there is motorized access. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I recall long before the road was built, my uncle, who had a cabin down the Sespe, built that cabin by packing everybody in by mule about seven miles down from Lion Camp. But then the road was built and now the road is gone again. It is back to really where it was. ' You already commented on how many people participated in the hearing process and how many comments you received. You know, we talked about the other parts of the Sespe. Are they, except for the proposal to-the future proposals that might be made to devel­ op water, are there any other threats to them, from your stand­ point? Mr. CARROLL. You mean to the rivers? Not that I am aware of. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. It is true that all except for the portion near the Fillmore is in the National Forest? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. There are four private landowner parcels in the Sespe that actu­ ally own property on Sespe Creek just below Lions Campground. We have coordinated with them in the last few months, and from our perspective, all four property owners are not objecting and are supportive of the wilderness recommendation and the wild river recommendation. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. There are other property owners above that? Mr. CARROLL. There are other property owners above that. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Have you heard this from them? Mr. CARROLL. We haven't discussed it with them. Since it wasn't proposed in the forest plan, we didn't go the next step in discussing those proposals. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 Mr. Overbay, in your testimony, you indicated that at the time the Forest Service developed its recommendation, the specific infor­ mation concerning the Oat Mountain Reservoir was not available, otherwise it would have influenced your boundary recommenda­ tion, and your testimony says we have no objection to this proposed change in the wilderness boundary to accommodate the possible future development of the Oat Mountain Reservoir. I take it that means-and just so the record is clear, that your original recommendation did include the additional mile at the south that would have precluded the Oat Mountain Reservoir; is that correct? Mr. OVERBAY. That is correct. Mr. LEVINE. Did the Forest Service assess the feasibility of either the Oat Mountain Reservoir or the Cold Springs Reservoir before developing their wild and scenic recommendations? Mr. CARROLL. You mean a formal feasibility? We haven't. We are aware that there was a consultant study related to the feasibility of numerous water developments. I think that these two, Oat Moun­ tain Reservoir and Cold Springs, and probably Topatopa, were stud­ ied by a consultant firm. We didn't have access to the final reports of those feasibility studies, when we got to the point of making final recommendations in the forest plan. So, that information became available, you might say, after the fact. I think we are saying that it would have been better if we had had that information for consideration in a timely manner. Mr. LEVINE. Who did those studies? Mr. CARROLL. I might need to defer to folks who are here as wit­ nesses. But I think it was Montgomery. I think Montgomery Con­ sultants. Mr. LEVINE. If we could leave the record open at that point, so when we have that answer, we would place it there. When were the studies made? Mr. CARROLL. They were probably completed in 1987. They were underway in 1986, but they were not completed then. Probably 1987. Mr. OVERBAY. Why don't we check on that. Mr. LEVINE. All right. Supply that for the record. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-The Department supplied the following infor­ mation:] 1. Water Studies: The formal name of the pertinent water study referred to in the Hearings for H.R. 1473 is: "Feasibility of Importing State Project Water Into Ven­ tura County", June 1897, by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers Inc. for Casitas Municipal Water District, City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) and United Water District. Mr. LEVINE. Now that we are aware that such reports were made and completed, even though you didn't have that information avail­ able at the time you were making your recommendations, what were the feasibility recommendations or conclusions that were reached by that study? Both with regard to Cold Springs and with regard to Oat Mountain? Mr. CARROLL. I am not fully qualified to give an assessment of what those conclusions were, but I know there is a significant chal­ lenge of economic viability, based on the numbers and data being used at the current time. 24 Mr. LEVINE. Are we going to have other testimony on these re­ ports later? Mr. VENTO. I assume that there will be some comment, both pro and con. Mr. LEVINE. OK. In light of the fact that you have not either done a feasibility study of your own or had available this informa­ tion that you are referring to now, why was it determined that the Cold Springs site should be excluded from the recommendation at the time you made your recommendations? Mr. CARROLL. You mean related to the wilderness or river? Mr. LEVINE. The wild and scenic river designation. Mr. CARROLL. Well, the recommendation in the draft forest plan was, at that time in our forest planning process, our recommenda­ tion for wild and scenic river was segment 3 up to Bear Creek. Our final recommendation was just segment 3. A direct consider­ ation of Cold Springs wasn't a factor. We had already made a rec­ ommendation that we felt the combination of eligibility and suit­ ability ended at Bear Creek. Mr. LEVINE. So, in that conclusion at that time, the Cold Springs Reservoir wasn't a factor? Mr. CARROLL. No. Mr. LEVINE. But now, I take it from your testimony in the negoti­ ations that are occurring with the appellants, the boundary that you are proposing or may be proposed in the light of these conver­ sations will be affected by Cold Springs? Mr. CARROLL. Yes. Mr. LEVINE. Why will you not go above Cold Springs at this point in time? Mr. CARROLL. Up here? Mr. LEVINE. Yes. Mr. CARROLL. In terms of a preliminary assessment of suitability, we felt from the input of the rest of the public that the problems that we are having in California related to water, lack of it; we felt that it was from a land management perspective the most appro­ priate thing we could do is provide the option for the people that live out here in the Oxnard Plain and Ventura to have that water option sometime in the future. So, I think from a land management perspective, the best thing to do was to provide the people, particularly of Ventura County, that option in the future. Mr. LEVINE. So, this is keeping that option open. Mr. CARROLL. Yes. Mr. LEVINE. Would the Forest Service recommend the Cold Springs segment if the project were not found feasible, for inclusion in wild and scenic river? Mr. CARROLL. I think the appropriate answer to that is that we need or should, from a land management perspective, go back and do a suitability determination of this segment from here up to the Charyl Grande. The best thing to do in land management would be to commit to do a reassessment of the suitability. When you look at the balance of segment 2, I am not sure that you would categorize it as all being the same. Some of it has no water in it today, and some does. 25 Mr. LEVINE. Mr. Lagomarsino asked one or the other of you whether there were any threats to the unprotected part of the Sespe other than the possible dams. Whichever of you responded said no, there weren't. Mr. CARROLL. Probably in this section? Mr. LEVINE. Yes, if I understood your response correctly, you said there are no other threats to the Sespe, and I would take it either on the south or on the north, other than the proposed reser­ voirs. Mr. CARROLL. Well, that reply might be incorrect in the sense that there is no known threat at the moment. But I do need to share with you, there are specific mining claims to the west, up­ stream by U.S. Gypsum. Mr. VENTO. Why don't you show that on the map? You can show the general area. Mr. CARROLL. Pine Mountain, right about here. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. It is further up in the White area. Mr. LEVINE. Is that a part of segment 1 or separate and apart. Mr. CARROLL. It would be upstream of segment 2 and upstream of segment 1. In other words, if you had mineral development up­ stream, you would certainly have to take a long, hard look at downstream effects of segment 2 and the bottom half of segment 1. Mr. LEVINE. So those potential downstream effects would be seg­ ment 1, and part of segment 2? Mr. CARROLL. Correct. Mr. LEVINE. So that your testimony would be that the potential threats to the Sespe at this point would be those mining claims and the two proposed reservoirs, is that correct? Mr. CARROLL. They are the only major projects that I can think of. Mr. LEVINE. Let me ask you two other questions. Mr. Lagomar­ sino also asked you whether the proposal contained in this legisla­ tion was the best proposal from a management point of view. What would be the difference from a management point of view if the additional 1 mile in the south, as you originally recommend­ ed that would have precluded Oat Mountain, was included to make it 28.5 miles rather than 27 .5? Would there be any difference in management for the Forest Service if the additional 1 mile that you originally recommended was included? Mr. CARROLL. I think the original recommendation that had the additional mile would be a better boundary in the context of the natural resources in the canyon; conversely, the proposed legisla­ tion, H.R. 1473 retreats approximately 1 mile, is in the back water of the Oat Mountain. So if you can envision the changes, the loss that will be under­ water, if this Oat Mountain project was ever built, would be a boundary around the high water line. Mr. LEVINE. Would you have management problems if it included the additional mile in the south. Mr. CARROLL. Not significant, other than what we have now. Mr. LEVINE. Would you have management problems included in the segment 2 area in the north. First, start with the 4.5 miles that you are talking about. 26 Mr. CARROLL. We may have some. Because there is a high-use recreation area right here. But it is also very scenic here. Just across the river is an area we called Piedra Blanca. Mr. VENTO. We will use all of these resources, whoever brought them. Mr. CARROLL. I am sure some of them didn't expect me to use them. I do want to share this with you. Those rock formations are right here just across the river at Lion's Campground. There is a lot of public motorized recreation. That is probably one of the more dominant factors of why a scenic river will fit in. Mr. LEVINE. You are not claiming that area is not suitable? Mr. CARROLL. No. I have some people who are negotiating with us from the forest plan perspective, sitting here today watching ex­ actly what I am going to say and how I say it. I think the impor­ tant thing is from a suitability point of view, it fits probably a scenic classification more so than wild. Mr. LEVINE. One final question to either one of you. That is why the Forest Service changed its boundaries between the draft and the final EIS. Why did they change from including the Mutau Flat area, pulling south to the ridge line? Mr. CARROLL. The area you are asking about is here. These squares here are private land known as the Mutau Flat area owned by the Green family, a long time homestead family. The draft forest plan had this red line here. The focus of your question is this Mutau Flat land. Mr. LEVINE. Yes, it is. Mr. CARROLL. The draft forest plan line was out here. The recom­ mended final boundary is here. A long time ranch family, the Green family, and their descendants, felt very strongly that they didn't want to be encompassed in the proposed wilderness. They saw a lot of problems. There is road access for these private parcels coming in from the county road out there. There is a jeep road over to this other parcel, which is owned as part of the ranch. They were very much in objection to be included into the wilderness. A traditional ranch still operates today-cattle ranching and travel­ ing in and traveling out. In further analysis this is a definitive ridge that is the best imag­ inable boundary. There is offroad highway vehicle use along this highway. This is a definitive watershed boundary. We moved it back to this point. Mr. LEVINE. Just to be clear, the first part of your analysis fo­ cused almost exclusively on the inholdings. The second part of your analysis got to offroad vehicle use. Was it a combination of both, or was it primarily or exclusively the inholdings that caused you to change your boundary. Mr. CARROLL. The folks most vociferous in terms of input was the ranch owners. The ranch folks motivated us to take another hard look at the boundary of the area. Mr. LEVINE. Had it not been for the ranch folks would you have kept the boundary where it was? Mr. CARROLL. I really can't say. I wasn't on the forest at the time the draft plan was prepared, but I was on the forest when it was 27 finalizl:ld. After being in the field, you would advocate this line be back on a more manageable boundary. Mr. LEVINE. Who was "on the forest" at the time it was original- ly prepared? Mr. CARROLL. Our supervisor at the time? Mr. LEVINE. He signed off on the original plan? Mr. CARROLL. He signed off on the draft. Mr. LEVINE. Was he a part of the process that changed it? Mr. CARROLL. Not really. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Gallegly. Mr. GALLEGLY. I don't have anything to ask Mr. Carroll. I know he has put a lot of effort into this, and we spent a lot of time out there on the site. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Richardson. Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carroll, the Johnston Ridge Trail, why keep it open for study 2 years after enactment of legislation? Why don't we just move ahead with it and deal with it? What is the reason for studying it? I understand that an environmental impact statement was made in '86. Is that correct? What more do we need to study? Mr. OVERBAY. Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement, I specifi­ cally recommended we stay with the forest boundary recommenda­ tions on that area, which would preclude that study. That is the position that the Department of Agriculture has taken. Mr. RICHARDSON. As I understand it-I am not as familiar with this area, I have never been to the area. You were recommending three wild and scenic rivers and four wilderness areas, the Forest Service plan. Is that correct? Mr. OVERBAY. Yes. Mr. RICHARDSON. In this legislation, we are dealing with two wild and scenic rivers and two wilderness areas, or three wilderness areas. Mr. RICHARDSON. The areas we are not dealing with are in Con- gressman Thomas' and Panetta's district. Mr. CARROLL. Right. Mr. RICHARDSON. Are they recommending-- Mr. LAGOMARSINO. If the gentleman would yield, I talked to both of them. My understanding is Congressman Panetta is supposed to testify here today, and he can say what he will. But my under­ standing is they are not yet ready to ask to have their areas includ­ ed. If they are, fine. We will put them in. Mr. RICHARDSON. The Forest Service Plan does ask that their areas be included? Mr. OVERBAY. It does. We are asking the committee to examine those areas also. Mr. RICHARDSON. It seems to me, with all due respect to Mr. La­ gomarsino, whom I deeply respect as a conservationist and a friend, that it would make sense when we deal with this legisla­ tion, to deal with the totality of the area. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. If we can. Mr. RICHARDSON. If we can. Sespe Creek, both ends of the Sespe Creek, why are they not wild and scenic? You recommended they 28 be wild and scenic, both ends of the Sespe Creek. Do you think it should be wild and scenic or not? Mr. CARROLL. We do not think segment 1, the upper regions, meet the criteria for wild and scenic classification. Mr. RICHARDSON. Why not? Mr. CARROLL. We do not think they meet the basic definition of criteria of being eligible or being outstandingly remarkable. Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, I understand there are some Indian cul­ tures and tribes. I represent the largest Indian district. One of the things that I learned first is you don't mess around with sacred burial grounds. Are we talking about any rock formations, any ar­ cheological sites that involve Indian cultures and tribes that are not covered in your Forest Service plan and in this legislation? Mr. CARROLL. I am not aware that we are impacting significant or known cultural resources. An area where I think that probably would have some significance in terms of cultural value would be the area near Piedra Blanca near Lion's Campground. I think that without information about cultural resources, I could make a projection that there probably are cultural values in the vicinity in the lower part of segment 2. Mr. RICHARDSON. Would you submit that for the record? I think that would be very important to me. Mr. CARROLL. I would like the opportunity to validate that. Mr. RICHARDSON. Fine. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-The Department supplied the following infor­ mation.] 29

UNITED STATES FOREST OJAI DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE RANGER AGRICULTURE DISTRICT

Reply To: 2360 Date: August 10, 1989

Subject: Cultural Resources in Howard Creek/Sespe Creek Vicinity

To: Fores t Supervisor ~ <0\ n\~~

This letter is in response to your request for information about the archeology and history of the Cold Springs Dam vicinity. In short, we don't know very much about the cultural resources of the area. Little survey work has been done, only a few cultural properties have been recorded, and there has been no known attempt to s~thesize the base of information.

The Area in Question

This letter report pertains to that portion of the Sespe River extending from Trout Creek on the east to the Sespe Narrows on the west and extending roughly one mile north and south perpendicular to the stream's centerline. The referenced area encompasses that portion of the Sespe that would be affected by a dam placed in the vicinity of Howard Creek.

Cultural Resources Survey Any effort to typify the known and expected cultural properties of the subject area is tempered by the relative absence of objective information. Less than five percent of the area has been surveyed. Seven different confidential survey reports are on file for the area; with a single exception, the surveys have been small scale and specific to particular projects.

Known Cultural Properties

Inspection of file maps and records indicate that nineteen cultural properti~es fall within the area. The bulk of these are prehistoric sites consisting of an open scatter of lithic material, mostly chert "chips." No less than four of these are of uncertain provenance and one site is probably spurious since it was not relocated in subsequent work in the same locale. Another site was determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places because it lacked integrity. ~

43-252 0 - 91 - 2 30

The following table capsulizes the known record:

Number of Site Type Note Properties

1 Paleontological Area Although not a cultural property Los Padres maintains records of fossil locations.

1 Isolated Find-Metate Isolated finds are not often con­ sidered cultural properties; included in interest of completeness.

2 Uninventoried Historic Locations gleaned from 1885 OLO structures Plat.

2 Historic Building Sites

11 Prehistoric Open Lithic Sites

2 Reported, Uninventoried Prehistoric "Campsites"

Sensitivity and Significance This area is regarded as highly sensitive from a cultural resource standpoint. Its proximity to water, its position along a likely prehistoric travel route, its variety of available plant and animal foods, its dependable water supply, and its abundance of appropriate landforms (terraces, etc.) taken together indicate high sensitivity. Further investigation will undoubtedly uncover more interesting cultural properties.

Significance is partly derived from information potential. Without a doubt the cultural resources information potential lying untapped is significant. In point of fact, several of the known cultural properties have the potential for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

Native American Values No known "sacred" sites have been found or reported for the area. The absence of such information should not be taken to mean the area lacks interest or importance to Chumash descendants. There are factors which indicate that, should the right questions be asked, Chumash descendants would attach considerable heritage value to the area. For example, rock art sites are documented near the referencd area and the Sespe Hot Springs, included in the California Sacred Lands Inventory, are not all that far downstream.

STEPHEN HORNE Resources Officer 31 32 Mr. RICHARDSON. The Pinos lands area, do you recommend that that be wilderness or not in your Forest Service Plan? Mr. CARROLL. No sir. Mr. RICHARDSON. Where is that in the context of the Forest Serv­ ice Plan? First of all, where is Pinos Badlands? Ms. REID. It would be over here. It is locally known as Sawmill Badlands. I think that is the general, the geographic areas I think you are talking about. Mr. RICHARDSON. My last question is the issue of economic im­ pacts. Not knowing the area whatsoever, are we talking about eco­ nomically a depressed area where, for instance, the motorized vehi­ cles might use some of the area for tourism and for all kinds of economic related impact? Mr. CARROLL. You mean related to this area here? Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. Mr. CARROLL. That is a difficult question to answer. A lot of it is unroaded. Some of the areas are used for recreation. Mr. RICHARDSON. The reason I ask is I can't stay for the next panel. I understand the chamber of commerce is testifying. Maybe I should ask my colleague, Mr. Lagomarsino. Is this area economi­ cally hurting? We are talking about enhanced tourism that maybe some of the chamber of commerce people want to preserve. Mr. CARROLL Well, I think they will have to answer that them­ selves. I don't think tourism is a big economic thing, but it is a big recreational thing to the people who live there. A lot of people ride mountain bikes who are very unhappy with the proposal because it would. cut them off, although even now they are not supposed to be using them. Mr. OVERBAY. Mr. Richardson, compared to your district, this won't qualify as an economically distressed community. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. That is certainly true. However, there are cer­ tainly a lot of people who use this area for offroad vehicle use. Mr. OVERBAY. That is my assessment, that the real conflict be­ tween how much district and how much mountains there are is dif­ ferent recreational use. Mr. RICHARDSON. The Forest Service-having had a love-hate re­ lationship with my Forest Service supervisors in New Mexico, mostly in between, but let me just say it seems you are proposing a significant amount of wilderness and wild and scenic as part of the Forest Service Plan. Mr. CARROLL. That is correct. Mr. RICHARDSON. Are you the only Forest Service that does this in this country? Mr. OVERBAY. It depends a lot on what the local situation is. I served one of my assignments in Montana. We have forests up there that are over 50 percent wilderness and have those kinds of quality areas that have been added to the wilderness system. We have other forests that have no wilderness established because the values aren't there. Mr. RICHARDSON. Unfortunately, we can't hear the rest of the witnesses, but it seems this has been very thoroughly examined. I would just hope that we deal with this area in the context of the whole region. 33 No.2, having had a number of wild and scenic preservations and wilderness areas in my state, we hope to chart as conservationist a bill as possible. That is my thought. Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. Clearly, this is an unusual area. There was all sorts of oil development there 50 years ago. There have been pads with ten pumps out there pumping out oil where they slant drill. It is an area that has a lot of challenges and has to serve a lot of different groups. Considering the amount of wilderness that apparently is not as controversial as some, there is a lot of possibilities. We will be look­ ing very carefully at some of the suggested areas that are in the draft plan, as well as areas that were not. Mr. Levine pointed out the only area that was excluded from the draft plan. There were a lot of other things included in final recommendations that were not in the draft plan. A preponderance of additions beyond the draft plan is signifi­ cant. So I want to point that out. I think we picked on the one area that was not. I think there are still some other areas that may well be eligible if we can work out the boundaries properly. One of the points Mr. Marlenee brought up, and I thought it was worthwhile to ask a question on that, is the special management language in this bill dealing with fire suppression and watershed management, as well as the condor area. I thought maybe Mr. Overbay or Mr. Carroll would comment about that. Is this a new precedent or not? Mr. OVERBAY. In some ways it is a new precedent. Every wilder­ ness bill the committee considers, you look at some special, unique opportunities. So we are finding that bills that have been passed recently have special language that deals with this particular re­ source value. The concerns about fire suppression down there are very real. This particular language would allow some opportunities to do some prescribed burning that would help manage that particular situation and hopefully, prevent a major wild fire in that area. The protection for the condor is a good example of where we run into laws that don't tend to fit real well the Endangered Species Act and the Wilderness Act. There are some things we need to do in providing habitat, improve management for the condor that doesn't quite fit the Wilderness Act. That is essentially what that protective language does. Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to point that out because you may want to analyze that for the record. But fire suppression would be necessary in this area because of the brush fires. There isn't a lot of mixture of private dwellings in wilderness areas. It is challeng­ ing because it is a highly urbanized area as well. Mr. OVERBAY. The fuel types there are such that once you get a major wild fire, it is all going to burn off. It happened to the wil­ derness area north of that a few years ago. There is a concern down there that there be some management of those fuels. That particular area, we don't get the natural fires that we get farther north with more lighning storms. Mr. VENTO. The watershed language, what would that mean? Mr. OVERBAY. I think that is all tied in with the fire language. 34 Mr. VENTO. In other words, the idea of protecting the watershed exists. One of the principal reasons for the establishment of Forest Service areas in the West was the protection of water supply. Is this an area that had that as one of the primary purposes? Mr. CARROLL. Yes sir. Mr. VENTO. It is? Mr. OVERBAY. That is correct. I think the concern here again is if we had a major wildfire it would impact on the watershed itself. If we manage that vegetation, we are going to protect the watershed. Mr. VENTO. The point was that if there is a burnoff you actually lose the ability to hold the water in the area, a substantial differ­ ence, which is surprising to me. Even though it can look more green, it has less ability to hold more water. The condor sanctuary is an issue. I don't see that as troublesome. You may need to use helicopters to deal with that. Mr. OVERBAY. It offers some options to deal with things if we find it necessary. I am not aware we have even specific plans at this time to do that. Mr. VENTO. I am willing to consider that wherever condors appear in the United States. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I have no further questions. I appreciate your response to our questions and providing further in­ formation for the record, as has been requested by individual mem­ bers. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. We have an individual panel next. The first panel is Sally Reid, vice president, Sierra Club, San Francisco, California; Gene Marshall, Coalition for Ventura County Wilderness, Ventura, California; Kevin Coyle, vice president and conservation director, American Rivers, Washington, DC., and Allasdair Coyne, Keep the Sespe Wild, Ojai, California. All your statements are before me. I am going to ask you to try to limit your remarks to about 5 minutes so that we can proceed in an orderly manner. PANEL CONSISTING OF SALLY REID, VICE PRESIDENT, SIERRA CLUB, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; GENE MARSHALL, COALI­ TION FOR VENTURA COUNTY WILDERNESS, VENTURA, CALI­ FORNIA; KEVIN COYLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, AMERICAN RIVERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND ALAS­ DAIR COYNE, KEEP THE SESPE WILD, OJAI, CALIFORNIA Mr. VENTO. Ms. Reid, welcome. Your statement is part of the record. Please proceed to your testimony. Try to stay within the 5- minute limit. Ms. REID: I am Sally Reid, director of the Sierra Club, and imme­ diate past vice president. I am here to present the position of the club on H.R. 1473, which we are opposing. However, I want to thank Congressman Lagomarsino for taking the initiative to introduce the legislation on the recommendations included in the Forest Service record decision. . I want to thank the Forest Service for what I feel is a pretty good, really what for the Forest Service plan, as Mr. Richardson 35 noted, it was really a remarkably good plan. I want to be on record as saying that. However, when we look at the whole forest, as Mr. Richardson pointed out, there is more to this forest than Mr. Lagomarsino's district. So I think, as a 22-year science teacher, that I will be heard in the next room if not in this one. So I would like to stand here if it is OK. This map shows the whole forest. This piece is Mr. Panetta's part of the forest, which actually is up there. The counties are shown over here. Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Monterey. There is a relevance between the counties and the forest districts and in this case, the topography. We feel, as Mr. Richardson has already said, that the area needs to be dealt with all at once. We can't limit it to Mr. Lagomarsino's district and Mr. Gallegly's. I think his area is over here close to I- 5, is my understanding of the districts. It is not easy to find out where these districts end. There is also some of Mr. Thomas' district up here along the county line. I tried to convey that to that office, but I think they didn't quite hear what I was saying. Most of the rest of it is fairly clearcut. This is Mr. Thomas' district here and this is Mr. Panetta's and this is Mr. Lagmarsino's. This piece of legislation would maximize the opportunities for preserving known condor habitats and other resources. There are a number of reasons that we take exception to H.R. 1473. Probably the most outrageous of which is the Johnston Ridge Trail, holding it open for 2 years after enactment of the legislation. That would be a first if it were to get into this legislation. Not only that, we have had indications from the Forest Service that they are very in­ terested in holding that trail open. Mr. Overbay's testimony is to the contrary today. And because they held a trail day there 1 month ago-2 months ago now, I guess it was, where they brought 100 motorcyclists in to repair a trail that they had told me was in good condition. One hundred motorcyclists. They also had a helicopter fly in steel beams to erect a barricade. This was April 1989. A permanent structure like a bar­ ricade to keep the motorcyclists from going down the Sespe Creek don't fit my understanding of the Wilderness Act requirements and of reasonable management of the area, while it is under what we call recommendations to Congress. . We also object to a provision of the bill that has to do with the two dams at the two ends of the creek. I would like to say at this point in terms of specifics of the Sespe area, we have a map and numbered places on the map which are keyed, but not in my testi­ mony, but Mr. Coyle's testimony, and he is on panel 3. He is going to talk about the Sespe area. I am trying to concentrate a little bit more on an overview of the whole area. There are opportunities in Mr. Panetta's district that he is discussing with his constituents, that he is receiving a lot of mail on and that I hope he will be here to talk to you about today. It includes over 75,000 acres of proposed wilderness areas and addi­ tional rivers. The rivers are all handled by various river groups, so I am not going to speak about them at all. I think you are going to hear a lot about all of them before we are through. 36 The prOVISIOns in the bill for fire, I suggest that everybody reread the Wilderness Act, and I think you will find a paragraph on .fire in there that allows the kind of management that the Forest Service needs. It gives the that opportunity. It doesn't need to be in the bilL I am sure you, some of you may, or possibly some of you may remember Jim Weaver. He always gave a speech when somebody came to him from California and wanted fire language in their bills. He would make this. great speech. He was from Oregon. He made a speech about the fact that the wilderness bill didn't need that. So fire and watershed and buffer language, we really don't feel that bill needs any of that. What we look on is it is almost as cluttered. Beyond that, we have concerns that the bill omits the opportunities for wilderness and wild rivers in the whole forest and limits in this area specifi­ cally, the amount of wilderness that is possible. In this context, we think it is very important to recognize that this forest can totally within the southern coastal range of mountains, has unique topog­ raphy. It is a unit. That is very important. I have some papers here that I need to introduce. I have a paper here from Mr. Rick Tate, from the California State University De­ partment of Geology. He speaks to the topographic unit of the area. Mr. VENTO. Your time has expired, Ms. Reid. Mr. RICHARDSON. Five minutes have expired? OK, I don't believe it. Mr. VENTO. We will be asking some questions. Perhaps that is another way to bring out some points. Ms. REID. I wanted to talk about the Indians, too. Mr. VENTO. OK. Well, we will specifically ask you a question about the Indians. You can do it that way. Then we will stay within the rules. Ms. REID. I thought you had something-a warning light for us. A I-minute warning light. Mr. VENTO. It is supposed to go like that. Well, I gave you a 1- minute warning. I gave you an extra minute. I am aware you spent a lot of time on it. We know you have traveled a long way. Let's see how far we can get. [Prepared statement of Ms. Reid, with attachments, follows:] 37

Sally M. Reid Sierra Club 730 Polk Street San Francisco. California 94089

My name is Sally M. Reid, I'm a Director of the National Sierra Club, and

immediate past Vice President. I'm here today to present the position of the

Club on the HR 1473, which we are opposing.

However, I first want to thank Congressman Lagomarsino for taking the

initiative to introduce legislation on the recommendations included in

the Forest Services Record of Decision on its Land Management Plan.

The FS plan covers the whole forest, of course, and includes recommendations for three wild rivers and four wilderness areas, rather a remarkable record, and one that I doubt can be equaled anywhere else in the country.

However, looking at the whole forest, one recognizes that Mr.

Lagomarsino's legislation covers only that part of the plan within his own district, and the Forest Service has included a wilderness recommendation in Mr. Thomas'district and a wild river recommendation

in Mr. Panetta's District.

It is the Club's conviction that the whole forest should be treated as a unit, and a single piece of legislation passed that maximizes the opportunities for preserving known condor habitat and other resources, including more of the remarkable rivers of this area, which will be discussed today by American

R;vers and Friends of the River.

1 38

There are a number of reasons that the Sierra Club feels make HR 1473 inadequate, including two provisions which we find particularly unacceptable-­

"sins" of omission and commission, as it were.

The included provisions we oppose are specifically:

1) Keeping the Johnston Ridge Trail open for study for two years AFTER enactment of legislation. This trail has already been under "study" for the three years since the Draft EIS was released in 1986.

Although I have long been assured that the trail was in good condition (I hiked it during the RARE II studies in the late '70's, when it was a disaster area of erosion and secondary routes and "hill climbs"), despite that assurance, I discovered quite fortuitously that a "Trail Day" was being held in late April for 100 motorcyclists to repair the trail and build a barricade near its end. A few weeks ago I was told that the Trail Day included helicopter delivery into the recommended Wilderness of steel beams for the permanent barricade. I question the Forest Service judgment, and see a relevance between their verbally stated position that the trail should stay open even if the area became a wilderness, and building a constituency for that position by inviting Trail Day participation, including a big dinner at the end. No EA was done on this extensive project.

2) HR 1473 excludes areas at both ends of the marvelous Sespe creek for dams/reservoirs that have not even had formal proposals from water interests. Speakers from the Keep the Sespe Wild Committee will present those

2 39

concerns in detail.

Omissions: The legislation has a number of omissions that are of particular concern to the Sierra Club:

1) It is limited to Mr. Lagomrsino's district, even though it is all the same forest, quite isolated and different from any other in the world, including the three other climatically similar southern California forests.

2) The unusual south~rn Coast Range is totally encompassed within the Los

Padres NF.

3) The condor ranged freely within this entire forest (as well as in the southern Sierra)--but not in the other southern California forests. There are known range, roost and nest sites all the way up to the Ventana Wilderness, and almost to Interstate 5 on the east.

It is extremely significant that the three surviving young Andean condors being raised in the Sanctuary, are ranging further than they had been expected to, and are being seen in habitat known to have been formerly occupied by the

California condor.

In fact, we learned yesterday that one of the Andeans had flown over Ventura, been photographed, and featured in the Ventura Star Free Press.

3 40

The significance of the far-ranging flights, and their identity with former range has not yet been formally appraised, and we must not too hastily draw conclusions. But since the aim of the expensive captive breeding program is to release captive-bred condors in the wild, it speaks urgently of the need to give maximum protection (Wilderness) to all former known habitat in the Los

Padres. This bill is designed to do just that.

4) Indian cultures and tribes occupied all of this coastal and mountain range, leaving many archeological sites and rock art throughout, the Eselen

Indians in the Monterey District, and the Chumach throughout the southern part of the forest south of San Luis Obispo. Mt. Pinos, the highest coastal peak in southern California, at 8831', is said to have been the center of the

Churnach universe, and is known as a sacred site. For confirmation, see letter from Dr. Harvard Ayers, Department of Anthropology, Appalachian State

University, North Carolina, which I ask be included in the Hearing Record.

5) The remarkable diversity of the forest includes both four over-8000 ft peaks and coastal beaches; stately coastal redwoods and high altitude sugar and limber pines; many endangered and threatened plant species; near-extinct condors and endangered kit fox and blunt-nosed leapard lizards; big-horned sheep, cougar, and wild turkey; and opportunity for gold and oil and geothermal resources, off-road vehicle use and grazing--and at the same time, opportunity for vast areas of silence and solitude. A truly remarkable forest!

6) HR 1437 does not recognize the importance of the Pinos-Badlands as

4 41

a Wilderness area, although (under the name the Sawmill-Badlands) the

Forest Service recommended it in four of its eight alternatives, and gave it the high Wilderness Attribute rating of 18 in its RARE II evaluations.

Our concern at that time that even that rating did not do justice to the area fell on deaf ears. Alan Coles, in a later panel, will elaborate on the

Sierra Club's position on the area's resources.

7) Fossil sites are also well known, from Miocene times, some exposed and quite accessible. The rapid and recent (relatively) uplift of the

Coastal Range has been responsible for the highly dissected and steep canyon slopes of the area. Richard Tate's testimony, which I respectively reqest be added to the Hearing Record, elaborates on the geology of the forest.

We have an incredible opportunity right now. To do only a small part of the job, and to allow dams and reservoirs and off-road vehicles in what we do, is unacceptable to the Sierra Club. That is why we oppose

HR 1473. We propose instead a CONDOR RANGE AND RIVERS ACT, to designate

543,100 acres in seven Wilderness areas, and 252.4 miles of waterways in Wild!

Scenic/Recreational/study segments on eight rivers. This protection will fulfill the potential of the forest, neglected since RARE II, 1984 Wilderness

Act, draft and final Forest Plan EIS's, and HR 1473.

5 42

Appended

1 A small LPNF Map, showing designated Wildernesses, proposed Wilderness,

and list (not mapped) of proposed Wild and Scenic rivers

2 Summary list of acreage/miles of proposed wildermess amd rivers, by Congressional district

3 Comparison between Forest Service Recommendations, HR 1473, and the Condor

Range amd Rivers Act proposal

4 RIM OF WILDERNESS map, dated 1979 and 1986, showing Sierra Club's long­ standing interest in the Los Padres Forest wilderness opportunities

***** 43

SIERRA CLUB PROPOSED

CONDOR RANGE AND RIVERS ACT (Los Padres National Forest, CAl

SUMMARY: WILDERNESS and RIVERS PROPOSALS (by Congr. District)

8 WIS RIVERS Proposed--in miles

River Designate Study Congr. District

Little Sur 15.5 7.5 Panetta Big Sur 18.9 8.5 (50.4 + 16) Arroyo Seco 16

Lopez 5.5 5.5 Thomas

Sisquoc 51 Matilija 16 4 La,e;omarsino Sespe 55 (171 + 4) Piru 49

TOTALS 226.9 25.5 (Together: 252.4 m)

WILDERNESS PROPOSALS, by Congressional District

I CONGR. PANETTA: 77,700 acres in Ventana Additions and Silver Peak

63,1'00 Ventana Additions (three FP Roadless Areas; one "released" area):

19,600 Black Butte FPA 102 20,500 Bear Mountain FPA 103 14,700 Bear Canyon FPA 104

8,300 Chalk Peak (RA 105 Released 1984)

14,600 Silver Peak (RA 106 Released 1984)

77,700 TOTAL ACRES CONGR. PANETTA'S DISRICT 44

II CONGR. THOMAS'S DISTRICT: Total 16,505 acres in one wilderness

16,50:; Garcia RA 107

16,505 TOTAL ACRES CONGRESSMAN THOMAS' DISTRICT

III CONGR. LAGOMARSINO'S DISTRICT: Total: 448,900 acres in 3 Wildernesses and one Addition

5] ,600 San Rafael W Addition (La Brea FPA ]]7)

32,000 Matilija FPA 129

85,000 Pinos-Badlands (Sawmill-Badlands FPA 134)

280,300 Sespe FPA 002

448,900 TOTAL ACRES CONGR. LAGOMARSINO'S DISTRICT

======

543,105 TOTAL LPNF ACREAGE CONDOR RANGE AND RIVERS ACT

(7-3-89 smr)

2 45

CONDOR RANCH': AND RTVERR PROPORAL (1.01'1 PADRER NATTONAI. FOR,ER'r, CAI,TFORNTA)

C()mptlr j,!,_o_t:lJ~~tHf!en F1L.EB,nLg~2g"111!!e'1ga t i on!!.1....J!!!.!,(oma rs i no/Wi 1 son, t!i..Lts_,,_1l,.!}.!L,QQ!:I§~.rva tJ.2!LELoE...C?§!!l

T I.os Pndres Forest FETS Plan ~ecommendatjons

A Wi 1 derness 1 197,000 aD Respe 2 30,000 nc MatiliJa l.a/l:omarsino's distri.nt 3 16,500 ac San Rafael addi.tions

,I to,OOO ac Garcia. Thomas's district

fl I~j I d Rivers 1 28.5 m Respe Creek 1.agomarsino's district. 2 31 m Sisquoc

3 14.4 m Big Rur Panetta's district

2 Ln/l:omarsino/Wilson bi.lls (H.R. 1473; S. 637, introduced 3/17/89)

A 1'Ii 1 derness : Total 243,500 ac 1 197,000 ac Respe, 2 30,000 nc Hat,iliJa La/l:omarsino 3 16,500 ac San Rafael additions

B Wild Rivers: Total 58.5 m 1 27.5 m Sespe Creek La/l:omarsino 2 31 m Ri.squoD

:1 Conservation Proposal

0\ Wild"rness: Total 543,105 ac

Panetta's District: Total 77,700 aD

Si 1wer Peak: It\,500 ac Ventana Addition (including Chalk Pk): 6g/tOO

2 Thomas' District,

Uareln: additional 6,500,aereR (Comp. 3), total 16,500 ae 46

3 La~omarsino District, Total ac 421,400

Sespp.: a) addit.ional 66,800 cont.j~uo\ls acres, plus 11,000 ac from Dry Lakp.s FPA 131, across Awy. 33; t.otal 280,300 ae b) p.limlnat.ion of 2 yr study of ORY trail e) elimination of reLease, fire management, and oi 1 dri 1 1 i n~ I angungp.

Matilija: Add 2000 ac Comp.2 Tota 1 32,000 ae

Ran Rafap.] Addition: Add 35,100 ac Compo 2 Total 51,600 ac

Pinos-Badlands (Sawmill Badlands FPA 134): include 85,000 ac

B Wild Rivp.rs: Total milp.~ 252.4 (includes "study" segments)

Pnnp.tta's District: Total 11m

Little Rur: 23 m Rig Rur: 24.4 m Ar'r'oyo Reeo: 16 m

2 Thomas' District: Total 11 m

Lopp.7-: 11 m

3 La .• omarsino's District

Sp.spP.: 55 m (Entlrp. rlvp.r from source to confluence with Ranta Clara R (forecloses rp.servoir/dam opportunities) Pi ru: 49 m ~ln t. iIi .i a: 16 m Risquoc: 51 m

7.3.89smr

2 47

v -tZ 48 49 Mr. VENTO. Mr. Marshall. Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on H.R. 1473. My name is Gene Marshall. I reside at 403 Court Avenue, Ventura, California 93003. In May 1985 I organized the Coalition for Ventura County Wil­ derness, consisting of a group of around 30 persons, some of whom belong to no environmental group, plus representatives from prac­ tically every environmental group in the county, except "Keep the Sespe Wild." However, today I am speaking strictly as an individ­ ual. I am going to reverse the usual procedure and leave my resume to be read at the end, if time allows. The United Water Convervation District, by law has been ap­ pointed steward of the Oxnard Plain and surrounding area-con­ taining some of the richest, deepest, and most fertile soil in these United States with a climate which permits year-around produc­ tion of first class food crops and that are sold in both domestic and foreign markets. Weare here today to discuss the possible fate of two of the great­ est assets that Mother Nature can bestow on an area: the Sespe Wilderness and the Oxnard Plain. There is the possibility of practi­ cally completely destroying the latter, which is of tremendous eco­ nomic importance, as well as important from the standpoint of the land ethic, permitting future generations to enjoy and produce food crops merely to prevent a relatively infinitesimal loss of wilderness values to the former. At this time, it is estimated that we have 10 to 15 years to find the best solution to this dilemma. Remember, it is the land itself that is calling for our help. The United Water Conservation District is faced today with the fact that the upper aquifers have been overdrafted, permitting the intrusion of sea water from the Pacific Ocean in the amount of 900,000 acre-feet. These upper aquifers, unlike the lower Fox Canyon aquifer, can be and are being recharged through the sand formations underlying the spreading grounds located several miles inland on the Santa Clara River. The soils sitting over this lake bed of 900,000 acre-feet of salt water are essentially useless. Quite a problem, you say? I would say it is not just a problem, it is one hell of a problem and one that if not handled properly and in a timely manner, could leave future generations with the whole Oxnard Plain rendered useless for the growing of food crops. In terms of acre-feet, the salt water intrusion amounts to almost one half of the 2 million acre-feet of State water imported annually to southern California. How much would fresh water at $500 per acre-foot cost to replace this 900,000 acre-feet of sea water? Only $450 million. How long would it take to replace this sea water if 20,000 acre-feet of fresh water is used each year? Only 45 years. The land over this sea water is now dead and unusable as far as the upper aquifers are concerned. Its days are numbered with the continued use and exploitation of the nonrechargeable Fox Canyon aquifer. In 1977 I organized the "taxpayers Against the Sespe Dams" be­ cause I had a feeling that despite the fact that the U.S. Depart­ ment of the Interior, the National Audubon Society and the State of California all opposed the dams-we still could lose the election. 50 We never once mentioned the condors. Our arguments were strict­ lyon a taxpayer's basis. To wit: Ventura County had already contracted for 20,000 acre­ feet of State water. State water is of much higher quality, more de­ pendable supply month in, month out, and costs less per acre-foot than would Sespe Creek water. I had learned through a personal friend who contacted Stewart Udall, then Secretary of the Interior, and further in direct personal contact with an honest member of the Ventura County board of su­ pervisors when asked, "Why Sespe dams now, because it doesn't make economic sense?" replied: "It's local politics." We won the election by only 38 votes. My main concern was the proposed dam at Topa Topa in the very heart of the wilderness. With a dam at Topa Topa the natural integrity of the Sespe Wilderness area would forever be lost and with it, any chance for wilderness classification under the 1964 act. I feel the same today. If any bill proposed a dam at Topa Topa, I would fight it with everything I have got. H.R. 1473 protects this site and I will fight with everything I have got for its passage. At this time, I imagine my conversation, friends in this room may be saying to themselves, "Hey, Gene, why are you not fighting against leaving the options open on the Cold Springs site and Oat Mountain site?" Well, there are several reasons why I believe that the options to place dams at Cold Springs and Oat Mountain should remain open until the next Forest Service review period 10 to 15 years from now. One, some options currently being proposed to replace the need for Sespe dams sound good on paper and may turn out to be good enough to help solve the dilemma regarding salt water intrusion, such as: (a) the use of some 12,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water from sewage from the Las Posas area. (al The use of pipeline to reduce loss from seepage and evapora­ tion before delivery to the spreading grounds for United Water Conservation District's 5,000 acre-foot allotment of State water plus their releases from Lake Piru connected with Pyramid Dam by Piru Creek running through the proposed Sespe Wilderness Area. (c) More efficient water use and installation of water meters where not now located for monitoring and for control, hopefully through water rate costs. I would wish that the above could all come about. But there are two concerns: One, we may be going into a drought of untold duration, and drought or no drought, how much cooperation will be received on point (c)? Regarding points (a) and (b), I have learned from experience in hydrology and politics, it is best to listen to the former. The hy­ drologist I know has some serious doubts at the bottom line effects of (a) and (b). Two, California State water officials estimate that they can in­ crease the importation of State water to southern California from the present 2 million acre-feet to around 3,800,000 acre-feet. How­ ever, this has a lot of "ifs" in it and claims are made that the 51 project already is overcommitted and may not be able to deliver promised allotments. Some hydrologists have serious doubts on many of the State's projections. Three, meanwhile, the United Water Conservation District is not sitting on its hands doing nothing constructive. they are to be con­ gratulated, not condemned. In September of this year, the United Water Conservation District is embarking upon a 4-year coopera­ tive study with the San Diego Office of the United States Geologi­ cal Survey. The purpose will be to study geologic formations and their aquifers, et cetera. To determine any other possible sources of water and estimated cost. They are not studying anything to do with dams. I would strongly suggest that persons at this hearing who arein­ terested in water use listen carefully when any United Water Con­ servation District speaker gives out figures regarding their water needs now and assuming no growth. I would also respectfully and humbly request that Sierra Club and Keep the Sespe Wild representatives obtain a qualified hy­ drologist and qualified engineer to visit with United Water Conser­ vation District in Santa Paula and check out anything that they have heard today, plus anything they haven't heard today, to de­ termine the authenticity or to gain more information on any item. Mr. VENTO. Let me stop you there. We will get back to you with a question or two in a moment. [Prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:] 52

MEMORANDUM

Subject: Public hearings on HR1473 before the House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, U. S. Congress

From: ~r. E.(Gene) D. Marshall, 403. Court Avenue, \entura, CA 93003

Date: July 18, 1989

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to express my views on HR1473. My name is Gene Marshall. I reside at 403 Court Avenue, Ventura, California .93003.

In May, 1985 I organized the Coalition for Ventura County Wilderness consisting of a group of around 30 persons, some of whom belong to no environmental group, plus representatives from practically every environmental group in the county - except "Keep the Sespe Wild". However, today I am speaking strictly as an individual. . I am going to reverse the usual procedure and leave my resume to read at the end, if time allows.

The United Water Conservation District (hereafter called the UWCD) by law has been appointed steward of the Oxnard Plain and surround­ ~ng area - containing some of the richest, deepest and most fertile soil in these United States with a climate which permits year around production of first class food crops that are sold in both domestic and foreign markets.

We are here today to discuss the possible fate of two of the greatest assets that Mother Nature can bestow on an area: the. Sespe Wilderness and the rich Oxnard Plain. There is the poss­ ibility of practically completely destroying the latte~, which is of tremendous economic importance, as well as important from the standpoint of the land ethic, permitting future generations to enjoy and produce food crops merely to prevent a relatively infinitesimal loss of wilderness values to the former. At this time, it is estimated that we have ten to fifteen years to find the best solution to this dilemma. Remember, it is the land itself that is calling for our help. '\ The UWCD is faced today with the fact that the upper acquifers have been over-drafted, permitting the intrusion of sea water from the Pacific Ocean in the amount of 900,000 acre-feet. These upper acquifers, unlike the lower Fox Canyon acquifer, can be and are being recharged through the sand formations underlying the spreading grounds located several miles inland on the Santa Clara River. The soils sitting over this "lakebed" of 900,000 acre-feet of salt water are essentially useless. Quite a problem, you say? I'd say it's not just a problem - it's one hell of a problem and one that if not handled properly and in a timely manner could leave future generations with the whole Oxnard Plain rendered useless for the growing of food crops. 53

- 2 - In terms of acre-feet, the salt water intrusion amounts to almost one-half of the 2,000,000 acre-feet of state water imported annually to Southern California. How much would fresh water at $500 per acre foot cost to replace this 900,000 acre-feet of sea water? Only $450,000,000! How long would it take to replace this sea water if 20,000 acre-feet of fresh water is used each year? Only 45 years! The land over this sea water is now dead and unusable as far as the upper acquifers is con­ cerned. It's days are numbered with the continued use and ex­ ploitation of the non-rechargeable Fox Canyon acquifer.

In 1966, I organized the "Taxpayers Against the Sespe Darns" because I had a feeling that despite the fact that the U. S. Department of the Interior, the National Audubon Society and the State of California all opposed the dams - we still couId lose the election. We never once mentioned the condors. Our arguments were strictly on a taxpayer's basis. To wit: Ventura County had already contracted for 20,000 acre-feet of state (Feather River) water. State water is of much higher quality, more dependable supply, month in and month out, and costs less per acre foot than would Sespe Creek water. I had learned through a personal friend who contacted Stewart Udall, then Secretary of the Interior, and further in direct personal contact with an honest member of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors when asked "Why Sespe darns now, because it doesn't make economic sense?" replied: It's local politics." We won the election by only 38 votes.

My main concern was the proposed darn at Topa Topa in the very heart of the wilderness. With a darn at Topa Topa the natural integrity of the Sespe Wilderness area would forever be lost and with it - any chance for wilderness classification under the 1964 Act. I feel the same today. If any bill proposed a darn at Topa Topa, I would fight it with everything I've got! HR1473 protects this site and I will fight with everything I've got for it's passage. At this time, I imagine my conservation friends in this room may be saying to themselves, "Hey, Gene, why are you not fighting against leaving the options open on the Cold Springs site and Oat Mountain site?" . ~

Well, there are several reasons why I believe that the options to place dams at Cold Springs and Oat Mountain should.remain open until tne next Forest Service review period 10 to 15 years from now. 1. Some options currently being proposed to replace the need for Sespe dams sound qood on paper and may turn out to be good enough to help solve the dilemma regarding salt water intrusion, such as a. The use of some 12,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water from sewerage from the Las Posas area. b. The use of pipeline to reduce loss from seepage and evaporation before delivery to the spreading grounds for UWCD's 5,000 acre-foot allotment of· state water plus 54

- 3 - their releases from Lake Piru,connected with Pyramid Dam by Piru Creek running through the proposed Sespe Wilderness area. c. More efficient water use and installation of water meters where not now located for monitoring and for control - hopefully through water rate costs. I would wish that the above could all come about. But there are two concerns: (1) We may be going into a drought of untold duration, and drought or no drought, how much cooper­ ation will be received on point (c)? (2) Regarding points (a) and (b), I have learned from my experience in hydrology and politics, it's best to listen to the former. The hydrol­ ogist I know has some serious doubts, about the bottom line effects of (a) and (b). 2. California state water officlals estimate that they can increase the importation of state water to Southern California from the present 2,000,000 acre-feet to around 3,800,000 acre­ feet. However, this has a lot of "ifs" in it and claims are made that the project already is over-committed and may n~t be able to deliver promised allotments. Some hydrologists have serious doubts on many of the state's projections.

3. Meanwhile, the UWCD is not sitting on it's hands doing nothing constructive. They are to be congratulated - not condemned. In September of this year, the UWCD is embarking upon a four-year cooperative study with the San Diego office of the United States Geological Survey. The purpose will be to study geologic formations and their acquifers, etc. to determine any other possible sources of water and estimated cost. They are not studying anything to do with dams.

I would strongly suggest that persons at this hearing who are interested in water use listen carefully when any UWCD speaker gives out figures regarding their water needs now and assuming ~ growth. I would also respectively and humbly request that Sierra Club and Keep the Sespe Wild representatives obtain a qualified hydrologist and qualified engineer to visit with UWCD in Santa Paula and check out anything that they've heard today, plus anything they haven't heard today to determine the authenticity or to gain more information on any item. We ,should all t~irst for truth and facts. If you find something out of line, please tell UWCD and tell me and I'll do some checking on my own. There is not time for my resume, but it is tacked to the end of your copy of my complete statement.

To subcommittee members who have so patiently and kindly listened to my comments, I want you to know that within a couple of weeks upon my return to Ventura, I plan to complete the Coalition for Ventura Wilderness's slide and video show that has occupied most of my time during the past three months. I'll send a copy of the video to Bob Lagomarsino who I am sure will invite you to get a bag of popcorn and a Coke and just relax to enjoy the show. Thank you, gentlemen. 55

- 4 -

Pertaining mainly only to training and experience related to the Subject of Hearings.

Birth: Dec. 2, 1910 at Hoopeston, Illinois.

B. S. in Forestry - Purdue University - 1934 Graduation with Distinction (A average every semester) Offered scholarship at either Yale University or University of California at Berkeley.

M. S. in Forestry - U. C. at Berkeley - 1938 Major: Forestry; ~: Soils Over 20 years in Forestry Profession including work with the U. S. Forest Service, teaching and research at two state uni­ versities and as private forest products consultant.

Forest Service - Central States Forest Experiment Station, Columbus, Ohio With Dr. John Auten, Soil Scientist, co-inventor of special nozzle that related normal size of raindrop with intensity rate. Developed rain-making equipment for purpose of field tests on 10 x 20 foot plots to determine erosion and surface runoff on different soil series and forested conditions. Worked on White River watershed in Missouri in conjunction with Flood Control Surveys field office. With Dr. John Auten - made soil site studies on walnut woodlots in Illinois and study of time required to develop Al horizon in sassafras and persimmon thickets along Ohio River, Illinois.

Assistant to Senior Hydraiic Engineer in preparation of pre­ liminary flood control ~eports on streams and rivers in the Ohio and Mississipp~asJlls~~i~_ was ~~joint cooperative project of the Forest serviceA~~€he'Eu~g~'b~'Kgricultural Economics handling infiltration and runoff hydrologic studies on different soils of different crops to prepare hydrographs and estimate flood damages on upstream areas. Estimates of flood frequency and peak flows was then passed down to the U. S. Corps of Engineers for any downstream measures, such as levees or dams, need~d near the mouth of the river. Many contacts with hydrologists working on various streams for interpretation and analyzing data for pre­ liminary flood control reports including charts; maps, etc. tfiat I helped prepare under direction of Senior Hydraaic Engineer for all three bureaus (F. S., S. C. S., and B. A. E.)

Forest Service, Washington office assigned me to the Coweeta Water Research Station in southwestern North Carolina. This is a field branch of the Appalachian Forest Experiment Station, Ashville. N. C. The Coweeta Station is the largest forest watershed research center in the united States with some 40 watersheds with wiers with 5-6 feet of gneiss and schists in the area of highest annual rainfall (80 inches) in eastern U. S. 56

- 5 - Studies were made of the complete precipitation cycle, wherein: P = Transpiration (from the leaves) + interception (by leaves and other plant material above the ground) + (surface) Runoff and Evaporation (from the mineral soil + deep seepage (into. the soil below). Tests were made on different land uses - as grazing, timber­ cutting, etc. - and the installation of mil-acre plots (6.6 feet x 6.6 feet) to study plant frequency and density on grazed plots.

Soil Conservation Service Was among a few selected nationally to attend special school near Chickasha, Oklahoma, to study infiltration, surface retention and runoff on different soils. School conducted by Dr. Musgrave, Senior Hydrologist and Soil Scientist.

In 1958 left the forestry profession to live near my wife's parents at Ventura, California. Joined the Sierra Club in 1959 and became active almost immediately, serving through the years as Conservation Chairman and Chairman, Sespe Group, Chairman, Los Padres Chapter and member Southern California Regional Conservation Committee, Forest Practices and Wilderness subcommittee. Started becoming familiar with Los Padres National Forest in early 19.60' s. Two former classmates have served as supervisors. Bill Hansen was one of these former classmates who was Supervisor Los Padres National Forest when Wilderness Act passed in July 1984. Almost immediately wrote Bill a 2-page letter hoping to get the Sespe on wilderness list.

1966 - Fough~ Sespe Dams (see page 2 of this statement)

In May, 1975, by special request of Joe Fontaine, Chair, S. Cal. Regional Conservation Committee, appointep me to serve as chairman of special committee to prepare special report on Cobblestone Mountain Area for wilderness classification. My complete report on the cobblestone Area submitted to Sierra Club in September, 1976

September 28, 1978 - Soon thereafter I was again requested to prepare another wilderness report - this time on~Sespe­ Frazier area (05002) I selected a committee and after around a year's work, I submitted on September 28, 1978 to the RARE II coordinator, USFS, S.F. CA a report on Sespe-Frazier with adjusted boundaries that were quite similar to the boundaries in HR1473. I asked for instant wilderness status, sending copies to Cranston, Lagomarsino, Gov. Brown, State Sen. Rains, Huey 0, Johnson (secy. Resources Agency, State of California) and Allan West, Supv. LPNF, May, 1985 - Formed Coalition for Ventura County Wilderness with about 30 members including all principal environmental groups. March, 1988 - Had collected and duplicated most of slides for show. July, ·1989 - Completed 185 slide and video show in support of HR1473 and S627. 57 Mr. VENTO. Next is Kevin Coyle. Mr. COYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kevin Coyle. I am vice president and conservation director of American Rivers. Mr. Chairman, we wish to commend Congressman Lagomarsino for introducing this important legislation that would protect cer­ tain areas of the Los Padres National Forest as wilderness and would add certain of its river segments to the wide and scenic rivers system. But while we certainly support the intent of this leg­ islation, we believe that additional river segments should be added to the bill to strengthen the protection it provides. Others, as you know, will be commenting on wilderness. We had a chance to meet yesterday with Mr. Lagmarsino before the hear­ ing and express our views to him directly. He is aware of what our specific concerns are. Our first concern is with the Sespe Creek. We recognize this leg­ islation, as now written, would protect that part of the stream with the most feasible dam site and thus make development on the creek less likely than before. But there are two other potential dam sites on the Sespe, one of the few remaining free flowing streams in southern California. In its land a resource management plan for the Los Padres National Forest, the Forest Service recommended a I-mile segment at the lower end of the river near the forest bound­ ary that was not included in the bill, and we believe the bill should be amended to' include that segment. Also, through a forest plan appeal brought on our behalf by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and through similar appeal brought by California groups, the Forest Service is soon likely to recommend that approximately 4 additional miles of segment 2 of the river be added to the national rivers system, extending from the upstream boundary of river segment 3 to just below the site of the proposed Cold Springs Dam. In our negotiations with the Forest Service there have been indi­ cations which we hope the hard questioning that the Forest Service received today will not put a damper on, that if the dam were not to be found eligible, if the dam were not to be found feasible that the Forest Service would go ahead and recommend suitability for all of segment 2. There also has been a little bit of confusion over the reason why segment 2 was left out of the recommendations of the Forest Serv­ ice. In a decision to the Forest Service Plan, it was indicated specif­ ically-this goes to Congressman Levine's question-specifically the Forest Service referenced the water development management potential as the reason why segment 2 was not considered to be suitable for designation. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that once a river has been found eli­ gible for national river system by Federal agency, really the burden should be on the developer to prove a clear need and an available market for the project rather than always on the river conservationists who prove the project is not needed or at least is highly speculative. The Forest Service stated that when it made its decision to ex­ clude segment 2 and to include that part of segment 3, in both cases they did not have the full information on the feasibility of 58 these two water projects. We wanted to point out really we think there ought to be a presumption over which developers have to overcome once a river has been eligible. Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the entire 55 miles of the Sespe should be protected by adding it to the national rivers system, but at bare minimum, we would like to see both segments 2 and 3 protected by this legislation. We are also concerned that the Forest Service determined that the lower 2 miles of the Sisquoc-that part outside the wilderness boundary but within the forest-was not recommended in the Forest Service plan. We believe this 2-mile segment should be in­ cluded in the legislation. Our third concern is more long term, and that is that our pend­ ing agreement with the Forest Service will likely result in its rec­ ommending additional river segments on the Los Padres National Forest. I don't believe we should fault Mr. Lagomarsino in any way, be­ cause he has, in discussions with our members of Congress on this issue, been open to this idea. We are hopeful that we can proceed, with his support and with his cooperation, to investigate that with other members of Congress. In the immediate term we wish to join other groups in suggest­ ing that a forest-wide rivers and wilderness bill for the Los Padres National Forest may make a great deal of sense and is worthy of exploration with other affected members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 1473. We wish again to express our recognition of Congress­ man Lagomarsino's intent in introducing this legislation and are hopeful that its scope can be expanded. I will be pleased to answer any questions. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Coyle. [Prepared statement of Mr. Coyle follows:] 59

Testimol'\Y of Kevin J. Coyle Vice President and Conservation Director AlTf!rican Rivers. Inc.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. for the opportunity to testi fy before the subcommittee today. My name is Kevin J. Coyle. and I am Vice President and Conservation Director of American Rivers. Inc .• the nation's principal river­ saving organization with 12.000 members nationwide. including more than 2.000 in Cal i forni a.

Mr. Chairman. we wish to commend Congressnan Lagomarsino for introducing

this important legislation that would protect certain areas of the Los Padres National Forest as Wil derness and woul d add certain of its river segments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. But. l\t]f1e we certainly support the intent of this legislation. we believe that additional river segments should be added to the bill to strengthen the protection it prCNides.

Our first concern is with the Sespe Creek. We recognize that this legislation. as nCM written. would protect that part of the stream with the most feasible dam site and thus make developnent on the creek less likely than before. But there are two other potenti al dam sites on the Sespe. one of the few remaining free-flowing streams in Southern California. In its Land and Resource Management Plan for the Los Padres. the Forest Service recanlTf!nded a one-mile segment at the lower end of the river near the forest boundary that was not included in the bill. and we believe thebill should be amended to incl ude that segment. Al so. through a forest pl an appeal brought on our behalf by the Sierra Cl ub Legal Defense Fund. and through a similar appeal brought by California groups. the Service is soon likely to recommend that approximately four additional miles of seglTf!nt II of the river be added to the national rivers system. extending from the upstream boundary of river segment III to

-- 1 -- 60

just below the site of the proposed Col d Springs Dam. The Service has al so

stated. and appeal settlement will reflect the fact. that it would recanmend

the remainder of segment II if the Cold Springs project were to prove

unfeasi ble.

We believe that when Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act nearly 21 years ago. it intended to balance our pervasive and understandable policy of river develoll11ent with a more sel ecti ve pol icy of protecti ng a few of our remaining outstanding rivers. Moreover. we believe that once a river has been found el igible for the national rivers system by a federal agency. the burden should be on the proposed developer to prove a clear need and available market for the project rather than on the river conservationist to prove the project is not needed or at best is highly speculative. In short. we believe that there should be a presunption that all eligible river segments remain free­ flowing once they are found eligible for the national rivers system.

Ultimately. Mr. Chairman. we believe that the entire 55 miles of the Sespe should be protected by adding it to the national rivers system. but at bare minimum. we would like to see both segments II and III protected by this legislation.

We are al so concerned that the Forest Service determined that the lower two miles of the Sisquoc River--that part outside the Wilderness boundary but within the forest--was not recommended in the forest plan. We believe this two-mile segment should be included in the legislation. 61

Our third concern is more lorg-term. and that is that our pending agreement with the Forest Service will likely result in its recanmending additional river segments on the Los Padres Forest. Through this agreement developed in concert with other groups such as Friends of the River. the Sierra Cl ub. "and Keep the Sespe Wil d. other streams that were not recommended in the plan. such as Piru Creek in Mr. Lagomarsino's congressional district. will be eval uated by the Service. MoreoVer. there are rivers in adjacent congressional districts that either are recanmended already or may be after the reeval uation.

In the immediate term. we wish to join other groups in suggesting that a forest-wide rivers and wilderness bill for the Los Padres Forest may make a great deal of sense and is worthy of exploration with other affected members.

In the longer term. we bel i eve additional ri ve rs on the forest not yet evaluated but which may end up being recommended may be able to be protected through a subsequent pi ece of 1 egi sla tion.

Thank you. Mr. Chai rman. for this opportunity to comment on H. R. 1473. We wish again to express our recognition of Congressman Lagomarsino's intent in introducing this legislation and are hopeful that its scope can be expanded.

I wil1 be pleased to ansl\er any questions.

-- 3 --

43-252 0 - 91 - 3 62 Mr. VENTO. Finally, we have Alasdair Coyne, from Keep the Sespe Wild. Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful to be here today to discuss this very important legisla­ tion. Congressman Bob Lagomarsino is to be congratulated for in­ troducing H.R. 1473, to protect a very special area. We appreciate all of the work Representative Lagomarsino has put into this bill, but in its current form, we cannot support it. The Sespe flows through the largest roadless area that lies adja­ cent to a major metropolitan area in the United States. It crosses the California Condor Sanctuary and is the finest native trout stream in southern California. Southern California is basically a desert. Local water supplies do exist and in almost every circum­ stance are dammed, diverted, or rechanneled. The presence of a free flowing river like the Sespe is rare. One that flows through a roadless wilderness is ever rarer. What makes the Sespe unique is that it not only is rare, but ex­ traordinarily beautiful, with geological formations beyond one's wildest dreams. In how many parts of southern California, or the United States for that matter, can you drive a short distance off a major freeway system and hike a mile or two into a narrow river gorge filled with purpose rocks tumbled on top of one another, some larger than small houses? At one point it takes almost 1 hour to hike less than V2 mile, the jumble of huge boulders creating an almost impenetrable maze. When wandering along this river, enjoying complete quiet and undeveloped surroundings, it is hard to believe that downtown Los Angeles is only 75 miles away. You can take your fishing pole and catch trout from the many ponds that form at each meander. Ex­ ploring, fishing, or just hiking this river will leave lasting memo­ ries and the desire to return. Ladies and gentlemen of the subcommittee, rivers like this are so rare today that they must be considered an endangered species. The Sespe is an endangered species, deserving full protection and no less. Keep the Sespe Wild Committee is the most active river conser­ vations group in California today, having some 3,000 local support­ ers, many of whom regularly enjoy the river's recreational opportu­ nities. Congressman Lagmarsino has made an excellent start with H.R. 1473 and has had the courage to prevent local interests from reviv­ ing plans for a reservoir on the Sespe in the middle of the wild river stretch. The two dam sites not precluded by the legislation as it stands are not cost effective. In thirsty southern California, eco­ nomically feasible dams on the Sespe would have been built long ago. The Bureau of Reclamation stated in 1983 that it would not con­ sider a Sespe dam because of costs and the condor question. In 1987, United Water District, the city of Ventura and Casitas Water District, paid for a study of the Sespe dams by Montgomery Engi­ neering of Pasadena. Montgomery Engineering concludes that water from these dams would cost around $100 an acre-foot. They also concluded that damming the Sespe wilderness would be envi­ ronmentally unfeasible. 63 Conservation of the water already used by Ventura County will save more than a Sespe wilderness dam could provide, and at no environmental cost. In addition, water conservation frees up addi­ tional water supplies for public use with no associated capital costs. _ In 1983, the Bookman Edmonston report, paid for by United_ Water District, concluded by page 12 that it "was considered rea­ sonable to give no further consideration to the Oat Mountain Dam alternative." As far as the Cold Springs site is concerned, the 1987 Montgom­ ery Engineering study concluded that Sespe water would be twice as expensive as State water project water. The USFS has indicated that they will recommend 4 more miles (west of Trout Creek) in response to our appeal of their final plan. We have received over 800 letters from people in business, mostly in Ventura County, who wish to protect all 55 miles of the creek. These endorsements are currently growing by over 100 per week. There is a need to protect some vestige of primitive America in highly developed southern California. Here we have the opportu­ nity to preserve the last entire unspoiled river ecosystem, so that it will continue to delight future generations. I strongly urge the members of this subcommittee to use this op­ portunity to work with Congressman Lagomarsino to increase pro­ tection for the Sespe to the full 55 miles of the river. KSWC and its supporters send a clear message, we want complete protection for the Sespe and will not accept any less. [Prepared statement of Mr. Coyne Pryor follows:] 64

Testimony from Keep the Sespe Wild Committee House Bill *1473 Alasdair Coyne

Mr Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

I am grateful to be here today to discuss this very important legislation. Congressman Bob Lagomarsino is to be congratulated for introducing Bill *1473, to protect a very special area. We appreciate all of the work Representative Lagomarsino has put into this bill, but in its current form, we cannot support it.

The Sespe flows through the largest roadless area that lies adjacent to a major metropolitan area in the United States; it crosses the California Condor Sanctuary and is the finest native trout stream in Southern California. Southern California is basically a desert. Local water supplies do exist and in almost every circumstance are dammed, diverted or re-channel.ed. The presence of a free-flowing river, like the Sespe, is rare. One that flows through a roadless wilderness is even rarer. What makes the Sespe unique is that it not only rare but extraordinarilY beautiful, with geological formations beyond one's wildest dreams. In how many parts of southern California, or the U.S. for that matter, can you drive a short distance off a major freeway system and hike a mile or two into a narrow river gorge filled with purple rocks tumbled on top of one another, some larger than small houses? At one point it takes almost an hour to hike less than one-half mile - the jumble of huge boulders creating an almost impenetrable maze. When wandering along this river, enjoying complete quiet and undeveloped surroundings, it is hard to believe that downtown Los Angeles is

1 65 only 75 miles away. You can take your fishing pole and catch trout from the many ponds that form at each meander. Exploring, fishing or just hiking this river will leave lasting memories and the desire to return. Ladies and gentlemen of this subcommittee, rivers like this are so rare today that they must be considered an endangered species. The Sespe is an endangered species, deserving full protection and no less.

Keep the Sespe Wild Committee (KSWC) is the most active river conservation group in California today, having some 3000 local supporters, many of whom regularly e~joy the river's recreational opportunities.

Congressman Lagomarsino has made an excellent start with bill

~1473 and has had the courage to prevent local interests from reviving plans for a reservoir on the Sespe in the middle of the wild River stretch. The two damsites not precluded by the legislation as it stands are not cost-effective. In thirsty southern California, economically feasible dams on the Sespe would have been built long ago. The Bureau of Reclamation stated in 1983 that it would not consider a Sespe dam because of costs and the Condor question. In 1987, United Water District, the City of Ventura and Casitas Water District paid for a study of Sespe dams by Montgomery Engineering of Pasadena. Montgomery Engineering concluded that water from these dams would cost around $1000 per acre foot. They also concluded that damming the Sespe would be environmentally unfeasible.

Conservation of the water already used by Ventura County will

2 save more than a Sespe dam could provide, and at no environmental cost. In addition, water conservation frees up additional water supplies for public use with no associated capital costs. In 1983, the Bookman Edmonston report, paid for by United Water District, concluded by page 12 that it "was considered reasonable to give no further consideration to the (Oat Mountain dam) alternative". As far as the Coldsprings site is concerned, the 1987 Montgomery Engineering study concluded that Sespe water would be twice as expensive as State Water Project water. The USFS has indicated that they will recommend 4 more miles (west of Trout Creek) in response to'our appeal of their final plan. This is a crucial link to protect an area of high public usage. What is more, they will recommend 10.5 miles, the rest of segment 2, as a scenic stretch, providing that the reservoir proposal at Coldsprings be ruled out.

We have received over 800 letters from people in business, mostly in Ventura county, who wish'to protect all 55 miles of the creek. These endorsements are currently growing by over 100 per week. There is a need to protect some vestige of primitive America in highly developed Southern California. Here we have the opportunity to preserve the last entire unspoiled river, ecosystem, so that it,will continue to delight future generations. I strongly urge the members of this Subcommittee to use this opportunity to work with Congressman Lagomarsino to increase protection for the Sespe to the full 55 miles of the river. KSWC and its supporters send a clear messge, we want complete protection for the Sespe and will not accept any less.

3 67 Mr. COYNE. I would like to submit to the record these 800 en­ dorsements from business and major environmental groups locally. Mr. VENTO. I think what I would do is place that in the file maybe with a notation that was made for the record, that there are those 800 copies that you have. We will put it in the file. We also, without objection, will place a statement by Rick Tate from California University in L.A., a geology on the Sespe in the record. I was going to comment when my colleague, Mr. Lagomarsino earlier referred to the number of people who wanted to testify, but were not aware of the hearing or could not make it today, that the record will remain open for a period of 2 weeks. Generally the standard procedure. Testimony will be made a part of the record and/ or placed in the committee files if they are referenced proper­ ly. Ms. Reid, did you have another statement you wanted in the record? You said you had a number of things you wanted in the record. Ms. REID. Yes. I have a paper from a member of Mr. Panetta's district who has written up on the areas in that district, that I would like to submit for the record. I also have a statement from a professor at the Appelachian State University in North Carolina on the Indian sites. I thought I would like to talk to you about-- Mr. VENTO. All right. I am not asking you about Indian sites. Ms. REID. OK. Can I talk first about condors just for 1 minute? There is some news on the condors. Mr. VENTO. OK. Ms. REID. I think you know all the condors are in zoos. You men­ tioned they are locked up, which is indeed so. However, the breed­ ing program is going very well. Meanwhile, they have three female condors from South America. The eggs were taken from Andean condors in zoos here. They are raising them in the sanctuary. At this point they are flying. Maybe Mr. Lagomarsino knows one was seen over Ventura and photographed and was featured in the Ven­ tura press. I have got a copy to submit to you because I just heard it over the telephone. It is significant to know that Andean condors are seeking former condor territory. The significance of that is it has not yet been really verified or proved, but it appears to be that there is an identifiable condor territory profile that can be drawn. If that turns out to be the case, that speaks very highly for preser­ vation of this entire forest, all of which is condor roost and nest and range territory. The condors did fly over the southern part of the Sierra also, but they did not fly into any of the other southern California forests, which one would think they would since they are so climatically similar that they would be flying south. Mr. VENTO. We got the condor question as related to native Americans. Now the native Americans. Ms. REID. The native Americans are the Toulumne Indians. They occupy this area south of San Loui Obispo. There are innumerable rock art sites throughout the area which speaks again for preserva­ tion of more of the area than is in Mr. Lagomarsino's bill, and as much of the area as is possible to protect. Mount Pinos was consid- 68 ered a very sacred site because it is the highest mountain in this whole range. It is 8,831 feet high. Mr. VENTO. Why don't you point that out on the map? That was not in any of the draft plans, it was not in any of the studies, it was not in any of the recommendations? Ms. REID. No. We feel the Los Padres National Forest has been put on hold starting from RARE II to the California Wilderness bill, and to the draft plan and the final plan, and now in H.R. 1473, the opportunity for this forest, the wilderness in an area that is so close to Los Angeles and Santa Barbara and other sites, the oppor­ tunity is tremendous. The Sierra Club feels that now is the time to go for that opportu­ nity. That is why we have added this area which has four peaks over 8,000 feet. this is in an area where all the rest of these peaks are 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 feet. There is no other 8,000 foot peaks. . The area goes all the way down through many ecosystems and so forth. It is really an incredible area. I live right there. -Mr. VENTO. You are not going to be in the wilderness? . Ms. REID. It isn't my wilderness, but I have hiked it, practically every trail in the whole area. Mr. VENTO. In other words, your point is that there are cultural resources there that you feel the proper way to protect them is by wilderness designation? Ms. REID. Right. The area that has the private lands in it that comes in here, we have excluded by what is known as a cherry system around the private lands. There are not many of them that are outside that cherry system. Mr. VENTO. There are questions about the management of those types of boundaries representing special problems. I guess you have had to concede that? Ms. REID. Well, we-no. No, we do not concede that. The reason we don't concede it is that we think ridge top leads motorcyclists on to the top, they ride the ridges and go down the other side. We think ridge top boundaries are an invitation to violation. Mr. VENTO. I am just talking about the in-holding problems in terms of cherry stemming, not necessarily the ridge top issue. I guess that is another matter. Ms. REID. They are included. Their property is largely excluded We think that that takes care of their problem. Mr. VENTO. That boundary that you articulated there does not interfere with their roads? Ms. REID. We think there is a better chance of keeping them out of here if we keep them out here on the north side of the bound­ aries. Mr. VENTO. You are talking now about the motorized use? Ms. REID. Yes. Mr. VENTO. Very good. I appreciate your response to my ques­ tions and your responses generally.-- Ms. REID. This is the Hunter Valley State vehicle motorcycle trail. This area, this is called the Gold Hill area. It used to be it was part of the identified roadless area up here at one time. Nobody has mentioned that today. Mr. VENTO. It is in our background papers though, because I read about that. You have mentioned it. 69 I will let Mr. Lagomarsino ask questions. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I don't think I am to assume because you said a condor flew over Ventura that Ventura should be part of the wil­ derness area? Ms. REID. Their range and roost and nest sites are quite differ­ ent. They do range far. Where they roost and nest is where we are really concerned. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Where they do or where they might in the future? Ms. REID. Watching Andean condors who are very young, we are beginning to get the indication that they are seeking out the same routes and same flyways and same areas. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I am all for wilderness, but there is a limit, and there--~re other people who have rights and interests and who want to' use forests, too. Ms. REID. That is one of the wonderful things about this forest is that there is room for the kind of interest you are concerned with. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I think the Forest Service did a very good job of putting it together. Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield on that point? One of the points, too, is some of these areas have been studied before. There was some assurances given to those who are interest­ ed but now we are revisiting them. We are not in a 15-year cycle. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Marshall, you didn't have time to give us your credentials. Would you like to do so now? Mr. MARSHALL. Before I do that, I would like to make clear my position. I don't think I made it clear. The United Water Conserva­ tion District will hold back the sea water for 10 to 15 years. Now how would we like it if the Forest Service came along and said before they had studied it, you can't have the Los Padres National Forest Wilderness? They don't know. They are trying to find other ways to get the water. For example, I told you that they have set up a 4-year study to find other ways, find other possibilities and other routes, other pos­ sibilities of getting this. I would think that to be fair you have to give them some time, at least time to study this, and see if they can't accomplish that. Meanwhile, conservationists should pitch in and try to help them to solve it. I tell you something. If everything else that we have, that we can figure out, I personally think if it keeps on going like this, the drought and the need for water, we are going to put up plants. It is the only answer. Arizona is using twice as much water as they can supply, et cetera. Northern Californians are saying they want that water back. It is all around. We don't know how long this drought will last. We don't know, I don't know. That is 10 to 15 years. So that I say this: That if at the end of 10 to 15 years, we have not been able to find any other source of water to push back the sea water intrusion except the Sespe dam, then there will be such a low cost! benefit ratio for these dams that will blow your mind. Not only that, but Ventura and Oxnard are going crazy by insti­ tuting a town center-$500 million town center-on one branch, Oxnard on the other side, we got Johnston Drive. If they build a dam, they will have flood control benefits. The 1969 flood. They 70 will have additional benefits from flood control so that they can del~y the peak. By delaying the peak flow and the synchronization of these dif­ ferent tributaries, they can decrease the flood damages. Even 1 foot can make a hell of a difference. I have had extensive experience on flood control surveys. This is the main thrust of my argument. Then if all else fails, you should give them a fair chance to study to see what they can do. Conservationists should pitch in and do all they can to help them out instead of condemning them. If you can't find any other way except to dam the Sespe then I say there is no way you are going to stop building dams there. They will come along and bingo. OK, did you get copies of my resume? Mr. VENTO. Yes. Mr. MARSHALL. I work for the Forest Service. I have 20 years of work in forestry, mostly in research work and besides-I am going to skip over this section on soil because I had been an expert on soils. Soil is very important in this whole thing. But my main contribution, I think that you should know, is that I was assistant to the senior hydraulic engineer in appreciation of flood control ports in the Ohio River Basin and the Mississippi River Basin. At that time it was a project between the Flood Serv­ ice and the Soil Conservation Service for upstream measures. The Corps of Engineers was handing downstream measures. My job required that I write up the first draft. In my contacts, I con­ tacted many hydrologists and I got a lot of information from them. The only thing is I worked for the Forest Service. Then Washington service sent me to the Cowceto Water Station. It is the largest water station, forest water station in the country. It is not southwestern North Carolina an 80-inch rainfall belt. Here they study all aspects of precipitation cycles. From this, these con­ tacts, I gained much information. Mr. VENTO. We get the general idea. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I have a couple of quick questions, Mr. Coyle and Mr. Coyne. First of all, with the forest's 10-year cycle, we will be able to revisit whether they include the proposed dams if the dams prove not to be feasible. Now, you said, as I understand you that we should include the lower mile; is that correct? You didn't say anything about the sec­ tion below that? Mr. COYLE. There is-the Forest Service recommendation goes down essentially to their ownership, the lower end of their owner­ ship, and that is what I am referring to. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. What about the part of the river below the forest? Outside the forest. Mr. COYLE. In some ways, I have to refer to the local folks, Keep the Sespe Wild. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. There is just no way that is wild, scenic, rec­ reational or anything else. It has been dammed in the past. There is a diversion structure now, and there are oil wells. Mr. COYLE. Our recommendation is, at this juncture, is limited to what the Forest Service management area is. That has been our primary concern. 71 Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I take it, Mr. Coyne, that you still think that part I am talking about should be part of the wild and scenic river system. Mr. COYNE. To my understanding, a diversion that occurs already would not be a problem. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. No; but answer my question. Mr. COYNE. We would like to see the whole river designated. There are three designations. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Isn't it true in your advertising and in your solicitations, you talk about wild and scenic for the entire 55 miles? Mr. COYNE. When we said we would like to see it protected to the wild and scenic designation-- Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Do you say wild and scenic designation or wild and scenic river? Mr. COYNE. River. We handed you a piece of paper in your office yesterday-- Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I am talking about before that, and the way you got the 3,000 signatures? Mr. COYNE. People were supporting the 55 miles of the Sespe being protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. When you talk to people about this, do you discuss with them at all the question of salt water intrusion in the Oxnard Plain? Mr. COYNE. My understanding from talking to hydrologists who work for the county is that the Freeman Diversion Project, as it has been approved and is being built, will push back that sea water, but it will take as much time to push it back as it has taken to get it to the state it is in now. To my understanding, that is what it is designed to do. So, if it takes 30 or 40 years to do that, that is the fastest speed at which it can happen. Perhaps it is not possible for it to be pushed back fur­ ther when we are talking about a distance of 10 or 15 miles inland. I don't have the exact figure with me. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. You don't think there is a need to have a structure on the Sespe to supply water to Freeman Diversion? Mr. COYNE. No; I don't think so, sir. I believe that one potential is bringing in State water flowing down Piru Creek to be used to augment the Freeman Diversion Project, underground recharging. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions for two of the panelists. I would like to follow up, Mr. Coyne, with the questions that Mr. Lagomarsino is asking you. I am not sure I understood your response. Mr. Lagomarsino was asking what it is that you and Keep the Sespe Wild want with the 55 miles. Can you spell out for the record, at least so that I understand it more clearly, what type of protection you are seeking and for what part of the river? Mr. COYNE. May I stand up and show you on the map? Mr. LEVINE. I would appreciate that. Mr. COYNE. We would like to see the top part of segment 1 pro­ tected as a wild river, because it is not next to a road. From where it meets Highway 33 here down to the beginning of Congressman 72 Lagomarsino's district, some of it might be better suited for recrea­ tion. I agree it should be a wild river, but perhaps down to the Devil's Gate Forest Service recommendations, and the lower part should be recreational that has the less impact for landowners there. Let me be as clear as possible. The Forest Service goes down­ their original recommendation came down to this bottom orange line. Mr. LEVINE. One mile further than this bill, the Forest Service' recommendation. You would not go further south in terms of wild and scenic river designation, but you would go further south in terms of recreational protection? Mr. COYNE. Yes, sir. Mr. LEVINE. And you would keep that additional mile that was removed in order to accommodate the proposed Oat Mountain Res­ ervoir; is that correct? Mr. COYNE. Yes; that is one of the most spectacular and beautiful parts of the creek. Mr. LEVINE. Up top, the Forest Service testified that segment 1 was not eligible. How do you deal with that concern? Mr. COYNE. We believe we have the whole river ecosystem in California. My understanding is that the Wild and Scenic River Act is designed to balance river development against river protec­ tion. We don't have anything like this in between Montgomery and the Mexican border, and it would seem a pity to miss out the top few miles. Those areas run dry. We have had three very dry years, and if we have more dry years, they will also be dry. The river does flow underground, and I believe the river bill is designed to protect rivers that flow, either above or below the surface. If you go along to somewhere around here, you will find the rivers flowing freely, much more so than if it were fed by small spring. Mr. LEVINE. So that even in the area which is included in the legislation, you have some parts of that protected area that run dry from time to time? Mr. COYNE. Yes, sir. Mr. LEVINE. Now, when you talk about 55 miles, what are the 55 miles on the map? Mr. COYNE. From the head waters down to the Santa Clara River. Mr. LEVINE. But not-but some of the southern part of it, you are not seeking wild and scenic designation? Mr. COYNE. Recreational designation. Mr. LEVINE. How many miles are you seeking wild and scenic designation for. Mr. COYNE. Fifty-one miles. Mr. LEVINE. So that 51 miles wild and scenic and the rest-thank you. I have some other questions for you, Mr. Coyne, which I would like to ask. It seems that one of the key issues is whether these dams will prove to be necessary at a particular point in time. What, in your view, are the alternatives to water development on the Sespe or to the dams themselves? 73 Mr. COYNE. Well, I understand that Ventura County is short of water. Something that is not mentioned that is fully one-quarter of the flow of the Sespe is already put to good use in the Freeman Diversion Project for water recharge. Conservation is something that water agencies in Ventura County have been seeking volun­ tary acceptance of. I think the future of fast-growing southern California with limit­ ed water supplies is that mandatory water conservation will become a necessity. Even where dams built on the Sespe with the growth that we are seeing, water conservation as a mandatory ne­ cessity would have to happen only a few years later. We are saying please, let the Sespe run wild and free and get se­ rious about water conservation earlier. Mr. LEVINE. What is your sense, in light of the work that you have been doing on this issue, with regard to the extent of the sup­ port that exists in Ventura County for these proposed dams? Mr. COYNE. I might say, in March of 1989, we had 1,500 people on our mailing list. It has grown to 3,000. We have been actively seeking support from the business community to try and show that the chambers of commerce and other associations are not repre­ senting the average business owner locally. We have 800 endorsements, and they are coming in at 100 a week. I might add that on July 4th, we had a booth at the street fair in the City of Ventura, and on that day, we had 300 people come up to us and added their names to our mailing list in one 5- hour period, and 50 to 60 gave us their business endorsements. People, if they have hiked on the Sespe once or several times, want to see it protected, and they regard dams as something that they do not want to see up there, something that would spoil an area that they consider to be especially beautiful. Mr. LEVINE. Earlier, I asked the Forest Service about feasibility studies that had occurred. I take it that one of you was referring to the Montgomery Engineering studies. I take it that the Forest Service' reference to the recent study that occurred was the Mont­ gomery Engineering study. I am getting a nod from Mr. Carroll. So, just so that I am clear and the record is clear, the Montgomery Engineering study out of-this is a company out of Pasadena was done in 1987; is that correct? Mr. CARROLL. Yes. Mr. LEVINE. Now, are there-have there been other recent stud­ ies of these proposed citings, to your knowledge? Mr. COYNE. The other most recent study which looked at the Oat Mountain was the Bookman-Edmonson Report paid for by the United Water District. Mr. LEVINE. What was its conclusion? Mr. COYNE. They were looking at a dam at a Topatopa site and Oat Mountain Dam. They decided, as I said in my testimony, that it was not worth looking at any further. Mr. LEVINE. So, we have a 1983 study by Bookman-Edmonson saying that the Oat Mountain site is not worth considering further, based on cost-effectiveness, and a 1987 study by Montgomery Engi­ neering concluding that the Cold Springs site is not feasible; is that correct? 74 Mr. COYNE. Yes. I also discussed with David Ringell-- Mr. LAGOMARSINO. May I mention something? This is kind of hearsay from what he understands them to say. Mr. LEVINE. Let's ask them, but as long as we have Mr. Coyne here, who has taken a very active interest in this, I would be inter­ ested in his interpretation of this, as well, and United certainly is going to be in a position to add whatever it wants to this testimo­ ny. Go ahead, Mr. Coyne. Mr. COYNE. David Ringell, one of the chief engineers, told me re­ cently that the 1987 study, which perhaps was originally intended to look at Oat Mountain Dam as a full proposal, changed in the early part of the study. They took it out and decided to look at the Oat Mountain Diversion Plan because of the potential threat of an earthquake fault running under the location. Mr. LEVINE. Let me ask you one final question. We have in this legislation, H.R. 1473, as it currently stands, 27.5 miles that would be protected. Assume that the 27.5 miles were protected, but that either or both of these dams were built, either the Cold Springs area, and/or in the south in the Oat Mountain area, how would either of these dams, if they were constructed, affect simply the area of the Sespe River that is designed to be protected under this legislation, the 27.5 miles? Mr. COYNE. The fisheries is an important aspect relating to the proposed Oat Mountain project. There is the remnant of a steel­ head run in the Sespe that some people would dispute. The reason is that the terrain in that area has been changed dramatically. In the 1940s, there were tens of thousands of steelhead running up the system. The California Department of Fish and Game and others have been trying hard to maintain access for the steelhead into the Sespe. It is the southernmost West Coast river with that fish population. A dam at Oat Mountain would make it very hard for steelhead to reach their spawning grounds. A dam, if it was ever constructed at the Cold Springs site, would adversely affect the stream down below. I have heard it said that water would be allowed to flow down the stream bed in summer months, which would make it a better river for fishing, but there would be a 10- or 12-year period, while the dam was filling up, where there would not be much water released downstream. The 25 miles of river would have an adverse effect while the dam was filling up, at least. Mr. LEVINE. So you are concerned about the area that is designed to be protected, even if the dams are designed to be built beyond the protected area? Mr. COYNE. Yes, sir. Mr. LEVINE. Ms. Reid, I understand that the Sierra Club prefers boundaries, at least in this area, and perhaps in others, drawn along motorcycle trails or roads rather than ridges. A, I would like to know if that is true, and, B, if it is true, I would like to know why. Ms. REID. It is true. The reason is that we think that one of the major problems with enforcement and with offroad vehicle use of areas is that the offroad vehicle rider doesn't know where the 75 boundaries are, and the maps that are presented don't show them very carefully. We think that if motorcycle trails are outside the wilderness and actual boundaries to the wilderness have a 500-foot border or corri­ dor on the wilderness side, that they can be mapped as a-what would amount to a swab across a map which would be quite visible. We think that most responsible offroad vehicle riders would re­ spect the fact that they have a trail and a corridor that are theirs, and it would be posted like some of the no-hunting signs are in var­ ious places that you see as you drive along. That this would be posted wilderness boundary, and that they would have access then for picnics or resting and so forth without entering the wilderness. Mr. LEVINE. So, I am correct, I assume, in assuming you are wor­ ried that the boundaries as currently drawn are likely to cause more problems with regard to ORV use? Ms. REID. They will be all over Mutau Flats, and there is Mutau Flats, and there is a lot of rock are there, and they are all over there now, and they need to be gotten out of there, in truth. Closing that trail will help the Johnston Ridge Trail. But they are also all over Alamo Mountain and-I have to show you-I will have to take this map down. We have drawn-we have drawn this boundary, this is Alamo Mountain in here, and the offroad vehicle people come in from the State vehicle recreation area and they come into this Gold Hills site area, and this used to be designated roadless area. It still is because they don't take it out of designation in order, while it is just-motorcycle routes. But the area is at least twice the size here, and we have omitted it from our recommended wil­ derness boundaries for the reason that it is overrun with motorcy­ cles, and they are beginning to plan 400 motorcycle events. I have a paper on that that just came in the last few days that they are going to have events in the fall months, four events, at least, 400 motorcycles or more. We want the boundaries along the Snowy Ridge Trail and the trail that comes down from Alamo Mountain, to leave this area open for offroad vehicle use, and sort of let them have at it. Use this boundary here and the highway over here with a buffer, with this 500-foot buffer, we think that is a reasonable way to handle the pressure from offhighway vehicles. Mr. LEVINE. Is it your principal concern about the boundaries, the ORV use? Ms. REID. Yes. Mr. LEVINE. If you could, explain to me the controversy over the Johnston Ridge Trail provision. You have referred to it, but I am not entirely clear on it. Ms. REID. Well, the Johnston Ridge Trail has been left open by the Forest Service until the legislation is enacted, and we don't agree with that. They said today that they propose to have it closed when the legislation is enacted, and we do agree with that. It should be closed now, because it is subjected to a great deal of heavy use. They just invited a lot of heavy use of it, and a lot of motorcyclists to go down this trail and work on it and become then advocates of its continued opening. 76 So, the controversy is a matter of whether this area is in wilder­ ness. It is right in the center of the wilderness. It is right below­ Johnston Ridge Trail is right here. It goes right down to, it goes right down from Mutau Flats down to the Sespe Creek, and they just built a big permanent structure in there to keep the motorcy­ clists from doing the damage they are doing. We think that since this is a recommended wilderness, the road should be-the trail should be closed, and the problem of offroad vehicle use should be diverted elsewhere. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you. I have no further questions of this panel. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Gallegly. Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coyne, in followup to a question Mr. Lagomarsino asked ear­ lier, as it relates to the petition process, I assume you participated personally in acquiring signatures on the petition? Mr. COYNE. Yes, sir. Mr. GALLEGLY. I would like to know if during the course of solic­ iting these signatures on your petition, how much, if any, discus­ sion was given to the sea water intrusion problem and the Oxnard Plain? Mr. COYNE. Everybody that I asked to sign one of those I asked to read carefully first, and they said in there, it says water conser­ vation will go further to meet our needs than the Sespe Dam would. My understanding from the hydrologists is that this Free­ man project is designed to eventually solve the problem of the sea water intrusion. I didn't feel it was necessary-- Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you think that most of the folks who signed that petition had any idea of what that provision-- Mr. COYNE. I think there is very common knowledge in Ventura County that there is a sea water problem, and it is being dealt with to some extent. Mr. GALLEGLY. In your testimony, I heard some conflicting state­ ments, at least what would appear to be conflicting to me, as re­ lates to your objective on the Sespe. I think to go back to a state­ ment you made that your group, Save the Sespe, has gone on record as wanting the entire 55 miles, and I believe I am quoting you correctly when you said, "We will accept no less"? Mr. COYNE. That is what our supporters have asked us to come here for today and ask. Mr. GALLEGLY. Your specific statement was, "We will accept no less", is that correct? Mr. COYNE. All of these points are negotiable. At this point, we would like to say no less. Mr. GALLEGLY. All right. I like reasonable minds. In looking at the Sespe, as we get down toward the south end in the city of Fill­ more, which is an incorporated city in my District, not the most populated city in my District, but there are a lot of folks who live there, and it is a highly developed area. During the course of this hearing, I think you tempered your po­ sition as it relates to wild and scenic. Or maybe that is the way it was before. But when I heard your original testimony, I thought you were referring to the entire 55 miles as wild and scenic. 77 Now you have, I believe, said recreational? Mr., COYNE. I have said in the past, I did not intend to say they should be wild or scenic. What I have meant is that we would like to see the full 55 miles protected under the Wild and Scenic River Act, which has three categories: Wild, scenic and recreationaL Mr. GALLEGLY. I am glad that we got that in, because that would be very difficult in an incorporated area with private land owner­ ship. Mr. COYNE. I understand, sir. Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. Mr. VENTO. Thank you. I have just a couple of quick questions. Kevin, your group is one of those conservation groups involved in ' the Forest Service negotiation or appeal. Would you support a reso­ lution along those lines, some sort of a worked-out agreement? Mr. COYLE. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for the other three groups. What I can say about American rivers is that we are pri­ marily concerned with what the major threats are to the rivers that are within the control of the Forest Service. . In our discussions over many months now with Congressman La­ gomarsino's office and at times with Congressman Lagomarsino himself, he has advised us that this emphasis is that-is on the Forest Service has recommended thus far, and that if indeed the Forest Service is willing to make amendments to its position that that has been a fruitful area for us to pursue. So, what we have done is, as a matter of approach here is to try ,_ to address two of the problems that we were told were problems with the legislation and with the idea of extending it, the first being to address what the Forest Service is recommending and the second being to try to get a better sense of what the pulse of the community is. That has been done primarily by the Keep Sespe Wild. But the appeals process is trying to address this issue. Mr. VENTO. So you moved around a little on that. What about this issue? You brought up the Sisquoc, the additional 2 miles, is that part of the negotiations as well? Mr. COYLE. That has been relatively silent in the negotiations thus far. Mr. VENTO. I thought in your testimony, there was some signifi­ cance to that. Mr. COYLE. We don't have a map to show, but basically the Sis­ quoc is wholly within, from its headwaters on down, wholly within the boundary. Mr. VENTO. Is that the problem? , Mr. COYLE. They stop at the wilderness boundary. There are two miles between the wilderness boundary and the forest boundary in public land that we believe should be added in. Mr. VENTO. OK. You don't know of any controversy surrounding it? Not that we need more issues. But it is sort of surprising to me when you have a bill that has 250,000 acres, all of the controversy seems to be around what isn't in the proposal, which is pretty close to what the Forest Service recommended. Mr. COYLE. If I may make a comment, we approach each forest plan, and in many cases it is a draft plan, and others a final plan, with the idea that, and we have done this throughout the country, 78 American Rivers and other groups have filed dozens of appeals of the final forest plans. In most cases, we find that there were rivers that were left out or river segments left out for the wrong reasons, and so forth. Mr. VENTO. You have heard some of the discussion here. We have one person saying that the river is underground, and there­ fore it is still there, but there are questions of suitability here and some eligibility questions. Mr. COYLE. The Forest Service found segments 2 and 3 eligible. The question of flow is one-- Mr. VENTO. What about segment 1? That was left out. Mr. COYLE. It is our view that if, you know, why is it that you are not-not you, but why is the Forest Service-- Mr. VENTO. I am not objecting to this, but the Forest Service management plan does address some protection for these areas? Mr. COYLE. We disagree tactically; is that they will take a river and divide it into segments that are more or less similar in aspect. If one of those segments gets picked off, that segment does not have outstanding values, but even though it is part of a whole flow­ ing river. Our viewpoint is that when you have the opportunity to protect a flowing river from headwaters to mouth or whatever, that as long as there is an outstandingly remarkable value within that river, that flowing segment of river, that that is indeed eligible wild and scenic river. Mr. VENTO. Historically, we have not designated on that basis. Mr. COYLE. Usually the blockage is due to dams and not headwa­ ters, however. Mr. VENTO. The point here is the lack of protection accorded either the remainder of that 1 mile to the Forest Service boundary, or to some of the headwaters. What is the impact of that in terms of the wild and scenic in the segment 3? That is your point. Putting it another way, isn't it? Mr. COYLE. There are basically two points. Protection and recog­ nition. At least part of the purpose is to recognize free-flowing rivers and where possible-- Mr. VENTO. Recognition is what we are talking about here. The forest plan will have to deal with that, if a person proposes any kind of project, mining or land development, certainly a water type of project, a dam or something else, a powerplant, that would obvi­ ously impact the wild and scenic portion, right? Mr. COYLE. Sure. Mr. VENTO. So there will be a new qualification placed on this, not that I am trying to give anyone any problems. But there is a forest management plan that deals with some of these other as­ pects that can be more precise. So we are doing something unusual here. I might say, Ms. Reid, I note that you took issue with the fire and the watershed language in the bill, and the buffer zone, but you didn't with the condor. Ms. REID. What? Mr. VENTO. The condor language, there is special language for the condor in this bill as well. But I guess we have to have some special language for that. 79 Ms. REID. I guess I probably got tripped up by getting tangled up in the Johnston Ridge Trail. It was pretty hard to reel all the de­ tails that followed that. I think that there is a lot of support for your position in terms of that. . Mr. VENTO. There is just special language in the bill dealing with condor and management of wilderness for that purpose. But you obviously did not talk about it. Ms. REID. We are not objecting to that. They are working with the condor recovery team, I know. ' Mr. VENTO. Nobody wants to be against the condors. Any other questions of the panel? If not, thank you all very much. Mr. VENTO. There are a lot of good questions. The next panel will be able to answer more of them on the water issues. Fred Gientke works as the general manager, United Water Conservation Dis­ trict; Sheldon Berger, treasurer and secretary, United Water Con­ servation District; Chuck Bennett, Oxnard and Ventura Chambers of Commerce and Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County, Ojai, California; and Ms. Carolyn Leavens, Leavens Ranches and chairman of the Water Committee of the Economic Development Association, Ventura, California. I hope you each can do this in 5 minutes. Mr. GIENTKE. I hope I can. I do have some responses. Mr. VENTO. We may get into that in the question-and-answer portion. Fred, why don't you start. Welcome. PANEL CONSISTING OF FRED GIENTKE, GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA; SHELDON BERGER, TREASURER AND SECRE­ TARY, UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA; CHUCK BENNETT, OXNARD AND VENTURA CHAM­ BERS OF COMMERCE AND ASSOCIATION OF WATER AGENCIES OF VENTURA COUNTY, OJAI, CALIFORNIA; AND CAROLYN LEA­ VENS, LEAVENS RANCHES AND CHAIRMAN OF THE WATER COMMITTEE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, VENTURA, CALIFORNIA Mr. GIENTKE. Thank you. Good day, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Fred J. Gientke, and I am the general manager of the United Water Conservation District which is located in Ventura County, California. I am here on behalf of my district and its 261,000 residents to endorse and support H.R. 1473. United, together with Mr. Art Carroll, supervisor of the ·Los Padres National Forest, have struggled and worked hard to reach a sound compromise which has resulted in H.R. 1473. This bill pro­ vides and seeks to protect our forest, wilderness and river, as well as enables United to consider additional future water developments on the Sespe. , I will limit my brief remarks to four areas: One, United's author­ ity and responsibility; and two, Sespe River historical perspective. I would like to add to this, in the short year that I have been the general manager for United, I have taken the time to hike the lower part of the Sespe, to fly over it through the courtesy of the 80 Forest Service and the district ranger up on Ohio, and to visit the - upper reaches of the Sespe. I did that intentionally so I could have an intimate knowledge of the resources in terms of water and wil­ derness of that area, and to the-with respect to the little time I have been here, I think I have an idea what is up there. The United Water Conservation District was formed in 1923 to protect and manage the surface and ground water resources in our 214,000-acre district and under the authority of the Water Conser­ vation Act. We have recharged. I did some rough calculations since that figure is rather astronomical. If we were to flood the Mall out here between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial, that mile or so distance, 500 feet wide, we V\ ::mld cover that area of the Mall and Constitutional Gardens to a depth of about 7 miles, so that gives you a feel for a sense and idea how much water that is . . At this time, we are constructing a major water project using $18.7 million in Federal funds, the efficiency of which would be en­ hanced with diverted water from the Sespe Creek. United is appre­ ciative of these funds without which there would be no project. Included in the Freeman Diversion Project, which is a federally funded project, is a fish way, sand and gravel sluices to ensure that sand and gravel do reach the beaches and a couple of deer cross­ ings. In addition to that, the Audubon Society uses our facilities for bird watching and census taking. I would imagine now in the future for perhaps even condor watching. I personally have encour­ aged and welcomed this activity. Clearly, United is committed not only to water conservation, but to preservation of its environment and protection of wildlife in its district. I would also like to state that back in the early twenties, at­ tempts were made to construct dams and export the Sespe's waters. Since that time, the Corps of Engineers, California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, United Water Con­ servation District, Sespe Power and Light and Collegeus Water Conservation District have studies and/or developed plans for one or more dams on the Sespe River. At the present time, Farmers Irrigation maintains an earth em­ . bankment in the lower Sespe Canyon, which replaced a concrete . structure destroyed in prior years, and diverts water to the agricul­ tural areas to the west. The Sespe has and continues to be the major source of water for our district, producing about 70 percent of the annual runoff of the Santa Clara River. In this area and to the confluence with the Santa Clara River downstream from the present dam, there are several highway bridges, a railroad bridge. It is levied to protect the community of Fillmore from floods. The river, river's gravels are mined, and it passes through the community of Fillmore. I would also like to state a few things in regard to statements that .our opponents have made in the past. I have worked hard with Keep the Sespe Wild, and invited them to a board meeting. The presentation was characterized with a couple of statements that I need to go on the record with, and I believe to a large extent has supported their program, and I believe has influenced people to provide signatures to their petitions. 81 That is in regard to the feasibility of the structural engineering feasibility of dams in the area. One is that the foundation is poor, that it has material similar to that of the St. Francis Dam which . failed early in this century. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has found other materials in there in their vehicles in the early sixties. With regard to beach sands being trapped behind any structure built on the Sespe, I would like to point out that the Bureau of Rec­ lamation and other water resources agencies in the United States have constructed and do construct dams which allow for low-level outlets to be included in the structure to allow passage of sands· of silts and gravel through the structure to ensure that this resource is not trapped forever behind the structure. With regard to the fact that the dams are located near earth­ quake faults, as Mr. Levine and Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Lagomar­ sino, and I am sure you know, Mr. Vento, earthquakes in Califor­ nia are a way of life. This particular picture here I copied out of USA Today a couple of months ago. It shows all the seismically active areas within the United States, of course. The very dark area there is California. I would like to state that there are no dams in California which are not probably within a stone's throw of an active or near active fault. [Prepared statement of Mr. Gientke, with attachments, follows:] 82

Revised July 28, 1989

WATER MANAGEMENT - WATER DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Good Day Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Fred J. Gientke and I am the General Manager of the United Water Conservation District which is located in Ventura County, California. I am here on behalf of my district and it's 261,000 residents to endorse and support HR1473. United, together with Mr. Art Carroll, Supervisor of the Los Padres Forest, have struggled and worked hard to reach a sound compromise which has resulted in HR1473. This bill provides and seeks to protect our forest, wilderness, and river, as well as enables United to consider additional· future water developments on the Sespe.

I will limit my brief remarks to four areas:

I. United's Authority and Responsibility

2. Sespe River Historical Perspective

3. Reb.uttal to 'Keep The Sespe Wild':Committee's Statements

4. Conclusion

I. United's Authority and Responsibility

United Water Conservation District'S predecessor was formed in 1923 to - protect and manage the surface and groundwater resources in our 214,000 acre district and under the authority of the Water Conservation Act, United is required to make investigations; acquire water and water rights; conserve, store, spread, sell, deliver, and distribute water; build operate and and maintain dams, reservoirs, canals, spreading grounds, wells, pumps and pipelines, and operate and maintain all these facilities. In fact we have completed such studies and! or constructed these Facilities, and expect to continue' to conduct new studies and construct new facilities in the coming years. In the past 40 or more years UWeD has recharged 2,379,142 Acre-Feet into the aquifers. I will not go into more detail regarding our accomplishments which are summarized on the the enclosures which are attached and ·to which you are referred.

At this time we are constructing a major water project, using $18.7 M in federal funds, the efficiency of which would be enhanced with diverted water from the Sespe Creek. United is appreciative of these funds without which there would be no project. Included in the project are fishery facilities, a sand and gravel sluice (beach), two deer crossings, wildlife fencing and other environment enhancing facilities. The Audobon Society 'uses our facilities for bird watching and census trips and I personally encourage and welcome this activity. Clearly United is committed not only to . water conservation, but to preservation of the environment and protection of wildlife. 83

2. Sesoe River Historical Perspective

Back in the early 1920's attempts were made to construct dams and export the Sespe's waters. Since that time, the Corps of Engineers, California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, United Water Conservation District, Sespe Power and Light and Calleguas Municipal Water District have studies and/or developed plans for one or more dams on the Sespe River. At the present time, Filmore Irrigation Company maintains an earth embankment in the lower Sespe Canyon, which replaced a concrete structure destroyed in prior years, and diverts water to the agricultural areas to the west. From this diversion point to the Santa Clara confluence, the river is crossed by Highway Bridges, a Railroad Bridge, is Leveed, Gravel-mined, and passes through the city of Fillmore. It is .no longer wild. The Sespe has and continues to be the major source of water for our District, producing about 70% of the annual runoff of the Santa Clara River.

3. Rebuttal to 'Keep the Sespe Wild' Committee's Statements

Over the past year, opponents of HRl473 have criticized the construction of dams from a technological prospective and I wish to respond to their criticism.

The Foundation is Poor

The opponents of the legislation have stated that the foundation .of the Cold Spring dam site was similar to that of St. Francis dam - a dam which failed in the early part of the century and which was designed using presently-outdated, turn-of-the-century technology. The basis for their statement is a Southern California surface geology map which does not, and cannot provide any details of surface or subsurface site geology. State-of-the-art engineering geology and geotechnical studies accompanied by drill logs, are essential and mandatory to determine site conditions and design parameters not speculation from unlicensed individuals based upon generalized maps.

The Beach Sands will be Trapped Behind the Dams and Beaches Stripped

As figure illustrates, dams can and are designed to sluice and pass stream sediments. The Sespe is however, a major producer of rock and gravel, not sands which are estimated to be about 16% of the sand which reaches the beaches from the Santa Clara river system.

United, among other responsibilities, protects the sands and gravels of the river system and has on numerous instances implemented programs to promote beach sand accretion. We would maintain this policy in regards to any development on the Sespe. 84

The Dam Sitch) are Located Near Earthquake Faults

California has about 1,172 jurisdictional dams - that is high dams with reservoirs that are subject to periodic review and inspection by the State. Except for the small arid SE corner of California, where no dams of consequence exist, the rest of the state is considered highly seismic and dams within this area are designed to withstand major shocks (figure 2). Faults near and beneath dams in California are known to exist and these dams, and our cities are designed to withstand earthquakes. The associated higher costs are accepted and expected in California and as you know, earthquakes are a way of life. The Sespe is not different. Lastly, and in regards to statements by my opponents that Highway 33 is to be flooded and costs of rerouting are not taken into account. Dams are not designed yet nor located therefore we cannot speculate on any impact on Highway 33.

4 Conclusion

As other speakers have stated, there is a major water crisis in our district. The Fox Canyon AQuifiers, and upper Oxnard aQuifiers are overdrafted by over 20,000 acre-feet per year and we suffer from nitrate contamination in our groundwater. Through 1988, the combined overdraft of the aQuifiers is almost 900,000 acre-feet and the. area around Oxnard is intruded by seawater. The wells in this area are salted and unfit for domestic and agricultural use.

United is required to solve these problems and we foresee two major phases-

A short term phase is underway to eliminate our overdraft and bring our supply and demand into balance or better yet, surplus. We are approaching this goal steadily with the construction of the Freeman project, PTP, water conservation, use of reclaimed water, importation of state water, and other ideas. The cost is high but the benefits enormous and the local support is high.

II The second phase will last about 25 to 50 years and is the elimination of the intruded areas by projects implemented in phase I as well as (and this is important) the consideration of construction of one or more dams on the Sespe. The 900,000 ,acre-foot overdraft, and our water problems can only be resolved locally by major recharge of local and imported waters. Use of local waters is a concept endorsed by the county's 208 water quality plan, and the state-mandated Ground Water Management Agency. 85

In conclusion the passage of HR1473. in its present form with the record recognizing Piru operations, water resources dependency, and water studies is supported by our district; its people,. agriculture and business. The balanced, environmentally sensitive compromise agreed to by the Forest Service, United, and over 8,000 witnesses is reflected in the present version and which will allow United to meet and hopefully satisfy the growing water problems within the district. In addition the flood control and recreation benefits of such structures are significant and cannot be overlooked. With regard to recreation, visitor days can be increased from the few thousand to several million visitor days with Cold Spring and Oat Mountain reservoirs,

Because of costs and other problems, possible development of Sespe creek may be some time away. Therefore the district will not oppose approval of the legislation, and in fact supports it, nevertheless Sespe creek cannot be discarded as a possible water source for the Ventura County and our District, and that in some time in the future there may be a need to restore it to its current state such portions of the water shed as necessary to support such development.

Thank you and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

FG:lp MS89-103 86 united Water Conservation District

Rebuttal to Comments by opponents of HR1473 87

United water Conservation District - Rebuttals

Alistair Coyne: "The Montgomery Engineering report said the Sespe dames) were not feasible." Rebuttal: The James Montgomery, Inc. engineering study studied four alternatives for providing 20,000 AF of state Water to Ventura County. Of the four, the Sespe development alternative was more costly than a state water pipeline option and not further studied. In fact, dams are feasible, both economically and technically. (Times and economic priorities do change and as an example, who would have predicted twenty years ago we would be paying $1.30 for a gallon of gas, not 30 cents.) AC: "The Edmonston report said the Sespe dams were not feasible."

Rebutt91: The Edmonston report evaluated development of the Sespe to bring higher quality Sespe runoff to the Oxnard Plain. The configuration remains economically and technically feasible but was temporarily deferred until completion of the $45 Million Salt Water Intrusion Program.

AC: "The Freeman Diversion Improvement project will eliminate the sea water intrusion. Rebuttal: The Freeman project will reduce but not eliminate united's annual overdraft and is not designed to eliminate the 25 square mile intrusion. Additional major sources of supply either local (Sespe) or imported -- are required to push out the sea water as agreed to by the County 208 Water Quality Plan and Ground Water Management Agency. The Sespe runoff will be considered only after looking at reclaimed water, water conservation, and other options. 88 united water Conservation District - Rebuttals Page 2

Phil White: "united Water Conservation District does not employ a conservationist on its staff. Rebuttal: UWCD employs many water conservationists who carefully watch over our water resources. In addition, United and three other entities jointly fund the ventura county Water Conservation Management Program at $100,000 total; the Mobile Water Conservation Laboratory (which evaluates irrigation efficiencies on site); and evapotranspiration weather stations to measure irrigation efficiency.

PW: I am an engineer, and United's statement that sediment c~n pass through a Sespe dam is incorrect. Rebuttal: Only 16% of the local beach sands and gravels originate from the Sespe watershed. Many dams have been designed to sluice sediments through the reservoir and any""future dams on the Sespe could and would be designed for passing sediment. The criticism to the dams was from an individual who is a degreed mechanical engineer, and who currently specializes in solar energy applications. He has never been involved in sediment transportation or dam design. Alistair Coyne: "The Sespe is a roadless area." Rebuttal: On the contrary, the lower five miles of the sespe is crossed by four highway and railroad bridges, has levees along the lower end, straddled by residences, farms and orchards, has a diversion dam,· oil producing equipment, and is a sand and gravel source. The middle Sespe is traversed by Highway 33 for many miles. AC: "The Sespe is the best fishing in Southern California, from Monterey to Mexico." Rebuttal: On the contrary, recreational fishing on the Pacific Ocean is extremely popular, as well as the Sierras. AC: There must be conservation controls on agriculture. Rebuttal: There are significant economic controls. When the price of water goes up, growers use the most efficient technology available, and stretch the water as far as possible. When the price of water goes uneconomically high, growers are out of business 89 united water Conservation District - Rebuttals Page 3

Phil White: "Southern California beaches are dependent on Sespe Sand production for replenishment. without it (if Sespe were dammed) they'll be denuded." Rebuttal: Most sand that migrates out of the river mouth and south is swallowed up by Calleguas Canyon offshore. Only 16% of the sand and gravel originates from the Sespe and . any Sespe dams would be designed to pass quantities of this material. PW: "A Dam at Oat Mountain is not feasible." Rebuttal: James Montgomery, Engineer, recommended that a dam be constructed at Oat Mountain.

The Keep The Sespe wild Committee has issued technically incorrect and misleading statements in the press and to the citizens of Ventura county. These statements are originated by two people who are technically unqualified. The statements are misleading to residents of the county to colrect signatures. A copy of a recent Committee statement is attached and by footnoted reference, is highlighted and to which we respond. (1) "The Sespe is free flowing." On the contrary, for many years there has been an irrigation diversion dam across the river approximately 5 miles upstream from Fillmore. (2) "Dams on the Sespe are not cost effective." The cost effectiveness conclusions are with respect to importing State water from Piru via a pipeline -- the latter option costs less. The exact sizing; and therefore costs, of any dams on the Sespe have not been reevaluated carefully in over 20 years (at which time, gasoline, for example, cost 30 cents per gallon). Economic, social, and water conditions and priorities in Ventura County have changed drastically and organizations from outside the County should be more cautious and sensitive to priorities in Ventura County. 90 united water Conservation District - Rebuttals Page 4

(3) "The proposed oat Mountain Dam above Fillmore will retain 100 percent of the Sespe's sediment." On the contrary, a dam can and would be constructed to pass sediment through sluices or bottom water sediment outlet works. Major dams have been constructed to pass up to 100% of such sediments, such as Red Bluff diversion dam in California. High dams can also be and are designed to pass sediment. (4) "Because of a nearby earthquake fault, why is legislation being proposed to keep a disastrous option open, at this site (Richter magnitude 7)." All of California, except for the extreme southeast corner, is highly seismic. For example, San Francisco is built on bay fill and capable of again experiencing a plus 8 magnitude earthquake over 10 times as severe as a 7 magnitude near ,Oat Mountain. Dams have been constructed over or near active faults and because of this, are safely engineered to withstand the shocks. to-' (5) "The foundation at Cold Springs dam is soft micaceous shale, such as gave way below the st. Francis dam above castaic in 1928 " According to the Bureau of Reclamation who surveyed the Cold Spring site, the foundation material is interbedded sandstones and sandy shales -- well suited for embankment dams. (6) "Protect the whole length of the creek According to the u.S. Forest Service wild and scenic criteria, the entire river does not qualify, including the lower portion near Fillmore (see (4) above), and the region upstreani which is traversed by Highway 33. 91 Mr. VENTO. Very good. You have used up your 5 minutes, and then some, so we will move on to the next witness and get back to you with some questions. The next witness is Sheldon Berger, treasurer and secretary, United Water Conservation District. Mr. BERGER. Thank you. I didn't bring a resume or any charts with me. I will keep it under 5 minutes. I am a director for United Water Conservation District, and I represent the board here today. You have heard a lot of dialog this morning about United and what United does, and my point this morning is to give you back­ ground information on what the district itself does. United Water Conservation District was formed in 1950 under the State of California Water Conservation District Act of 1931. The district boundaries encompass some 214,000 acres of the Santa Clara River Valley within Ventura County and most of the Oxnard Plain. The water supply of the district is basically dependent upon rain­ fall on the Santa Clara River watershed, which includes the tribu­ tary flows of Piru Creek, Sespe Creek, and Santa Paula Creek, as well as the flows in the main river course. These flows total some 161,000 acre-feet of water, on an annual average, provided by a dis­ trict annual average rainfall of between 13 inches on the coastal plain and 30 inches or more in mountain areas. Surface water storage of 88,000 acre-feet is provided by Lake Piru, impounded by Santa Felicia Dam. Piru Creek flows of about 40,000 acre-feet per year provide an annual excess of storage over natural flow conditions, or Ilyield," of 32,500 acre-feet per year. The bulk of the 225,000 acre-feet of water used within United ac­ tually consists of about 185,000 acre-feet of pumped ground water. Of this amount, approximately 50,000 acre-feet are provided by the district through its ground water recharge facilities. River bed percolation and inter-basin underflows provide H5,000 acre-feet of natural ground water recharge. This means that water consumers within the district pump 20,000 acre-feet per year more water from underground storage than nature or district facilities can replenish. . It is estimated that several million acre-feet of fresh water are stored in ground water basins with United boundaries; this stored water is like a water savings account. We are overdrawn on our water bank account by 20,000 acre-feet per year, and that amount is supplied by a reduction in the savings account balance. At the present rate of use, the water savings account expected lifetime is less than 100 years. There are water quality consequences of ground water overdraft: The mineral content of the remaining water is higher as the amount of water available for dilution of natural mineral salts de­ creases. Along the coast, where the water-bearing soil has reached the ocean bed, decreased pressure in the aquifer system tends to siphon sea water into the drinking water supplies, known as sea water intrusion, and the natural flushing of undesirable elements from the ground water flow toward the ocean is reduced. Sea water intrusion underlying some 23 square miles of the Oxnard Plain near the ocean shore at Point Mugu and Port Huene- 92 me is a well-publicized problem. Chloride concentrations of 100 p.p.m. or more are considered to be contamiriated by ocean inflow, and mineral concentrations of up to 25,000 p.p.m. can be expected in certain shallow wells near the coast. The $15 million Pumping Trough Pipeline System designed to re­ lieve overdraft in the Oxnard aquifer by 11,700 acre-feet per years is now operational, and new Freeman Diversion structure, which will divert an additional 12,500 acre-feet per year from the Santa Clara River for recharge and irrigation, is entering the second and final phase of construction. During the 38 years of its existence, United has engaged the services of many consulting engineers to study various aspects of the local water supply and water quality problems. Some of these studies have resulted in the construction of water conservation fa­ cilities which United currently operates to the benefit of its con­ stituents. Other studies have identified various possible alternative projects whose effects upon present conditions are unknown. For this reason, United expects to complete a review of all these studies in the near future in order to formulate a priority list of projects for implementation to provide the district's residents with a secure supply of acceptable quality water well into the next century. Insofar as the waters of the Sespe Creek are under United's ju­ risdiction, and that under State law we are required to manage and conserve this resource, United remains committed to this objective, and the United Board of Directors supports H.R. 1473 in its present form, because it keeps our options open and will allow the District to satisfy its present and future water conservation objective. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Prepared statement of Mr. Berger, with attachment, follows:] 93

WATER· CRISIS: CURRENT WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS WITHIN UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT by Sgeldon Berger, ·Member united Water Conservation District Board of Directors

Good morning. My name is .·§I1Eddon~~Berger.,oMembelPf the Board of D.irect:ors of United Water Conservation Dist:r.ict headquartered in Santa Paula, californiz.. I a11l delivering a st:at:ement to you today in support of HR1473. First I wish to thank you for allowing me to deliver this statement to you. ** (refer to last page of text.)

GENERAL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS

united water Conservation Dist:r.ict was formed in 1950 under the state of california water Conservation District Act of 1931. The District. boundaries encompass some 214;000 acres of the Santa Clara River Valley within Ventura County and most of the Oxnard Plam. (Please see attached District boundary map.) The water supply of the District is basically dependent upon raIDfall on the Santa Clara River watershed, which includes the tributary flows of piru Creek, Sespe Creek, and Santa Paula Creek, as well as the flows in the maID river course. These flows total some 161,000 acre~feet of water, on an annual average, provided by a District annual average raIDfall of between 13 inches on the Coastal Plain and 30 inches or more in mountain areas. Sw:face water storage of 88,000 acre-feet is provided by Lake Piru, impounded by Santa Felicia Dam. piru Creek flows of about 40,000 acre-feet per year provide an annual excess of storage over natural flow conditions, or "yield," of 32,500 acre-feet per year, This yield enables the District to store surface water from winter storm flows for later. beneficial use during dry seasons when the natural river flow is minimal. Among these beneficial uses are :irrigation delivery to the rich ·f'l.rni lands of the Oxnard Plain, and replenishment of the groundwater basins for storage and water well pumpage. The Lake piru reservoir facility may also some day be used to store water imported into the District through the State Water Project or other Northern California sources. Surface water flows are stored for later use underground :iri groundwater basins and aquifers. A bas:in is a body of underground water lying in porous soil and confined from below by bedrock or other impervious material. An aquifer is not only conf:ined from below the water.­ bear:ing soil, but also has a confining layer of soil above the water; an aquifer is under pressure due to the natural downward slope of the water bear:ing soil from the mounta:inous outcrops downstream toward the ocean. The Santa Clara River Valley from the Los Angeles-Ventura County L:ine downstream toward the ocean is underla:in by the piru Basin, Fillmore

43~252 0 - 91 - 4 94

aJRRENT WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS WITHIN UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Basin, Santa Paula Basin, Montalvo Forebay Basin, Mound Basin, and the Oxnard plain Pressure Basin. The Oxnard plain is underlain by the Oxnard, MUgu, Hueneme, Fox Canyon, and Grilnes canyon Aquifers. The District operates facilities to recharge to the piru Basin and Montalvo Forebay Basin, which in turn replenishes the Oxnard Plain aquifer system. Un:ii:ed provides irrigation delivery of water diverted from the santa Clara River at Saticoy to the Pleasant Valley County Water District and to Pumping Trough pipeline customers. The District's well field at El Rio provides drinking water to the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme, and the Navy bases at Port Hueneme and Point MUgu, delivered through the Oxnard-Hueneme Pipeline.

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES The bulk of the 225,000 acre-feet of water used within United annually consists of about 185,000 acre-feet of pumped groundwater. Of this amount, approximately 50,000 a=e-feet are provided by the District through its groundwater recharge facilities. Riverbed percolation and :inter-bas:in underflows provide 115,000 acre-feet of natural groundwater recharge. This means that water consumers within the District pump 20,000 a=e-feet per year more water from underground storage than nature or District facilities can replenish. It is estimated that several million a=e-feet of fi-esh water are stored in groundwater basins within United boundaries; this stored water is like a water savings account. We are overdrawn on our water bank account by 20,000 a=e-feet per year and that amount is supplied by a reduction :in the sav:ings account balance. At the present rate of use, the water savings account expected lifetime is less than 100 years. . There are water quality consequences of groundwater overdraft: the m:ineral content of the remaining water is higher as the amount of water available for dilution of natural mineral salts decreases. Along the coast where the water bearing soils reach the ocean bed, decreased pressure :in the aquifer system tends to syphon seawater into the drinking water supplies (seawater intrusion), and the natural flushing of undesirable elements from the groundwater by underground flow tdward the ocean is reduced. In areas where the underground water supplies are net covered by a clay or ether impervious layer of soil, material spilled on the ground or drained into it may reach the water bearing strata. This contamination :includes net only toxic spills but also the by-products of normal human activities, such as septic wastes and agricultural runoff percolation. There appears to be a buildup of nitrates in several of the upstream basins along the santa Clara River, as well as into the Montalvo Forebay Basin and into the Oxnard Aquifer of the coastal plain. Nitrate concentrations of greater than 45 parts per million are considered to be life threatening to :infants (causing "blue babies"), and possibly health 95

CllRRENT WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS WITHIN UNITED WATER 'CONSERVATION DISTRICT threatening to adults. At this time, some 10-15 square miles of groundwater basins are =ntaminated by excessive nitrate concentrations. united is =mmencing a study of the problem this summer in an effort to find an affordable solution based upon some physical facility or operational activity within the scope of United's responsibility. Seawater intrusion underlying some 23 square miles of the Oxnard Plain near the ocean shore at Point Mugu and Port Hueneme is a well publicized problem. Chloride concentrations of 100 ppm or more are =nsidered to be =ntaminated by ocean inflow, and mineral concentrations _ of up to 25,000' ppm can be expected in certain shallow wells near the coast. The $ 15,000,000 pumping Trough Pipeline System designed to relieve overdraft in the Oxnard Aquifer by 11,700 acre-feet per year is now operational, and the new Freeman Diversion structure which will divert an additional 12,500 acre-feet per year from the Santa Clara River for recharge and irrigation is entering the second and final phase of construction. When completed in 1991, the Freeman improvements will enable the diversion of greater quantities of storm flows from the river and provide a. permanent structure which will not require lengthy repair after major storms. As a result, the groundwater overdraft will be dbninished, but not eliminated, by the additional surface water supplies in the Freeman yields. SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT AND WATER IMPORTS

united Water Conservation District contains enough surface water and groundwater resources to be permanently self-sufficient in its fresh water supplies. Economic and environmental concerns inhibit the development of surface water storage facilities on Sespe Creek and piru Creek which =uld provide an additional 40,000 acre-feet of yield - enough to totally eliminate the overdraft and replace existing water imports with local supplies. Other. alternatives include waste water reuse, 20,000 acre-feet; state Water imports, 15,000 acre-feet; desalination of sea'vater; and purchase of water rights from other localities. Feasibility studies have been conducted for many of these alternatives, and several related projects are in the planning or design phase.

WATER CONSERVATION

An acre-foot of water saved is an acre-foot earned. This principle is as true of water savings as it is of money savings. It costs as little as $ 50 per acre-foot to pump water which is available underground, and the diversion of surface water by those who own the rights is free, excluding the maintenance of the diversion facilities. On the other hand, it costs from $ 500 to $ 2,000 per acre-foot to replace a wasted acre-foot of water. By conserving less than 10% of the water we currently use in the District, the need for expensive dams, pipelines,and treatment facilities would disappear. For this reason, united enthusiastically supports the conservation efforts of the County Water Conservation Management Program and the Resource Conservation District Mobile Irrigation Lab as the cheapest new source of water we can develop. 96

cmRENT WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS WITHIN UNITED WATER 'CONSERVATION DISTRICT MASTER WATER PLAN During the 38 years of its existence, United has engaged the seJ:Vices of many consulting engineers to study various aspects of the local water supply and water quality problems. Sonie of these studies have resulted in the construction of water conservation facilities which United currently operates to the benf:ii: of fts constituents. Other studies have identified various possible alternative projects whose effects upon present conditions are unknown. For this reason, united expects to complete a review of all these studies in the near future in order to formulate a priority list of projects for implementation to provide the District's residents with a secure supply of acceptable quality water well into the next century. This will be adopted as the Master Water Plan for united Water Conservation District.

CONCLUSION Insofar as the waters of the Sespe Creek are under united's jurisdiction, and that under State law we are required to manage and conserve this resource, united remains committed to this objective and the United Board of Directors supports HR 1473 in its present form because it keeps our options open and will allow the District to satisfy its present and future water conservation objective. Thank you members of the Subcommittee and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have ..•••.••

**Incidently, it gives me great pleasure to state for the record that United delivers 100% of the water supply to 3 major federal military installations on the Oxnard Plain including the Navy Construction Battalion Center ~(known as the Sea Bees), Pt Mugu Naval Air Station, and the Pacific Missile Test Center.", Part of that supply is from the Sespe. 11 ,0" I '" .. I' , .. , .. , ..,,'

Y("TUIO' "'1 (OU~Tr ?~",lJ ( .. - .. - ...

~ ...:!

MAP Of UNlnD WATER CONSERVATION DISHICT VENTUP-A COUNTY CAlIfOP-NIA

UWCD BOUNDARY ..... GROUND WATER BASIN BOUNDARY 98 Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Berger. We have Mr. Bennett. Please proceed. Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Chairman Vento and members of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee for this opportuni­ ty to address our responsibilities concerning water. I will cover three major topics concerning water. Item one: State water availability and conservation. The head of the State Water Resources Board says, with Colorado river water, they can meet California's water needs in three out of four years. They also admit they are overcommitted by 50 percent on promised water legally contracted for today. All over the State, water interests are fighting, not over how much more water to send us in the future, but how to take away the water we currently need and use. An estimated 100,000 acre-feet will now be required for environ­ mental concerns at Mono Lake. The Owen's River Valley residents have reopened hearings concerning our overpumping of ground water that they claim is killing their trees. The Bay Delta hearings originally proposed a 25-percent cutback in water for southern California. Within the next few years, we will lose, to Arizona, one-half of the huge water supply we presently get from the Colorado River. Coachella Valley has recently sued Imperial Valley and our Metro­ politan Water District over prior rights to the remainder. Northern California says to southern California, and with justification, "Take care of your resources first before you come to us for our water." And here today, we toy with the idea of removing the option of ac­ cessing water from the only free-flowing river south of scientific. It just doesn't make sense. Serious mandatory water rationing is already in our very near future. Water waste ordinances are already being implemented or proposed, as well as stepping water rates for heavy users. Conserv­ ing 20 percent of our water would give us an additional 46,000 acre­ feet of water, which would still not meet the 50-percent growth needs projected by the State Department of Finance just 20 years from now. Item 2: Let's look at Ventura County's water supply. Only 22 percent of our water comes from the State supply, and we cannot depend on that source for future increases. 11 percent of our supply is surface water, and we are at or near capacity today. 67 percent of our supply comes from our very fragile underground water basins. Here again, we are at or near capacity in almost all these basins today. Worse, past excesses are slowly ruining this tremendously valua­ ble resource. We are only now starting to correct this problem. The black dots represent, for example, nitrate contamination in wells spotted throughout the country. We have overpumped to the point almost 23 square miles of some of the best growing land in the world is now contaminated by saltwater intrusion. The Freeman Diversion Dam is a joint Federal and local project to hopefully stop this intrusion. The only way this dam will work is with water from the Sespe and only then from heavy storms that actually brings runoff down the river to the ocean. 99 Mr. VENTO. Is the pink-shaded area where you have saltwater in­ trusion? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. The blank area is the nitrate and-- Mr. VENTO. What appears dark on there are actually lakes, too. Mr. BENNETT. Yes, that is the Lake Acidas, and on the right side of Lake Piru. Mr. VENTO. The other one represents nitrate. They don't differ­ entiate. The black dots are nitrate. But is that a lake down below? Mr. BENNETT. No, that is huge nitrate plume. What is happening is those basins in the higher elevations are going like large bath tubes down to the coast so have a natural flow of water. The ni­ trate with the droughts that we have been having, have been moving that nitrate contamination down, and it is trapped down there now because of sucking the water in and the nitrate water trying to get down, it is trapped there now. You can see 23 miles of saltwater intrusion. It causes blue babies and all other kinds of problems. So it is a valuable, valuable resource. To finish on the Freeman Diversion Dam, which is located-that is right, Rex. We are seeing the saltwater intrusion down there at the bottom. The Freeman Di­ version is up further from them. You have the Sespe in the far left­ hand corner coming down to the Freeman Diversion Dam, which is located in the opportune place to get the water pushed back. The only way that happens is when you have large storms coming down there. If the storm is too large, which is often the case, it has to sweep right on by. We have no way of controlling the huge flushes of water that go out now, no control at all. As responsible stewards of water in the future-it doesn't make sense to give up an option like that. Being able to control that flush of water will allow us to be in a responsible position to pre­ pare for the floods that have hit Ventura in 1914, 1938 and twice in 1969. The last one killed 10 people and cost $10 million in damages. Without the potential for upstream reservoirs on the Sespe, we won't have any better control over the next flood than we did over any of the past ones. If past catastrophic floods are any indication, they hit us about 30 years apart. We will be due in about 10 years. A vote to take all 55 miles will share the burden of responsibility for future deaths and damages from that impending event. To sum up, Ventura County today is taking more water from the ground than it is putting back in, effectively borrowing from a water savings account that may well exhaust itself in 10 to 20 years. The State is in no position to promise future supply. The op­ position is wrong, conservation alone cannot do the job. We have fouled our nest. By not having an option to put reser­ voirs on the extreme ends of the Sespe, we will not be able to con­ trol the massive flushes to pure water needed to be diverted into settling ponds to stop the destruction of an enormous and very val­ uable underground resource. Without reservoirs, the next catastrophic flood, definitely in our future, will kill and destroy many times more than the last one simply because we already have allowed so many people to build, live and work in the path. It just doesn't make sense to put so much at risk for such small additional benefit for a few hundred 100 hikers and backpackers who only see Sespe water as a recreation resource for their private use. A reservoir is also very beautiful and has many more accessible recreational opportunities for the large majority who would grow faint at the mere thought of hiking 27.5 miles through wilderness. Thank you for your careful consideration of this very workable compromise. [Prepared statement of Mr. Bennett, with attachments, follows:] 101

FI.R. 1473 Speech by Chuck Bennett to be given at the subcommittee hearing on 7/18/89

Thank you Chairman Vento and members of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee for this opportunity to address our responsibilities concerning water. I will cover three major topics conceming water. Item 1 - State water availability and conservation. The head of the State Water Resourc9£ Board says, with Colorado river water, they can meet Califomia's water needs in three out of four years. They also admit they are overcommitted by 50% on promised water legally contracted for today. (Visual #1) All over the state water interests are fighting, not over how much more water to send us in the future, but how to take away the water we currently need and use. An estimated 100,000 acre feet will now be required for environmental concerns at Mono Lake. The Owen's River Valley residents have reopened hearings concerning our overpumping of groundwater that they claim is killing their trees. The Bay Delta hearings originally proposed a 25% cut-back in water for Southern California. Within the next few years we will lose, to Arizona, one-half of the huge water supply we presently get from the Colorado River. Coachella Valley has recently sued Imperial Valley and our Metropolitan Water District over prior rights to the remainder. Northern California says to Southem California, and with justification, ''Take care of your resources first before you come to us for our water." And here today, we toy with the idea of removing the option of accessing water from the only free-flowing river south of San Francisco. It just doesn't make sense. (visual #2) Serious mandatory water rationing is already in our very near future. Water waste ordinances are already being implemented or proposed as well as stepping water rates for . heavy users. Conserving 20% of our water would give us an additional 46,000 acre feet of water which would still not meet the 50% growth needs projected by the State Department of Finance just 20 years from now. Item 2 - (Visual #3) Let's look at Ventura County's water supply. Only 22% of our water comes from the state supply and we cannot depend on that source for future increases. 11% of our supply is surface water and we are at or near capacity todayl 67% of our supply comes from our very fragile underground water basins (not~d in grey.) Here again, we are at or near capacity in almost all these basins today! Worse, past excesses are slowly ruining this tremendous and valuable resource. We are only now starting to correct this problem. The black dots represent nitrate contamination in wells spotted throughout the county. We have overpumped to the point almost 23 square miles of some of the best growing land in the world is no"" contaminated by saltwater intrusion. 102

(VIsual #4) The $8-million Freeman Diversion dam is a joint federal and local project to hopefully stop this intrusion. The only way this dam will work is with water from the Sespe and only the~ from heavy storms that actually brings runoff down the river to the ocean. If the storm is too big, which is often the case, the water passes by the diversion dam and is wasted into the ocean. We are currently overdrafting our deepest, largest aquifer by 62,000 acre feet per year. This 50 to 100 year possible water supply, has just been found to have the beginnings of saltwater intrusion. Its usefulness could be cut to only 10 or 20 years. (VIsual #5) The only way the Freeman Diversion Dam will stop and reverse this developing tragedy is with large controlled infusions of fresh water. The only practical way to do this is with upstream reservoirs above the Freeman Diversion to better control the enormous flushes of water that come out of the Sespe. As responsible stewards of water for the furure, we must have the option of reservoirs on at least the fringes of the Sespe. It doesn't make sense to give up this option. Item 3 - Being able to control that flush of water will also allow us to be in a responsible position for the catastrophic floods that have hit Ventura County in 1914, 1938 and twice in 1969. The last one killed 10 people and cost $1 O-million in damages. Without the potential for upstream reservoirs on the Sespe, we won't have any better control over the next flood than we did over any of the past ones. If past catastrophic floods are any indication, they hit us about 30 years apart. We'll be due in about 10 years. A vote to take all 55 miles will share the burden of responsibility for future deaths and damage from that impending event. To sum up - 1. Ventura County today is taking more water from the ground that it is putting back in, effectively borrowing from a water savings account that may well exhaust itself in 10 to 20 years. The state is in no position to promise future supply. The opposition is wrong- conservation and recycling water cannot do the job. 2. We have fouled our nest. By not having an option to put reservoirs on the extreme ends 01 the Sespe, we will not be able to control the massive flushes of pure water needed to be diverted into settling ponds to stop the destruction of an enormous and very valuable underground resource. 3. Without reservoirs, the next catastrophic flood, definitely in our future, will kill and destroy many times more than the last one simply because we already have allowed so many more people to build, live and work in the path. It just doesn't make sense to put so much at risk for such small additional benefit for a few hundred hikers and backpackers who see Sespe water only as a recreation resource for their private use. A reservoir is also very beautiful and has many more accessible recreational opportunities fo the large majority who would grow faint at the mere thought of hiking 27-and-a-half miles through wilderness. Thank you for your careful consideration of this very workable compromise.

Chuck Bennett 103

Visual #1

State Water Supplies

The state supplies 22% of our current needs. Since our local groundwater pumping is at or near capacity we will need a lot more state water. 104

Visual #2 Comparison of Ventura County's Future Supply and Demand

2010 (50% growth)

1 700 .,. -900 0 - 0 ;- - 0 ~ ~(Io~ A 650 § --850 C r ",'b

Water we Simi, T.O., Oxnard. can now When all state water plan for 450 contracts are demanded -650 tho .tate will only be able to supply half. We show optimistic 213rds available - In the yaar 2010 1989 400 -.-600 1989

State Department of Finance anticipates 50% population growth (almost 100% in our south coast region) by 201.0.

State Department of Water Resources anticipates 39% population growth with a corresponding 32% growth in water needs during the same period.

32% wal8r groW!h: Calil. Dept 01 W_ R...... rces Population Growth: Cam. Depl 01 Finance and Calil. Depl 01 Water Resourses

C1989VCEOA Permission for reprinting granted - note: Courtesy of Ventura County Economic Development Aoaoc:iation 105

Visual #3

Salfliwater and nitra.te contaxnination in. Ventura County's underground "W'ater supply today

Surface 'W'ater and alxnost all underground 'W'ater supplies in the county are pwm.ping at or near capacity. In addition to our serious .saltwater intrusion, nitrate contam.ination has been found in 'W'ells peppered throughout the county.

Alm.ost 23 square m.i!es of saltw'ater intruded area 106

Visual #4

Salt Wate1t' E:rmt1fUSi(QlIffi ~Irlllbll.em and th® F:rr~~m.CBl.n Dive:rrsi~n D2m

The Freeman Diversion Dam will divert Sespe/Santa Clara river water Into the upper Oxnard Aquifers to stop further saltwater Intrusion and eventually push bacl: the saltwater to the ocean.

Saltwater intrusion under the Oxnard plain now covers almost 23 square miles

Clay layers between aquifers

The Fox Canyon Aquifer Is currently our best source . of pure water. The county-wide overdraft Is now averaging 62,000 acre feet per year. Our problem - this water is Irreplaceablel 107

Visual #5

Current and Projected Overdraft of the Oxnard Plain (lITo Population Growth Allowance in These Figures)

1.1 / ..CD 1.0 ~ ~ C!l 0.9 ./ ~'" V' ... 0.8 ~ 0 , to s= 0.7 V .... V 0 V 0.6 b ~ . ~ ....~~ ~.c{:~k" • 4>\,1", 0.5 '" 'p; .. "'~.t""tl'#4 + .. ~"~'!' .. 0.4 <);~ ... . ".tk+ ~CD ;:. ,.4-V .... " 0 0.3 . C!l £ 0.2 >~ .. .. 7" ".+. 0.1 ,.... ' / " +. I 0 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 '\ 1943 2033 Years of Overdrl:!fttng Our water "Savings" Bank Account

Overdraft without Froomnn Dlvort:!on Dom Ovordraft with Froomtln Dlvortllon Dam Ovcrdroft \"Jlth Frcomtln Dlvcrt:lgn ~ Stota Imported Woter aD 1111 II Ovordmft \"lith Froonmn Dlvcn:lon , State Imported Wator end Sospo Topatopa Rosorvolr ("; Ovordmft Tlmo SP'I" AcbJtllly Plottod Gnd Recorded

Chut Informdlon courtCf:Y of Untted \O!:tu (provl:lon:.1 d:UI. cubJ:ct to revlclon.) 108 Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Finally, Carolyrt Leavens, chairwoman or chairman-sometimes it is a legal description. Please proceed, Carolyn. You don't want to deal with that. You have other issues. Ms. LEAVENS. Thank you, Chairman Vento and other members of the committee. My name is Carolyn Leavens, and I am a 39-year resident of Ventura County where my family is engaged in the business of farming. I am also a past president of Taxpayers Asso­ ciation, and am presently serving on the Board of Directors of the Ventura County Economic Development Association, wherein I chair the Water Committee. Thank you for this opportunity of addressing you on this matter, H.R. 1473, of such great concern to Ventura County residents. The Water Committee has been collecting and organizing a large body of information over many months' time in preparation for a pres­ entation to groups within the county to heighten their awareness of the immediacy of our water supply problems. Part of this study has, of course, included the Sespe River. Our sea water intrusion of 22 square miles is a major problem right now, and Federal funding for the Vern Freeman Diversion is deeply appreciated. That investment will be so greatly enhanced by whatever water we may eventually be able to harvest from the Sespe. As a farmer, I know that that 60-foot deep soil which overlays the intrusion is not only some of the richest in the country, but be­ cause of our ability to harvest as many as three vegetable crops year-round, the Oxnard Plain has played a very significant role both for domestic and foreign markets. It is considered one of the three finest growing areas in the world. Retaining the options for those two remaining dam sites is, we believe, necessary with the certainty of future need. We have been most reluctant to accept this compromise since our figures show that we will surely run out of water by the turn of the century even if we are able to develop all our resources, conserve all that we can, and recycle all the water available to that process. However, we must deal with political realities. In an unprece­ dented show of unanimity, a significantly large group of Ventura County business and agricultural citizens have endorsed the letter which you have through their industry organizations. This repre­ sents, very conservatively, over 28,000 Ventura County people, and tells you that on this issue, we are many standing together, wheth­ er we are from farming, manufacturing, small business, or what­ ever. I find it very interesting that most of the opposition to this com­ promise live outside the watershed or service area of either the Sespe or the Santa Clara River system. We know the U.S. Forest Service and Congressman Lagomarsino have spent much time and energy, and encountered much contro­ versy while arriving at this compromise. We express our deep grat­ itude to them. We therefore respectfully request that you accept the agreement which they have so carefully crafted. It speaks to wilderness concern and good resource management. To those who accept without question the benefits of someone's foresight in having built some dams in time past, but who feel no 109 responsibility to their children or children's children for the same benefits, we challenge them to meet us halfway in accepting "half a loaf," as we are proposed to do. Again, thank you. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Carolyn, and thank you for staying within the time. Most of you have been very cooperative. We ap­ preciate that. Mr. Gientke, there has been some discussion about these negotia­ tions. I don't know if you are part of any of those negotiations, but what about the proposals to revise and include Piru Creek and ad­ ditional miles in the Sespe in segment 2? I guess you understand the segments already, so I can ask you that. Mr. GIENTKE. With regard to the negotiations, we are not direct­ ly involved and have not been involved with them. I have talked to Mr. Carroll, and he has assured me that we will be involved in those negotiations. With regard to the 4 or 5 miles in segment 2, at this particular time, I could state unofficially that we are not opposed to that, but we would have to see what the area is and what the resources are in there before we have an official statement. Mr. VENTO. The State of California has designated some of these waters in segment 2 already, haven't they? Mr. GIENTKE. Yes, they have, also as a wild trout stream, too. Mr. VENTO. It may even go beyond the area that we are talking about. Mr. GIENTKE. We are open and flexible. Mr. VENTO. OK. Mr. GIENTKE. There is a point on Piru that I would like to make. You did mention Piru. The Piru is the creek that we have our single and then only dam on which is Santa Felicia. Mr. VENTO. Which is to the north? Mr. GIENTKE. At the end of that creek is Pyramid Lake, which is a feature of the State water project. From the lake we hope to, in the Montgomery report which was referenced quite a bit by the previous panel, the Montgomery report has recommended alterna­ tive three, which is to release water from that Pyramid Lake down Piru Creek into Piru Reservoir, and then down the creek to a col­ lection facility near the town of Piru. Our concern over designation of the wilderness area only is if there will be some future regulations which will inhibit or restrict United's present ability to regulate and reregulate the river be­ tween Pyramid and Piru. We currently do that now, and we cer­ tainly need to state for the record that if in the future we have des­ ignations which will influence our operation, then we will want to look at that and again, we are willing to work closely with the Forest Service. They have done that with us. We work closely to­ gether. Mr. VENTO. In this case, we are not talking about dewatering any of the Sespe today, are we? Mr. GIENTKE. Piru Creek, no. Mr. VENTO. Or Sespe, for that matter, are we? Mr. GIENTKE. No. Mr. VENTO. So that is another aspect. We talked about free flow­ ing. There are others, but they have been dewatered. That is one of 110 the problems with a lot of it. Well, very good. I could go on with a lot of questions, but I think I would ask unanimous consent that all members be able to submit questions in writing. Not that I have a lot planned. All the witnesses would have to respond to the ques­ tions in writing. Mr. Lagomarsino. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. So, Fred, what you are saying is that even with the bill, we should make clear that it would not interfere with the present operation of Piru Creek? I don't think it will. Mr. GIENTKE. Yes. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. So, presumably, those same considerations would apply if we were to agree on designating Piru Creek or the part we are talking about as wild and scenic? Mr. GIENTKE. That is correct. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Are you primarily concerned about monitor­ ing devices? Or just the release of water? Mr. GIENTKE. We will be importing State water, large amounts of State water and the releases out of Pyramid will increase and we need to consider that. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. As I indicated earlier, and as the committee well knows because the committee has done it over the past several years, there are a number of wild and scenic designations on rivers in California that have dams above and below the designation, so I would assume that could be worked out or is not a problem in the first place. Mr. GIENTKE. Absolutely, and we recognize that. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Carolyn, one thing that I suppose all of my colleagues on this panel here today know, but certainly not all of my colleagues in the Congress know, and that is the kind of agri­ culture you are talking about in Ventura County, and particularly in the Oxnard Plain that is so vitally affected by what we do or don't do with this bill, is any of the-is any of the agricultural pro­ duction subsidized? Farm loans or target prices, that sort of thing? Ms. LEAVENS. None, it is fresh fruit and fresh vegetables and therefore, cannot be stored, and therefore is not subsidized. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I know that, but just for the sake of my col­ leagues, are there any dams planned for the Sespe at this point? Ms. LEAVENS. In the last 60 years there have been a number of dams studied for the Sespe. At the present time the only dam under consideration as a result of the Montgomery report, which is a small diversion dam near the location, I believe, of the present day diversion dam. United does not attempt to move aggressively into planning and designing dams elsewhere in the Sespe because we have a number of other options we are pursuing now. We have the Freeman project, we have reclaimed water. We have a number of other things that we can implement before we get into that. The answer to that is probably a yes and no, Mr. Lagomarsino. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. With relation to the other mountain dam, or other mountain site, as I understand it, there are two main objec­ tions to that. One is if you have a dam there, you can't have a wild and scenic recreation for 55 miles. That is one thing, and I think that is quite important to some of the people on the other side to be able to say. 111 The other one, though, is that a dam there would affect fish life and sand flow. One of your slides did speak to that. I don't think you talked about fish, though. Would you comment on that? Mr. GIENTKE. With respect to fish life, I certainly believe a reser­ voir, whether it is a result of a diversion dam or a major storage dam, would-like Lake Piru that we operate-be an abundant source of fishery sporting. We stock Piru with bass and trout. It is a popular recreation area. We have taken surveys in the river for steelhead. Unfortunately, as a result of things that probably oc­ curred the last 40 or 50 years, we have not found but two steelhead in the river during a survey that we took. It don't mean there are trout in the ponds in Sespe Creek. We believe a reservoir would en­ hance whatever there is up there. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. The agency that would require fish migration - steps would be the California Fish and Game Commission. They have asked, and you have complied, with that kind of measure with regard to the Freeman diversion structure? Mr. GIENTKE. Absolutely, at a cost of well over a million dollars. It would be a fish ladder in there to insure migration of steelhead up the Santa Clara River. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Any other structure up the Sespe? If two be required, would you do the same thing? Mr. GIENTKE. We would work closely with them. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. How many citizens are represented by the groups here today? Mr. GIENTKE. We have 261,000 people in our district that are rep­ resented by our seventh district board members. Of course, not all of those-I am not going to claim that they are not all for it. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. With some idea what we are talking about, Chuck, how many? Mr. BENNETT. I represent the Ventura-Oxnard Chambers. Those are the two major cities within this area in the county that are most affected by this. I also represent the Association of Water Agencies on their board of directors. . I represent the 174 mutual water companies that have to take water from all over Ventura County. We have the endorsement of the Ventura County Economic Development Association, which· represents all businesses throughout the county. They are like an umbrella chamber of commerce, so to speak. We had the Taxpayers Association endorse us. The Building Industry Association has also endorsed· us, and the Farm Bureau. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. As I understand it, there are three areas we are talking about with regard to your interests. One is the upward Sespe Cold Springs. One is-well, and two related ones. One would be a high structure dam at Oat Mountain that would backpool into the forest about a mile. Then there is the question of whether, under what some people would prefer here, whether you would be able to build any struc­ ture at all on the lower part that is outside the forest boundary; Is it your understanding that any kind of a designation at all under the Wild and Scenic River Act would prohibit any kind of develop­ ment on the lower part of the Sespe? 112 Mr. GIENTKE. It certainly would. We have, worked hard for a number of years with the Forest Service in this area. If we did not have the option of putting a high storage dam at Oat Mountain, as we compromised with the Forest Service in giving up the Topa Topa site, which is the most cost effective site on the river, it would be, I think in very blunt words, an economic disaster for Ventura County. There is no question about it. We could not and we cannot today satisfy the water conservation objectives of our district with­ out looking to the Sespe at some time in the future. It is just a fact of life. Weare not there to exploit resources, but to protect the water resources and maintain them as they were when people first set­ tled in Ventura County. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Let me just ask you one further question, if I might. Is the support that you receive for the Freeman diversion project pretty widespread in the county? Was there any opposition at all to it? Mr. GIENTKE. No; there wasn't. It was recognized as an absolute­ ly essential project. Its cost is very high. The growers, particularly, stood behind United, the business community stood United, and the citizens of the county stood behind United to construct that costly but water effective project. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I may have misled perhaps even my col­ leagues here, as well as anybody else listening. I said the Federal Government, or the House anyway, has now approved something like $11 million in funding for this project. But I should have added, because it is very, very important, that that is a loan which will be repaid. Mr. GIENTKE. Principally by the growers. That is right. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gientke, do you think it is feasible to construct a dam at either of these two sites? Mr. GIENTKE. Yes, I certainly do, based on the knowledge that I have in the dam construction business, Mr. Levine. I worked in the last 25 years with the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation, of course two of the major water resource developers in the world. I also headed up the division, a Division of Dam Safety, in Denver for the Bureau of Reclamation. We did ana­ lytical technical study on the safety of dams. I listened to the comments regarding the practicality from an en­ gineering standpoint of putting dams up there. It is my opinion that they can go up there and they can be constructed safely, as­ suming the Bureau of Reclamation in the sixties did a cost feasibil­ ity study. There is no question that dams at Oat Mountain and Topa Topa are feasible. Mr. LEVINE. Are there plans showing whether either Cold Springs or Oat Mountain would be needed as a dam? Mr. GIENTKE. No. We are in the process of cleaning a water master plan for United, one of the only plans in the country. That plan will provide us a road map for the next 25 to 50 years. Mr. LEVINE. At this point in time you are convinced it would be feasible to construct a dam at either site, but as of now, there are neither specific plans nor projections, nor target dates, nor identifi- 113 able need that has been spelled out in terms of whether or if such a-- Mr. GIENTKE. No hidden agenda with United. I do want to state for the record, though, that the Montgomery report has recom­ mended that a low diversion dam be constructed on the Sespe, at the site where there exists one now. Mr. LEVINE. In your testimony you talked about a sediment re­ lease scheme. Could you identify any dams in. which such a sedi­ ment release scheme exists? Mr. GIENTKE. The sketch I had up there was actually a cross-sec­ tion of Arrow Rock Dam, the Boise project in Idaho, built by the Bureau of Reclamation 40 years ago. Another dam which is typical of a diversion dam, which can be constructed to release sediment was built in Red Bluff in the northern end of the Central Valley in California. That is a series of very high radio gates which are raised during high flows and then the entire flow of the river is· passed through. I anticipate if we built a diversion dam that that is the kind of structure. We would put a series of gates across the river. Mr. LEVINE. Similar to the Red Bluff structure? Mr. GIENTKE. That is right. Mr. LEVINE. Is there any question as to how effectively this oper­ ation at Red Bluff works? Mr. GIENTKE. It passes-well, the sole of the dame is at the river bottom. The gates are raised completely out of the water. In effect, you have an uninterrupted flow in the Sacramento River. There­ fore, 100 percent of the water passes right through. Mr. LEVINE. Is there any question, if a dam were built at Oat Mountain, as to the impact that that dam might have on the flow of sediment to ocean beaches? Mr. GIENTKE. No. You know, again, we get back to the point, has United got plans? The answer is no, we don't have plans. I would. insist, and the people who support United would insist, that we would release sediments through the dam. There is no question that through the natural settling process silt, sand, will drop out upstream. Certainly a structure will be worked out and constructed to allow maximum passage of the sediment amount through the structure. Mr. LEVINE. Let me focus on the testimony of Mr. Bennett and Ms. Leavens. It sounded to me like Mr. Bennett was essentially al­ ready-and you should correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Bennett­ that you are essentially already testifying in support of the need for either or both of these dams. As I heard your testimony, it was a very, very. clear and strong argument that the dams are neces­ sary. Even if the conservation district hasn't yet come to this con­ clusion themselves, it sounds like you or your organization has. Is that correct? Mr. BENNETT. Yes. I feel we will have to go through a long period of mandatory conservation. At some point in the future we will have to have damage. Some of the new things that have come out-and this is probably the reason why the county has not come to this point of what I was presenting today-there is a huge aqui- _ fer under Ventura County we have been draining and not replac­ ing. The thought was it had a 50- to 100-year life span. It has been 114 found out there is salt water intrusion in there and that life span may now only be 10 to 20 years. I would suggest this is why there has been no plan. Mr. LEVINE. Is it the position of the chamber as well that one or more of these dams is necessary? Mr. BENNETT. The chambers nor the Association of Water Agen­ cies, which I represent, have made any discussion about the dams. Mr. LEVINE. You are clear that such a dam is necessary? Mr. BENNETT. I am clear that sometime in the future-and I would suggest 15 or 20 years out-we will absolutely have to have dams. Mr. LEVINE. Ms. Leavens, is that your position as well? Ms. LEAVENS Yes. After we have done everything we can in order to use all the conservation methods and all the reclaimed water and so forth. Those, of course are first. We recognize the fact that the potential dam on the Sespe would be down the road just as far as we could possibly push it. But we are in a drought situation, very much aware of how deeply we need water. My family farm is on the top edge of that aquifer to which he just referred. We have seen our water table dropping 47 feet in our well in the last 6 months. That is a lot of drought. Weare aware we are going to have to lower our wells again. These things are real bellwethers. Mr. LEVINE. If I might, in conclusion for this panel, just frame this dilemma, or policy decision, as I see it shaping up. And I, frankly, see it shaping up much more clearly, having heard both Mr. Bennett's testimony and Ms. Leaven's testimony. I think they both spell out with a great deal of candor and a great deal of clar­ ity, the perception of a need for one or more of these dams. We are not talking about keeping an option open as much as leading down the road toward the construction of dams in either or both of these locations. Ms. Leaven's testimony stated very clearly, "We will surely run out of water by the turn of the century even if"we are able to devel­ op all our resources, and conserve all that we can, and recycle all the water available to that process." You, Mr. Bennett, spelled out, I think as clearly as can be spelled out, that the issue here is one or more of these dams. So I guess the question is the qualitative tradeoff here. And I guess I would ask any of you who care to answer it and anybody in the next panel. We are now comparing the amount of water that would be made available through one or more of these dams with the potential environmental degradation or compromise, or half a loaf, as you put it, Ms. Leavens, that you are asking the environ­ mental community to accept the potential damage to the Sespe River that is being suggested by the construction of one or more of - these dams. Isn't that really the tradeoff that we are talking about from a policy point of view? Shouldn't we be clear about it? However one comes out, we are talking about the water value to the community of the dams versus the destruction or degradation or compromise-however you wish to put it-of the full protection of the Sespe River. . I see you nodding, Mr. Bennett, but isn't that the issue? 115 Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely. We are making tradeoff of two dams, which are also recreational areas for hundreds, eventually hun­ dreds of square miles of underground. This is the third best growing region in the world. That plain there is being destroyed. That underground is as valuable as the above ground resource. Mr. LEVINE. I know where you come out. I wanted to be clear that is the issue we are asked to decide. Mr. VENTO. We now go to the third panel. Alan Coles, Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club, Long Beach, California; Steven Evans, associ­ ate conservation director, Friends of the River, Sacramento, Cali­ fornia; Phillip White, consulting engineer, Ventura, California; and Steve Barnard, president of Mission Produce and officer of Ventura County Taxpayers Association, Santa Paula, California. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read for the record a letter I just received dated July 18, 1989, addressed to me: "Dear Congressman Lagomarsino. Last night, July 17, the city council of the city of San Buenaventura took formal action to sup­ port H.R. 1743. This action was taken to support the wild and scenic designation for the Sespe and to preserve options for future water supplies. "You are to be complimented for the work you have put into reaching this compromise proposal. As in the past, we thank you for your work on issues important to us. Signed James Mollahan, Mayor." Mr. VENTO. Without objection, the letter will be placed in the record. [The above-mentioned letter follows:] 116

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA

CITY COUNCIL

James Monahan, Mayor William Crew, Deputy Mayor Nan Drake Richard Francis John Mc\Vherter John Sullard Donald Villeneuve

July 18, 1989

Congressman Robert Lagomarsino House of Representatives Washington, D.C. RE: H.R 1473 Dear Congressman Lagomarsino: Last night, July 17, the C1ty Council of the Ci ty of San 8uenaventura took formal action to support H.R 1473. This action was taken to support both the wild and scenic designation for the Sespe and to preserve options for future water supplies. You are to be complimented for the work you have put into reaching this compromise proposal. As in the past, we thank you for your work on issues and projects that are of importance to us. Sincerely, '--?fU.~_/ 71-. • .G .. __

.ja1nc£:i L. t'junal"l"n Mayor

501 Poli Street P.O. Box 99 Ventura, California 93002·0099 (805) 654·7800 117 Mr. VENTO. Mr. Coles. PANEL CONSISTING OF ALAN COLES, ANGELES CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA; STEVEN EVANS, AS­ SOCIATE CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA; PHILLIP WHITE, CONSULTING EN­ GINEER, VENTURA, CALIFORNIA; AND STEVE BARNARD, PRESI­ DENT OF MISSION PRODUCE AND OFFICER OF VENTURA COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, SANTA PAULA, CALIFOR­ NIA Mr. COLES. I have written testimony I am going to submit. I am going to deviate, because many of the things I have said in my tes­ timony have pretty much been said by the people before me. Maybe to save a little time, and clarify a little better what our po­ sitions are, I will defer. I would like to address the issue of wilderness and our position on it. One of the things that came to mind when I was listening to the testimony that has been given over the last hour or so, I once read an article in the Los Angeles Times Magazine. It was about the Los Padres National Forest. It had an interview with one of the last old rangers who still goes into the forest and still rides a horse and sees the back country. The reporter asked Mr. Stone-the ranger-what his viewpoint was regarding the Forest Service Plan, multiple use concept. His quote was-and I always will remember it-he said: "I think the land has priority, but I take a minority point on that." That is one thing we don't have here today. We really don't have a land viewpoint. We talk in terms of water, recreation, everything else, but we don't talk in terms of the resource of land in its native state. Southern California is growing. It is growing very fast. We have taken away most of the wilderness. We only have these little pocket wildernesses left. Typically, the Sierra Club gets this im­ pression people have that we try to save areas for us. We get these kinds of quotes from the wilderness people saying for a few back­ packers to go into this area, and that is what makes it important for us. That is not the case. This land is being preserved because it needs to be preserved, because it is the last remaining area that contains this vegetation. It is the last remaining place in southern California of such a large extent that contains these features-the plants, the wildlife and things of that nature. Mr. Carroll, whom I highly respect as the head of the Los Padres National Forest supervisor, mentioned about boundaries to the wil­ derness area being a ridge. He didn't mention what was on the other side of that ridge. There is something unique. On the other side of that one ridge he talked about, there happens to be a little valley in here called Little Mutau Valley. I forgot to mention I have gone to this back country back there very many times. I made a lot of trips back to these areas. I have scars on my leg from pushing through the brush and getting to these areas back here. I have a pretty high appreciation of the landscape back here. Some of the areas that have been left out, 118 like Little Valley, are important little areas. Just because they are on the other side of the ridge doesn't mean it is not worth saving. The Sierra Club proposed adding some boundaries. You can read about it in my testimony, and the reason we have justified those additional areas. We have tried to introduce areas sensitive to the area use next to the boundaries of motorcycle trails, next to cur­ rent property owners. Yet take in all these unique areas that we have seen, that we care about, that are an important part of the wilderness. We do need not only to incorporate the areas Mr. Lagomarsino has already indicated, but we would like to see other areas expand­ ing. We would like to see gray additions. You can count the number of hikers that go in there. You are not going to hear any­ body speak nicely about this area. It is not very pretty in terms of having beautiful canyons and waterfalls. It is a wild area full of wildlife, full of creatures you are never going to see otherwise. I want to end with one little thing that happened to me once· up in this area. I was once hiking up here. I was going up a ridge. When I looked on the top of that ridge, about from me to you there was a mountain lion. He was frozen in his tracks. I froze in my tracks, and we stared at each other for about 5 seconds, each one of us curious about the other one. They present no danger to humans. In a blink of an eye it was gone. That is the wildlife I think is important. That mountain lion is important. And all the other creatures back there are important. That is why these areas are very unique, because you don't see this. A lot of the areas we protect are in the Sierras and so forth, but these areas are wild areas. It is these areas I would like to see expanded and become larger. We have justification. They are in the testimony which you have before you. Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. [Prepared statement of Mr. Coles, with attachments, follows:] 119

Alan R. Coles Sierra Club 3550 W. 6th St. #323 Los Angeles, California 90020

My name is Alan Coles and I am a member of the Sierra Club Condor Range and River Task Force. I am also an active leader in the Angeles Chapter who has visited this region many times.

Most of the mountains that lie within the Los Padres National Forest of

California are part of the Coast ranges, a chain of mountains stretching north to Alaska from Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. This is a relatively young land where recent uplift and erosion have produced striking, complex topography of sharp ridges. cliffs and long incised meandering canyons. This is the native hom~ of a diverse wildlife community including the rare

California condor and a diverse flora of grassy meadows, oak woodlands, chaparral and pine-shrouded mountain tops.

The Los Padres lies near the rapidly growing population centers of

California whose residents are just beginning to discover this wild and beautiful area. As more people become familiar with this region, the stress on this environmentally sensitive land increases. Diverse and incompatible groups of users will vie for the limited land that is available resulting in conflict and overuse. Off· road vehicles users looking for new challenges have already increased their presence in some areas of the wilderness destroying the solitude and serenity that many corne to seek, not to mention their physical effect on the land.

The bill's proposed boundaries do not solve the following problems: 1)

Many adjacent roadless areas are left unprotected. 2) The boundaries were not drawn to maximize wilderness resources. 3) Conflicts between wilderness seekers and ORV users will occur. With all of the above in mind the Sierra

Club proposes the following changes to HR 1473 as an attempt to solve these problems. 120

In the Sespe Wilderness: 1) The boundary around Mutau Flats was drawn along a ridge top, deleting Little Mutau Valley, despite its having been included in the draft EIS of the forest plan. The wilderness boundary should be moved up to the San Guillermo motorcycle trail. 2) In the Snowy Creek area our proposal moves the boundary to be parallel and adjacent to the motorcycle trail without deleting any existing ORV routes. 3) The Santa Paula-Sisar­

Lion Canyon area contain some of the most scenic geological formations and is included in our proposal. 4) The south slope of Pine Mountain is included in our proposal because the high scenic resources far exceed any commercial value of existing mining claims.

In the San Rafael Wilderness, HR 1473 proposes adding an additional

16500 acres to the northwest section. The Sierra Club proposal adds a total

51000 acres up to the eXisting ORV trail in Kerry Canyon. This area is a natural extension of the San Rafael Wilderness and includes some of the most wild and least visited sections. This additional acreage does not inhibit any current ORV use.

The Sierra Club proposes establishing a new wilderness in the Pinos-

Badlands area which contains the highest mountains and the only groves of ancient Limber pines in the Coast ranges. The many beautiful white fir and ponderosa pines form a dense green canopy with gooseberries and currants adding to the lush landscape. Yet only a short distance away in the same FPA are sunbaked flatland which contain the desert pinyon pines. In spring the lush green meadows filled with blooming wild Irises in the late spring.

Wilderness protection of this highly scenic land and of the Quatal Canyon, San

Emigdio Mesa and Mt Pinos Botanical Areas is included.

In all of our proposals we have tried to avoid conflict with ORV users and still offer protection to wild areas. We have compromised by leaving out 121

of our wilderness proposal the Gold Hill area even though it was identified as roadless and part of the Sespe Roadless Area in the draft EIS. We have tried

to accommodate the needs of land owners and mining interests by providing sensible boundaries and reasonable access to their lands. The Sierra Club offers a balanced proposal between all users of the forest.

~~ Appended is a copy of the Sierra Club,additions and a corresponding reference map. 122 123

SIERRA CLUB

SESPE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTIONS

SEE ACCOMPANYING MAP DESCRIPTIONS CORRESPOND TO CIRCLED SESPE MAP NUMBERS

Map # (location) Recommended

#1 (NW of Pine Mountain) 2,500 2 (Lockwood Vly/Grade Vly 7,000 3 (Thorn Pt) 5,300 4 (Mutau Flats/north 21,000 5 (Alamo atn/Snowy Crk ORV 6,500 6 (Pyramid Lake) 1:500 7 (Angeles NF) 5,500 8 (Reasoner Cyn) 1,000 9 (Southwest Sanctuary) 4,500 10 (Hines PeakfWhite Ledge) 2,000 11 (Rose Valley Falls) 2,500 12 (Beaver Campground) 1,500 13 (Pine Mountain) 6,000 14 (Dry Lakes) 11,000

TOTAL ACRES 83,300

TOTAL FS RECOMM 197,000

TOTAL SESEEACRES 280,300

7.2.89smr

SESPE BOUNDARIES DETAIL (see acreage summary p. 1) 124

The Sierra Club recommends the establishment of boundaries for the Sespe Wilderness which:

1) Maximize the contiguous protected area 2) Utilize boundaries that are enforceable and logical, and show ORV trails as conspicuous corridors for Forest Service maps, outside the proposed wi~derness.

Criteria for recommended boundaries (see attached Sespe map for referenced parcels, numbers in circles on map)

Parcell: 2500 acres (NW of Pine Mountain Rd)

The 4b-management area west of the currently proposed northwestern boundary for the Wilderness calls for non-motorized recreation and watershed management. If the Wilderness boundary were extended to a 500' corridor following Highway 33 on the west and the Pine Mountain Road on the south, it would offer opportunity for conspicuous mapping and easy management. The. current boundary will be difficult to differentiate, between the 4b area and the Wilderness. This would add some 2000+ acres to the Wilderness, beyond the currently recommended boundary, and offer the advantage of topographic sense to the western edge of the Wilderness. Highway 33 largely follows topographic opportunity anyway, and in many places offers a logical boundary (with an accompanying corridor) easily mapped and enforced.

Parcel 2: 7000 acres (Lockwood Valley/Grade Valley)

All of Component 5 should logically be added to the Wilderness, forming a boundary along the Grade Valley Road, and around to the west along Lockwood Valley Road, in each case providing a 500' corridor on the Wilderness side of the road, which when mapped, becomes highly visible and easily enforceable. The Grade Valley Road would continue to be available for vehicular travel, serving trail bikes and motorcycles as well as inholders. This would add an additional 7000 acres to the Wilderness.

The recommended boundary would include the old road, now a trail (2IW05), from the Fishbowls out to the Grade Valley Road. The Fishbowls trails from Thorn Meadow, and the Fishbowls area itself, are included in the FS Wilderness recommendation, and includes the headwaters of Piru Creek.

Parcel 3: 5300 acres (Thorn Point)

The decision by the FS between the DEIS and the FEIS to change the boundary from the recommended Component I area, to follow the ridge along Mt. Pinos­ Ojai Ranger District, has at least two deleterious effects on the Wilderness:

A It results in a non-justifiable and arbitrary straight-line boundary 125

south from Thorn Meadows up through Thorn Point, without regard for scenic qualities, Wilderness integrity and Wilderness opportunity.

B It drops the equivalent of approximately ten sections of eligible roadless acreage from the Wilderness (all of sections 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16; and parts of those sections surrounding them.) Total acreage foregone, 7000.

Parcel 4: 21,000 acres (Mutau Flats north)

Additionally, the decision to use the ridgeline (the Ranger District Boundary [see Parcel 3]) for a boundary, separating the Piru and Sespe watersheds, is inconsistent with the reasoning to the west, in the added Component 2.

For this arbitrary decision, the Wilderness loses the equivalent of another 21,000 acres of wilderness in two contiguous areas, from:

A ten sections of eligible roadless acreage (all of sections 32, 34, 3, 4, 5, and parts of surrounding sections), including the Stone House, Mutau Creek and Trail 20W35 , and Alamo Creek.

B the opportunity to move the boundary of this area north to within a 500 ft buffer zone of the the Lockwood Valley Designated OHV trail, side, a logical and easily mapped and visible boundary is estdablished, maximizing protection of the Roadless Area, adding an additional equivalent of nearly 20 sections, for the 21,000 acre addition.

Note: In Parcels 3 and 4, the major inholdings are excluded by a balloon at the end of "cherry stem" of the access road (7N03)

ParcelS: 6500 acres (Alamo/Snowy Creek ORV trail)

A boundary drawn through McDonald Peak/Sewart Mtn/Snowy Pk/Black Mtn ridge encourages use by mechanized vehicles of the ridge and south across the saddle at the head of Buck Creek into the White Mountain Ridge area and across the saddle to Cobblestone.

These vehicles under the present boundaries will ascend from the Snowy Ridge Motorcycle trail (being tempted in from Hungry Valley State Vehicle Re'creation area, as well as from the Alamo Mountain motorcycle areas) and sample the whole ridgeline system from from Snowy/Black to the White/Cobblestone complex.

This endangers the recently introduced bighorn sheep herd and penetrates the Wilderness at its wildest portion. The change would close the road that goes from Alamo Mountain to McDonald Peak, adding the area from a 500-ft buffer corridor around the Alamo Mountain road and south (uphill) of the Snowy Creek Designated ORV.

Additionally, the change would make potential mapping conspicuous, and

43-252 0 - 91 - 5 126 enhance enforcement of the Wilderness boundaries, only restricting vehicular use along the Alamo-McDonald-Sewart Road, which as previously stated encourages use of the Wilderness trails by vehicles. The remaining vehicle opportunity is quite extensive, from Hungry Valley, up around Alamo, down the Snowy Creek OHV trail, and/or down the Lockwood OHV trail to the Grade Valley low standard dirt road.

Parcel 6: 1500 acres (Pyramid Lake)

The boundary northeast of Dome Mountain (west of Pyramid Lake): as shown for Component 1 in the Draft EIS, parts of Sections 33, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 14 (reading from northeast to southwest along border of Pyramid Lake) have been omitted from Wilderness recommendation.

The boundary recommended by the Forest Servie may have been selected because it is the boundary between the Angeles and the Los Padres Forests, probably established before the Pyramid Lake Reservoir. Boundaries between two adjacent national forests are not relevant in determining Wilderness boundaries.

Bringing the border of the Wilderness as close as possible to the edge of Pyramid Lake in this steep country maximizes the Wilderness and minimizes the opportunity for non-conforming Wilderness use. (A narrow zone--100 ft-­ for temporary boat landings is assumed around the lake.)

Parcel 7: 5500 acres (Angeles National Forest)

The Michael Creek boundary for the southeast corner of the Wilderness omits 5500 acres of eligible roadless acreage. The road up to Whitaker Peak" including the peak, can be cherry-stemmed, and eligible adjacent Angeles Forest territory logically included in the Sespe Wilderness.

Parcel 8: 1000 acres (Reasoner Canyon)

Dropping the boundary along the edge of sections 18 and 19 allows considerable buffer for the Sanctuary without including the formerly overgrazed, type converted acreage of Reasoner Canyon or the abandoned oil wells.

Parcel 9: 4500 acres (Southwest Sanctuary)

Area southwest of the Sanctuary boundary: The 4b area south of the added 64 Wilderness recommendation (west of the Sactuary) is a logical addition to the Wilderness. It is now recommended for non-motorized recreation management. Having two separate adjacent non-motorized area use areas is not entirely understandable. The boundary should be drawn along the old hatched-line firearms limit boundary, which follows the Santa Paula Ridge. All of the 32a management area north of the hatched lines should be included in the Wilderness. This boundary would be easily mapped, conspicuous, and readily enforced. 127

The recommended boundary has the added advantage of allowing oil and gas exploration under the Sanctuary in the area of known high-potential, without interfering with maximizing of the Wilderness opportunity.

Parcel 10: 2000 acres (Hines Peak\White Ledge)

The established but dead-end road up to the north of Hines Peak serves no purpose in this area except to encourage encroachment of vehicles into the major southwesterly section of the recommended Wilderness. Vehicles have established dirt road routes throughout the area to the southwest of the rest of the recommended boundary.

The White Ledge campground and area around it in sections 24, 29, 30 and parts of the two adjacent westerly sections are deserving of being protected as part of this portion of the wilderness, and would form a "smooth" boundary south of the two Lion campgrounds with the elimination of the stub road up the peak. (See Parcel 11 below.)

Parcel 11: 2500 acres (Rose Valley Falls)

Moving the entire C-4 area east of the Rose Valley Falls into the Wilderness will offer maximum protection to a contiguous area of the. Wilderness recommendation. using existing roads and adjacent corridors as boundaries, improving mapping opportunity and enhancing enforcement success.

Parcel 12: 1500 acres (Beaver Campground)

The roadless area omitted from Wilderness recommendation at Beaver Campground is the "preferred Cold Springs site" for water impoundment. Since this is a phantom dam, with no official proposal in hand, the Forest Service has no defensible authority to withhold qualifying acreage from a Wilderness recommendation. This IIcornerll would add parts of sections 32, 33, 1, and 6.

Parcel 13: 11,500 acres (Pine Mountain)

A The phosphate claim (U.S.Gypsum) which was denied permit in the mid­ '70's had three major problems: noise and safety of trucks on scenic_Hwy 33, and recent (at that time) authenticated condor roost and nest sites and numerous archeological sites and rock art. While access must be provided to annually prove the claim, mineral recovery is not economically feasible, the problems cannot be mitiga-ted, and the area is needed to maintain the_ integrity of the western limit of the Sespe Wilderness.

B Extending Parcel 13 westward along the Sespe River protects the viewshed and is a logical complement to the River's Scenic recommendation along Scenic Highway 33. The Area from the Pine Mountain Inn on Highway 33, east along the Highway, south through the Sespe Gorge, and east from Beaver to Lion Campground would thereby achieve logical dual protection, and 128 tie the upper part of the Scenic Sespe Creek to the Sespe Wilderness.

Parcel 14: 11,000 acres (Dry Lakes)

The portion of Dry Lakes FPA 131 lying northeast of the Ortega Hill OHV trail should be added as a discontinuous portion of the Sespe Wilderness across the Sespe Gorge (in the upper part of Segment 2 of Sespe Creek) and a curvy portion of scenic Hwy 33 (just as an eastern segment of the Vent ana Wilderness lies across a corridor of varied activity).

Appearance of the area is variable, with open dry lake beds and vast chaparral-covered slopes. The middle of the area contains the Matilija escarpment, some 1500 acres in size, consisting of exposed sandstone bedrock which is highly visible from Scenic Hwy 33, as well as unusual vegetative types including the Big Cone Spruce. The area contains the 250 acre proposed Dry Lakes Botanical Area, formed from a relatively small internal basin at the axis of a steeply folded anticline. Several rare disjunct relict apecies are not found on nearby ridges. Also present are remnant stands of Pinos Ponderosa.

7.2.89smr 129 We next have· Steve Evans, associate conservation director of the Friends of the Rivers, Sacramento, California. Mr. EVANS. Friends of the River is a 10,000 member organization dedicated to the preservation of the Free-Flowing Rivers in Califor­ nia, and throughout the West. We have been working with "Keep the Sespe Wild." We echo their concern about the inadequacy of H.R. 1473. We do echo Congressman Lagomarsino's and Mr. Gallo's concern to preserve a portion of that creek. I have submitted writ­ ten testimony that outlines our position. We support wild and scenic and recreational status for the 55 miles of Sespe Creek, wild and scenic status for a full 33 miles of the Sisquoc River, including the two excluded from the Forest Service recommendation. We also support the regional forest-wide approach to a wilder­ ness and wild and scenic rivers bill that would look at protecting Lopez Creek in Congressman Thomas' district and creeks and rivers in Congressman Panetta's district as well. I sit right· now in something of a state of shock after listening to Ms. Leaven's testimony, as mentioned by Congressman Levine. She essentially stated with development of all sources of water in Ven­ tura County and with programs, water conservation programs, Ventura County only would have 11 years more water available to it. That brings this issue focusing on the qualitative differences be­ tween wild and free-flowing Sespe Creek and a portion of that creek dammed by at least two water projects. What would that give us? Five years perhaps? Only one year ad­ ditional water supplies? The crux of this issue is not whether Sespe Creek should be dammed, but it is what we are going to do and what Ventura County will do to change the problems that exist now. That in­ cludes unregulated pumping of ground water. It includes the devel­ opment in the flood plain, which Mr. Gene Marshall referred to earlier. These are problems that should be met head on not with the standard verse of let's build another dam, but let's try to deal with these issues directly, instead of coming up with one more band-aid which may just give us a few more years before we are faced with the kind of limits which would be catastrophic. I also would like to share with the committee personally what two more dams on the Sespe would mean. To do that, I would refer to these photos here. This is the Cold Springs dam site. It is as near to the bottom of the dam as we can figure. As you can see, it is a very beautiful area. This is a year-round pool with trout in it that provides fishing and swimming for people. Probably at this moment it barely has a trickle into it and barely a trickle out of it, but it is about as wild and scenic as any place I have been to even though it doesn't meet this standard conceptualization of the scenic rivers. The cold springs would lie across here, put this under water and back up water through Sespe Gorge, which is adjacent to Highway 33, an area as wild and scenic as any other place I have seen, even though there is a highway adjacent to it. . I must mention that we have many wild and scenic rivers that have highways adjacent to them. They are usually classified recre­ ational. We have no objection to that classification for this area along the highway. 130 This is the area that would be destroyed by another mountain dam, Devil's Gate. You are looking upstream in this picture. Up­ stream is where the Forest Service recommendation ends. The area directly in the foreground is the portion that the Forest Service didn't even look at, didn't even assess. That is the lower 2 miles of segment 3 to the forest boundary. Those boulders you are looking at here, although they look somewhat small, many of them are the size of houses. It is one of the most magnificent spectacular areas of the Sespe. It is almost a crime this area is virtually being ig­ nored and is imminently threatened by a large dam and water project. I urge the committee to take a close look· at these photos when they have a chance to, and a look at the areas we are talking about. It is important to have a personal perspective of what it means for protecting these areas and what it means for not protect­ ing them. Mr. VENTO. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:] 131

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN L. EVANS, ASSOCIATE CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER

JULY 18, 1989

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Honorable Committee Members. My name Is Steven L. Evans. I am the Associate Conservation Director of Friends of the River. Friends of the River Is a 10,000 member organization dedIcated to the preservation of free flowing rIvers in Callfornla and throughout the west. I apprecIate the opportunIty to address the commIttee in regards to H.R. 1473, authored by the Honorable Robert Lagomarsino and cosponsored by the Honorable Elton Gallegly. ThIs blll would desIgnate portions of Sespe Creek and the SIsquoc River as additions to the National Wlld and Scenic RIvers System. Although RepresentatIve LagomarsIno's and Gallegly's environmental concern Is to be commended, H.R. 1473 unfortunately does not provide sufficient protectIon of the outstandingly remarkable resources of the Sespe and Sisquoc to warrant our endorsement of this bill. H.R. 1473 would only protect 27.5 miles of Sespe Creek, a mile less than was recommended by the Forest Service in the Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan. In response to conservatIonist appeals of the plan, the Forest Service has tentatively agreed to recommend desIgnatIon of another four to fIve miles of the Sespe. H.R. 1473 does not reflect this change In the administratIve recommendatIon. The bottom line on H.R. 1437 Is that only half of the Sespe Is protected and the other half Is threatened by speculative and unnecessary water proJects. In regards to the SIsquoc, H. R. 1473 would add 31 mlles of the river to the system, but falls to protect two miles of the river downstream of the San Rafael Wilderness boundary that are as "Wild and Scenic" as the upper 31 miles. H. R. 1473 also Ignores the opportunity for a regional wllderness and wlld rivers blll that encompassess all of the Forest Service recommendations for the Los Padres National Forest and considers other rivers and areas nominated by the publlc. A regional approach could 132

address several other rIvers deservIng protection IncludIng Plru Creek, MatlllJa Creek, two trIbutarIes to the SIsquoc - the South Fork Sisquoc and Manzana Creek, Lopez ~reek, Arroyo Seco River, BIg Sur River and Little Sur RIver. Because of these serious Inadequacies, Friends of the River Is opposing H.R. 1473 at thIs time. We would like to work wIth Representatives Lagomarsino and Gallegly, and the commIttee to Improve this bill. Suggested Improvements Include: Sespe Creek: Designate all 55 miles of the Sespe from Its headwaters to Its confluence with the Santa Clara River as Wild and Scenic. This would protect all of the river's outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fishery and wildlife values. Keep the Sespe Wlld Committee has ably documented. the serIous questions regardIng the envIronmental Impact, economic feaslb1l1ty and public safety questions concerning the speculative water­ projects tha't H.R. 1473 would allow. We strongly recommend that these unnecessary projects be foreclosed by adding all of Sespe Creek to the " National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are alternatives~these water proJects that are more economical and environmentally preferable. Sisquoc River: DeSignate 33 miles of the Sisquoc River Instead of the 31 proposed In the bill. ThIs would protect outstandingly remarkable cultural, historical, recreational and scenic values on the two miles of the river downstream of the San Rafael Wilderness boundary that would otherwise be unprotected by H.R. 1473. Other Rlyers: We urge the committee to consider a regional wilderness and wild rivers legislation for the Los Padres National Forest. We believe a regional approach Is the most logIcal, cohesIve and efficIent method to deal with the Forest Service and public recommendations on this forest. In conclusIon, we refer to the orIginal Congressional Intent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which Is to balance our national policy of building dams bn some rivers With a pollcy of protecting other rivers In theIr free flowing condItion We submIt that protection of t.he entire Sespe, from Its headwaters to Its confluence with the Santa Clara River, fulfills the "vital natl,onal conservatIon purposes"referred to in the Act and represents a balanced and wIse allocation of Increasingly rare tree flowing rIver resources. . Thank you for the opportunIty to testify on H.R. 1473. We appreCiate the commIttee's concern and dedIcation towards preservIng the public land resources of the United States. 133 Mr. VENTO. Phillip White, consulting engineer of Ventura, Cali­ fornia. Mr. WHITE. I am a lifelong resident of Ventura County, a member of the business community. I am a consulting engineer from Ventura. I am a part time farmer, a former locally elected official, and a strong support of full protection for the entire Sespe Creek area. As an engineer, I am going to talk a little later about sand issues and also water conservation issues. My first introduction to Sespe Creek occurred in the 1950's when my father took me there for a hiking and fishing trip. He had hiked the Sespe since the 1930's and knew the tremendous value of what is without question, Ventura County's greatest environmental treasure. It was my first wilderness experience, and I will never forget climbing the huge boulders, pulling my first rainbow trout out of the creek, and hearing of the giant steelhead which still in­ habit the deep pools of the Sespe. And I will also never forget how that simple hike in the wilderness brought my father and me much closer together. I have been in the Sespe many times since then. One of my most memorable experiences was in high school when my church group went there and we had a condor fly directly over us not 20 feet away. Of course, the principal arguments for not protecting Sespe Creek center on the issue of water, but there are some points that have not been pointed out here today that I think you need to con­ sider. The first is the myth that all the water from the Sespe is wasted into the ocean or that most of it is. While there are no dams on Sespe Creek, there is a dam on the Santa Clara River, into which the Sespe flows, which has since the 1960's diverted runoff year round for use on the Oxnard Plain and recovering that water without having an impact on the Sespe. It is true that the Freeman Dam does not divert all of the peak winter storm flows from the Santa Clara. but those peak flows do other things, including allowing for the migration of steelhead from the ocean, while simultaneiously carrying the sand which forms the beaches in our area. I mentioned that I was an elected official, a director of the Chan­ nel Islands Beach Community Services District, which among other things, supplies water to the small beach area near Channel Is­ lands Harbor. I was the CSD's representative to BEACON, the group working on solutions to the chronic beach erosion problems in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. They are problems that have been caused by sediment trapped behind dams. I was also past chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Corps of Engineers study of beach erosion in Ventura County. It is a simple fact that all the beaches from Ventura south into Los Angeles County, including those fronting our two Navy bases, are totally dependent on sand transported from the Sespe and the Santa Clara by peak storm flows. A dam on the Sespe would stop this flow of sand and would push to a crisis the already serious ero­ sion problems. It would be ironic indeed if another delegation had to come from Ventura County to Washington seeking the $5 mil­ lion or more each year that would be needed for a project to make the sand lost by a dam on the Sespe. 134 And then there is the incredible waste of water that takes place in Ventura County, despite existing conservation programs. An ex­ ample is the more than 30,000 acre-feet of water dumped into the ocean each year from just the Ventura and Oxnard wastewater plants. Mr. Gientke's chart showed a sand bypass, but it won't work. That about equals the overdraft on the Oxnard Plain, to put it in perspective. Much of that water could be 'reused, but less than three percent is. More effective conservation projects need to be im­ plemented in all areas, including agriculture. And the United Water Conservation District needs to do more. It is an ironic fact, confirmed by Fred Gientke less than 2 months ago, that despite the word "conservation" in its name, United has no one on its own staff whose job it is to implement end use water conservation programs. That needs to change. We should look to water conservation as the first most cost effective source of water, not the most expensive-a wilderness ruining dam on the Sespe. I told you that I am a businessman. I have owned and operated my engineering business for over 12 years, and like Chuck Bennett, am a member of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce, which offi­ cially has taken a position supporting dams on the Sespe-a posi­ tion made by committee and the board of directors. No poll of the membership was taken. Based on the conversations I have had with Ventura business owners, I believe that a poll would show that a majority oppose dams and support full protection of the Sespe. I also told you I was a part time farmer. I grew up on a small avocado ranch run by my father, and I inherited the operational responsibilities when my father passed away last year. He was a member of the Farm Bureau and my mother still is. And although the Farm Bureau officially opposes full protection for the Sespe, my family is evidence of the many Ventura County farmers who support full protection. My last major trip into the Sespe took place 2 years ago when I took my two sons on a 3-day backpacking trip from above Sespe Hot Springs down the Sespe Gorge to Fillmore. On the second day, we passed a troop of boy scouts who were doing just what we were doing-emjoying a wonderful wilderness experience. And it was pure joy to watch my boys catch their own rainbow trout. That trip brought me and my boys much closer together, just as it happened 30 years go with my father and me. In the future, I want my boys to be able to take their children into the Sespe for that same expe­ rience. A dam on the Sespe, no matter where, would make that im­ possible. The Sespe is Ventura County's Yosemite Valley, and like Yosem- ite, it should be preserved forever the way it is. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Finally on this panel, we have Steve Barnard, president of Mis­ sion Produce, and officer of Ventura County Taxpayers' Associa­ tion, Santa Paula, California. Mr. BARNARD. I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you in reference to Congressman Lagomarsino's bill, H.R. 1473. 135 I am Steve Barnard, president of the Mission Produce, Inc., the largest independent avocado packer in California, representing over 700 growers and 7,000 acres. I am also vice president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association, representing over 300 indi­ viduals and businesses concerned with efficiencies in government. My family has resided in Ventura since 1857, being one of the first and oldest families settling in the area. We have been in farm­ ing and business ever since, not only contributing to the welfare of the community, but also enjoying the lifestyle the county provides. I grew up in the small community of Fillmore, which lies at the base of the Sespe River. As I grew up in Fillmore, there were many summers that I spent swimming in the river's pools, fishing parts of the stream, or hiking in the back country. I also recall in 1969, we had a major flood that washed away two of the bridges that gave Fillmore access to the rest of the world. The Sespe can be very serene and beautiful, or it can be down­ right nasty, with tremendous amounts of water raging downstream devastating property and taking lives. I have seen both personal­ ities. Every year we lose vast volumes of much needed water that passes right through a very rich agricultural area. This year, as an example, some areas are now rationing water after a 3-year drought. A very prolific farming area in the Oxnard plain is fight­ ing sea water intrusion due to the overdraft of the local aquifers. In the avocado industry, which is a very rapidly expanding inter­ national business, export is a main reason for success. At Mission Produce, Inc., we presently export nearly 25 percent of our produc­ tion. Unfortunately, plantings have halted as of late, due to the lack of ample water in the area, thus we have a limit on what we can export, affecting to a degree our balance of trade and income. In bill H.R. 1473, I have some reservations. They specifically refer to the need for a future dam on the Sespe River, preserving much needed water that is already in our back yard. In the sixties there was a local vote to build a dam on the Sespe. It only lost by 38 votes. Recently, there has been more and more momentum by environmentalists to preserve the entire Sespe, thus never allowing a dam. This would be a crime. I feel the bill in its present form, protects the interests of agriculture and will insure the country is a great place to live. The avocado industry, the Ventura County Taxpayers Associa­ tion, and I encourage your support for Mr. Lagomarsino's bill. The alternative would be crippling to our county. Thank you for your support. Mr. VENTO. I think you have all described and expressed your viewpoints with regard to t4is. You have heard some of the ques­ tions previously. I think I will defer to my colleagues. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I know Isome people have to catch airplanes. I have just a few questions. i, Mr. White, you said in your written statement, as well as your oral statement, you talked about the Freeman diversion dam. You said it is efficiently recovering the bulk of the water originating in the Sespe Creek. My understanding is it only gets about 40 percent, which is a substantial amount, but not certainly the bulk of the water. 136 Mr. WHITE. I think to that, you need to add the amount that per­ colated before it gets downstream to Freeman. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. It captures very little of the runoff during storms, as you pointed out? Mr. WHITE. That is correct. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. The dam at least would catch some of that. I would also just say that all of the areas you described, your per- sonal experiences within the parks are in my legislation. Mr. WHITE. In fact, no. I think it would be real difficult to repro­ duce the hike my father and I took if you had the Oat Mountain down there. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. It backed up clear into the thing. Mr. WHITE. It would not be possible. I think the beach erosion aspect is very serious here. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Does any silt come down the Sespe River that doesn't go through the Freeman diversion project? Mr. WHITE. Well, in fact, I was one of the people who did have a problem with the Freeman diversion project, and it was related to the sand issue in that the sand will back up behind Freeman. How­ ever, compared to a dam on the Sespe, Freeman is peanuts. A high dam on the Sespe would stop all the flow. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Even if there is a sand bypass? Mr. WHITE. If you have a sand bypass that works, you don't have a lake. If you could put Mr. Gientke's slide on, I will explain why. This shows sand bypassing under the dam. What you have to really realize-and look at the map if we could-or recall the dis­ tances between Fillmore and the ocean. The sand, it is fine to get it out from under the dam, but you still have to get it down to the ocean. What gets it down to the ocean now is the flow of the Sespe in its peak flood stage. It just won't work that way. If you want to transport the sand, you need to have a peak flow of water. You do that, you are not going to have any water behind your dam. The two are incompatible, in my opinion. The alternative is to come up with another source of sand. We are talking here about money on the order of $5 million a year for perhaps an offshore dredging project. You throw that into the cost of water coming from Sespe, that is a big chunk of money every year. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Of course, all the things you have talked about, and others have as well, would be considered if a dam is ever proposed. A dam has not been proposed. Mr. WHITE. That is correct. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. All I am talking about is preserving the option. We are not talking about a dam. We are talking about pre­ serving the option. I have no further questions. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of the lateness of the hour, I am not going to engage in extensive questions either. I simply would like to compliment the witnesses. I was particularly moved, Mr. White, by your testimony. I was also very moved by the testimony of Mr. Coles with regard to your first hand experiences. 137 Mr. Evans, you, as well, I think, crystalized the issue exactly the way we need to analyze it. Are we going to be getting enough saving or protecting or pre­ serving enough water to justify the destruction we are talking about with regard to these dams? The fact is, while I fully respect where Mr. Lagomarsino is, and I am very reticent and uncomfort­ able about looking as carefully as I am into the issues in another Member's district, and I think that Member should be shown a great deal of deference, and I respect where Mr. Lagomarsino is coming from on this, and I think he is trying to strike a very re­ sponsible balance, just looking at these pictures and listening to this testimony as someone else who was born and raised in Califor­ nia and whose mother and father were born and raised in Califor­ nia, and whose children are Californians, I want to have the same experiences for my children and grandchildren as I had with my own parents, ranging in the environmental context as you outline, Mr. White. You spell out why Californians are so deeply attached to the en­ vironmental treasuries that we cherish so much. And the stakes here are, let's face it, the stakes are, are we going to open the door or keep the door open for dams that can destroy these resources, or aren't we? I think you have all spelled out these challenges very eloquently, and I applaud you for doing so. Mr. VENTO. Thank you all very much for your testimony. I ap­ preciate it. Mr. VENTO. On this fourth panel we have Ms. Carla Bard, Real­ tor, Ojai, California; Rex Laird, general manager, Ventura County Farm Bureau; and Ms. Patricia Clark, Ranch owner, Ojai, Califor­ nia. You have all been very patient. We appreciate that. PANEL CONSISTING OF CARLA BARD, REALTOR, OJAI, CALIFOR­ NIA; REX LAIRD, GENERAL MANAGER, VENTURA COUNTY FARM BUREAU, VENTURA, CALIFORNIA; AND PATRICIA CLARK, RANCH OWNER, OJAI, CALIFORNIA Ms. BARD. It is a privilege to appear before you on behalf of Sespe, the last remaining free-flowing river in all of southern Cali­ fornia. I applaud Mr. Lagomarsino for having the foresight and the courage to end the years of wrangling over the Sespe and introduce legislation to save the river. Thanks to Mr. Lagomarsino, and your subcommittee, generations from now, Americans will still have the opportunity for a wilderness experience in Ventura County. I re­ spectfully urge that you now go that last critical step and amend H.R. 1473 to include all 55 miles ofthe Sespe River. Mr. Lagomarsino and I share long memories of Ventura County as it used to be-of lovely unspoiled hills, plains and valleys of our youth-before the Matilija and Casitas Dams broke the back of the Ventura River, before the Santa Felicia Dam and the Saticoy Di­ version destroyed the Santa Clara and before urbanization obliter­ ated the countryside. Now, all that is left of those long ago days is the Sespe. 138 Some thing are done to serve the present but those of us who share those memories of the past have a special obligation to stop mortgaging the future for present gratification and insure that some treasures of our natural heritage remain unspoiled. The Oxnard Plain is such a treasure. All 55 miles must be saved. We have reached a major decision point in Ventura County. Our air is polluted, our beaches are disappearing, agriculture is threat­ ened, road systems strangling, sewage systems overloaded and our water supply inadequate for our wasteful use. To permit the dam­ ming of the Sespe, which feeds our beaches with sand, is not a solu­ tion. It is neither cost effective nor environmentally acceptable. Even the Bureau of Reclamation so declared in 1983. We need to stop and think of better solutions. When I chaired the State Water Resources Control Board from 1979 to 1982, it was already evidence that the environment of Ven­ tura County was limited in its capacity to sustain growth. The air quality, the transportation system, and the water supply were all overburdened even then. In 1980, upon the request of the Environmental Coalition of Ven­ tura County, the State board declared its intention to adjudicate the overdrafted ground water basin of the Oxnard Plain under the section 2100 of the California Water Code. Ventura County was re­ quired to cease its reckless overuse of ground water supplies. The State board declared that wastewater reclamation and conserva­ tion, not damming the Sespe, were the answers to the deficiencies of supply. It was the State board that granted the permission for the United Water Conservation District to have the Freeman Di­ version and the pumping trough and pipeline mentioned earlier. Those were to be the solutions. In addition, while I was still there the State board felt so strong­ lyon this matter that they removed the water right that United Water Conservation District had held on that river for, I believe about 50 years. This was a very significant thing to have happen in water matters in California, to have a water right removed for non­ use. So when it appeared that the local solutions to the problem of the overdraft were in place, the State board tentatively decided not to adjudicate. That decision could be rescinded unless we become more disciplined. In 1989 we once again overdrafting, up to 62,000 feet per annum, according to the United Water Conservation Dis­ trict. Yet we go on allowing growth as if the water supply were in­ finite. It is madness. Decisions that have as profound an effect as damming the Sespe need to be made very difficult, for our own and for future genera­ tions. The uniqueness of the Sespe River and the surrounding wil­ derness makes it mandatory that the process of destroying it be made exceptionally rigorous. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a wilderness designation does not lock up resources for all time. When public perception recognizes a need for change, Congress has the power to change the designation and has done so in the past. A so-called compromise on the environment has always led to a permanent loss of natural assets. it is a simple but rational conclu­ sion that all of the Sespe should be protected to the fullest extent in order to allow adequate time for generations, far in the future, 139 to make such an irrevocable decision. Our generation has already made too many. Your subcommittee is meeting at an historic moment. All over the world, voters are becoming environmentally conscious. Politi­ cians all over the world are responding. In our country, year after year, polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of citizens of all political persuasions are willing to pay whatever price it takes to preserve the environment. Your decision is significant. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Rex Laird, manager of the Farm Bureau for Ventura. Mr. LAIRD. I am executive director of Ventura County Farm Bureau, representing 1,100 farmers and ranchers of Ventura County. Our agriculture accounted for $785,796,000 in gross income in 1988 from approximately 100,000 irrigated acres of land. I will allocate the majority of my testimony to the issue of bal­ ance within the Los Padres National Forest. You have already heard more than ample testimony this morning to what degree the U.S. Forest Service went in drawing its original draft plan, which was originally started in 1979 with staff studies and then finished, and then formal staff and consulting work in 1981. Over the next 5 years a tremendous amount of work was done, a tremendous amount of public work, public input was given, as has already been indicated by representatives of the Forest Service. And those comments have a major impact on the final draft as it was proposed and on the legislation of H.R. 1473. Sixty-one thou­ sand acres were added to the wilderness designation in the Sespe area for a total of 191,000 acres, as was professional testified to. All of the various and eclectic uses of the Los Padres National Forest was weighed, balanced and a gallant effort was made by the Forest Service to accommodate diametrically opposed uses. I think the Forest Service has done an outstanding job in balancing these and I would strongly suggest that your committee approve the legisla­ tion as submitted, because it does represent what is in the best in­ terest of all parties concerned and serves the best interest of the people of the United States of America. In conclusion, I would like to remind you of one of the quotes in the summary for reasons of selecting this particular plan as is sub­ mitted in the record of decision, as submitted by the Regional For­ ester, Paul F. Barker: The Forest Service Plan I am adopting has a high net public benefit. It provides for allocation of use of the forest resources and combination that will best meet the needs of the public. The plan responds to the multiple use mandate for the National Forest System lands. You will hear testimony today advocating major changes to the Sespe wild river designation extending it to some 55 miles. You will also hear included in that testimony, if you have not already, how many people support this proposal. Unfortunately, many of these people, in my opinion, have been deluded into supporting this position based on misinformation. In their zeal to overturn this 7- year process, they have, in my opinion, oftentimes misstated facts and have misled the public of Ventura County. Please give serious consideration to the tremendous amount of work that has already been done by the U.S. Forest Service and approve the legislation as 140 submitted by Congressman Lagomarsino and Congressman Gal­ legly. Thank you very much for your time. I would also like to add parenthetically that lower on the mail­ ing list, at the request of Alasdair Coyne, obviously the Ventura County Farm Bureau in no way supports their position or their ac­ tivities, and I can't help but speculate that that might be the case of other members of that same mailing list. Additionally, the comment was made by Mr. White that his mother is a member of our organization and does not support our position. I must submit for the record that this is the first time I have heard any comment from any member of our organization in my more than 9 years of tenure with the Farm Bureau in opposi­ tion to our position, which is support of harvesting water from the Sespe. I find it curious with an organization of having this position for more than a decade that this is the first time this has come to my attention. Thank you very much for your attention and endurance. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Laird, for your patience. Finally, on this panel, we have Patricia Clark, a ranch owner from Ojai, California. Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Chairman Vento, and gentlemen. I am Patricia Clark. By profession I am a writer, editor, histori­ an, the director of the publications department of the Ventura County Museum of History and Art. I am as well a fourth genera­ tion Ventura County resident. To be specific, the Clarks have been in the Ojai Valley at least since 1869. I am by inclination an envi­ ronmentalist, by inheritance a rancher. I care very deeply about the area under discussion-the area we refer to as the Ventura County back country. There is no question in my mind that it de­ serves protection and merits wilderness designation. There are five generations of Clarks who made good use of Ventura back country. My great grandfather went there looking for gold. He was one of the first forest rangers in what is now the Sespe. In later years, he used the back country as a summer range for his cattle. My Great Aunt Peg knew the area better than any of her broth­ ers. My Uncle Thomas was county supervisor. He put the first road into the area. Aunt Peg never forgave him. So the controversy you are hearing today has been going on for many years in our family. Our only poet of any distinction in the county, Frank Felt, chose the back country as his home. His "Songs of the Sespe" is a minor classic, in our part of the country at any rate. The best proof of the magic of these mountains is my grandmoth­ er's story. She came West for her health. It was believed she suf­ fered from consumption. She had heard of the wonderful healing powers of Matilija hot springs, Matilija hot springs being the door­ way to the back country. She experienced a near miraculous recov­ ery and within three months of her arrival she eloped with the stage coach driver, a redheaded Irish cowboy, to the absolute horror of her chaperone, sister and mother back East. This wonderful lady so believed in the restorative powers of the area that when her son bill, at 12 years of age, contracted pneumo­ nia, he wasn't put to bed, he was sent to the back country for a full year to herd cattle in the care of the family factotum, Felipe Me- 141 landez. Not only did son Bill recover, he managed, with the help of his future wife, of course, to produce a son who would grow up to be Secretary of the Interior. I would suspect that some of you on this committee are acquainted with this illustrious person, William P. Clark, Jr. What further proof could you possibly require that this is an area that has lifted the spirits, healed the bodies, and re­ stored the souls of generations of Ventura County residents. As much as I would like to see the entire Sespe areas designated wilderness, as much as I would like to have the entire Sespe Creek designated wild and scenic, 1 simply don't believe we can afford to do so. I believe, as was stated in last Sunday's editorial in Star Free-Press, the newspaper with the greatest credibility and largest circulation in the county, that we need to "preserve the option of tapping the county's last natural source of basic water supply." It is for this reason that I support H.R. 1473, which is, again as stated in the Star, "And attempt to have the best of both worlds." I read in the July issue of the Ojai Valley Voice that there is no drought crisis: that our present situation is "profit seekers and en­ gineers" again providing the rationale for building unnecessary dams. Droughts have always been with us, they say, citing the cries of alarm in the drought of 1949, and we have survived. We have survived only because emergency measures have been taken. Before there was the technology available to deal with drought in California, survival was not an option. From 1862-65 in Santa Barbara County, which at that time included Ventura, the cattle population dropped from 200,000 head to 5,000. Before the drought, practically all land parcels worth more than $10,000 were in the hands of the Californians. What the lawyers and squatters did to these people in the north of the State, the drought of the 1960's accomplished in the south. It was the end of the ranch period in California. We have had two 20-year droughts in recent history. From 1918- 1936, a period of 18 years; from 1944/L-65, a period of 21 years. The experts tell us that the largest water reservoir in the county, Lake Casitas, will be dry in 10 years should the present drought contin­ ue. We cannot, nor is it our inclination, sit around and wait for the rain to fall. Responsible management of water is our only hope. Responsible Californians today are trying to achieve balance­ balance between man and nature; the environmentalists and farm­ ers; supply and demand, the north of the State and the south of the State. The frontier closed in 1890. Rugged individualism is no longer an option. Co-existence is the name of the game. And that is what this H.R. 1473 is about. It does not state that we will build a dam at either Cold Springs or Oat Mountain. It will allow us to exercise that option in the future should we need such extraordinary measures to sustain life. I do not believe that we have the luxury of depriving ourselves of this option. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Ms. Clark. It was probably good to remind us of the background. Bob tried to share with me, but it· wasn't nearly as entertaining as yours. If he had had better liter­ ary skills, I am certain the future would be reading about this. [Prepared statement of Ms. Clark follows:] 142

Thank you Chairman Vento and other committee members for allowing me

thi.s oPl'ortuni ty to address you in regard to the bill presently under

consideration: HR 1473.

I am Patricia Clark. By profession I am a writer; editor; historian;

the director of the Publications Department of the Ventura County

Museum of History & Art. I am as well a 4th generation Ventura

County resident -- to be specific, the Clarks have been in the Ojai . Wl Valley at least since 1869. I am by inclination ~ environmentalist,

by inheritance a rancher. I am here today because I care very deeply

about the area under discussion the area we refer to as the Ventura County Back County. There is no question in my mind that it is an area that deserves protection and merits wilderness designation.

My great grandfather spent a great deal of his leisure time in the

back country prospecting for minerals -- I am sure he was looking for gold; what he found was borax.

My grandfather, Bob Clark, was one of the first forest .rangers in the county. I've read his diaries. On the good days (.12 hours in '\ duration), he'd patrol 40 miles or so; on the other days he'd hack trails through the sage brush; settle disputes amongst the homesteaders disputes over water. In later years, he used the back country as summer range for his cattle.

Our only poet of any distinction, Frank Felt, chose to make his home

in the back country. His "Songs of the Sespe" is a minor classic, in our part of the world at any rate. 143

Whenever the Lagomarsino family felt a need to "get away from it all:" they'd go to their cabin in the Sespe to hunt, to fish -- but primarily to refresh themselves.

My grandmother came west for her health; it was believed that she suffered from consumption. She had heard of the wonderful healing

powers of Matilija Hot Springs, Matilija Hot Springs being the doorway to the back country. She experienced a near miraculous recovery and within three months of her arrival she had eloped with the stage coach driver (a red-headed Irish cowboy), to the absolute horror of her chaperone sister and mother back east.

This wonderful lady so believed in the restorative powers of the area that when her son, Bill, at twelve years of age, contracted pneumonia, he wasn't put to bed he was sent to the back country for a full year to herd cattle in the care of the family factotum, Felipe Melendez. Not only did son Bill recover, he managed

(with the help of his future wife, of course) to produ~e a son who would grow up to be Secretary of the Interior. I would suspect that . some of you on this committee are acquainted with this illustrious person (William P. Clark, Jr.). What further proof could you, possibly require that this is an area that has lifted the spirits, healed the bodies, and restored the souls of generations of Ventura County residents.

Not only would I like to see the entire Ventura County Back Country preserved, I would like to see it restored to what it was 60-70 years ago -- before the first road was built into the area. My great

uncle, Torn Clark, as Ventura County Supervisor, was largely responsible for the building of that road. His sister never forgave 144

him. This lady led pack trips into the area --' knew it better than an:;: man. It was for this reason that she was chosen to act as guide for Gifford Pinchot, Head of the Forestry Serfce, on his initial investigation of what is now the Los Padres National Forest.

As much as I would like to see the entire Sespe area designated wilderness; as much as I would like to have the entire Sespe Creek designated wild and scenic, I simply don't believe we can afford to do so. I believe, as was stated in last Sunday's editorial in the Star Free-Press (the newspaper with the greatest credibility and largest circulation in the county) that we need to "preserve the option of tapping the courtty's last natural source of basic water supply." It is for this reason that I support HR 1473 which is, again as stated in the Star, "an attempt to have the best of both worlds. II

As we were driving in Sunday, I began to wonder how you who are from other areas of the country can comprehend what water si~nifies in the southwestern United States. Here you have acres of green grass, thousands of trees lining the parkway to a Californian, the Potomac looks like something created in Disneyland.

To quote water historian William Kahrl, "The history of California in the 20th Century is the story of a state inventing itself with water." The first major water project in the west, the Owens Valley Project, gave us Los Angeles and environs but virtually destroyed the Owens Valley. Hetch Hetchy saved San Francisco but buried the

Hetch Hetchy Valley, an area second in beauty only to Yosemite according to John Muir. There is the Colorado River Project, the California State Project -- all exacting enormous costs in money, 145

energy.

In Ventura County today, we are three years into a drought situation. You have heard the statistics from those better qualified than I to present them. And what they have to say alarms me. The City of Ventura is concerned as well. In March of this year, they passed an ordinance attempting to curtail water waste. The prohibitions forbid hosing off sidewalks, serving water in restaurants, unless it is specifically requested, etc. First time violators receive written warnings; subsequent violations merit incrementally increasing fines; five violations can result in a total water ban.

Our 178 water agencies are and have been attempting to deal in a responsible way with the water situation as well. Again, you have the figures from the experts. The most exciting of the projects to me is the Freeman Diversion a bargain in terms of cost and efficiency. Congressman Lagomarsino has supported the project from its inception.

There are those who claim that we need to limit growth. ·1 ,would love to fence in the state and let no one else in -- but I don't want to send my children and grandchildren to live elsewhere. At the present time, I, my two sisters, my brother and two of my children and their children live on what was once my father's ranch. There are six households where there was once one.

I read in the July issue of the Ojai Valley Voice that there is no drought crisis: that our present situation is "profit seekers and engineers" again providing the rationale for building unnecessary 146

dams. Droughts have always been with us, they say, citing the cries of alarm in the drought of '49, and we have survived.

We have survived only because emergencies measures were taken. Before there was the technology available to deal with drought in California, survival was not an option. From 1862 to 1865 in Santa Barbara County -- which at that time included Ventura the cattle population dropped from 200,000 head to 5,000. Before the drought, practically all land parcels worth more than $10,000 were in the hands of the Californios. What the lawyers and squatters did to these people in the North of the state, the drought of the '60s accomplished in the South. It was the end of the rancho period in California.

We have had two twenty-year droughts in recent history from 1918-1936, a period of 18 years; from 1944 to 1965, a period of twenty-one years. The experts tells us that the largest water reservoir in the county, Lake CaSitas, will be dry in ten years should the present drought continue. We cannot, nor is it our inclination, to sit around and wait for the rain to fall. Responsible management of water is our only hope.

Responsible Californians today are trying to achieve balance balance between man and nature; the environmentalists and farmers; supply and demand; the north of the state and the south of the state. The frontier closed in 1890; rugged individualism is no longer an option. Co-existence is the name of the game.

And that is what this HR 1473 is about; it does not state that we will build a dam at either Cold Springs or Oat Mountain; it will 147

allow us to exercise that option in the future should we need such ex~raordinary measures to sustain life. I do not believe that we have the luxury of depriving ourselves of this option.

Thank you. 148 Mr. VENTO. I am glad I don't have to make a decision on whether this is going to be dammed or not. Our decision basically is what part should be wilderness. There is decisions down the road with regard to the water project. It is the last free flowing river in southern California. Happily we can prob­ ably do a lot of the work in this bilL There are a lot of people who would like us to .make the decisions for you on this, but the author of this bill isn't seeking that. There is a lot of controversy out in your area. I know there will be efforts to try and do that. I think there is some recognition of the other areas that are present that would qualify. Normally at the end of the hearing you feel very good about it. I feel like I have got a lot of information to sift through and look at in terms of trying to come up with a decision. I have no questions. I just wanted to share with you my anxiety. I will let Bob share his with you. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know Ms. Clark could go on and on, because she is an historian and is in charge of the publications at the Ventura County Museum, where a lot of history is kept. Ms. Bard, you say a wilder­ ness designation does not lock up things forever. As a legalistic matter, that is true. But I am not aware of any that have been changed, especially if it is coupled with a wild and scenic river designation. Ms. BARD. You may be correct in that, Mr. Lagomarsino. I was informed on the Kern River some years ago that a segment of that was open to commercial development that wouldn't have been pos­ sible without Congressional action. Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I would like to look at that. My recollection, and we acted on that in-which committee was that we designated a portion, special management, which didn't really affect what could happen? But it had not been wild and scenic before. Mr. VENTO. That is correct. What we did is we designated an area as a non-wild and scenic river, so the dam pool could be raised out in front that would back up into this area. What we were concerned about there was keeping the manage­ ment unit whole. That was Rick Lehman's bill, as I recalL Mr. LAGOMARSINO. But you know what we are really talking about, and I think some witnesses understand this, some don't, that we are talking about what the Ventura Star-Free Press said on Sunday. We are talking about an option. The hearing would go on a lot longer than this one if we were talking about building a dam. There are a lot of things that you have to look at when there is a proposaL There is none. There are concepts. There are places where· people think would be good dam sites as compared to others, the best one being left out. And for the benefit of those who are not involved, I might say that the decision of some of the people here today who support this bill is an agonizing one, because they believe that the Topatopa dam site should not have been taken out. But they recognize the practical realities that you are not going to build a dam there. But we have to decide perhaps in the future what will happen at the other two sites. So I want to thank all of you for coming, even 149 the people with whom I don't completely agree. I think we have a better understanding perhaps than we did before. We have to go vote. Mr. VENTO. I understand their enthusiasm to get under the pro­ tection of it. But I think that is a tough issue at this time. Well, thank you all very much for your testimony and work. It is obvious from your statements that you have worked hard on this issue. We are trying to do the same. Unless there is further business to come before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

151

APPENDIX

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LEON E. PANETTA BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

REGARDING H.R. 1473

A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE LOS PADRES NF AS WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES July 18, 1989 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 1473, a bill to designate certain lands in the Los Padres National Forest as wilderness. As one of the three Members of the House who has a portion of the Los Padres National Forest in his district, I want to take this opportunity to offer you my perspectives on the opportunity before us to provide additional protection for what I believe are some of the most scenic and ecologically-important areas of central California. H.R. 1473, as introduced by my Colleague, Mr. Lagomarsino, would designate an additional 244,000 acres of wilderness in the Los Padres, consisting of three areas -- the Sespe, Matilija, and San Rafael. The first two areas would constitute new wilderness designations in the southernmost portion of the Forest, the third would be an addition to the existing San Rafael Wilderness. In addition, I understand that the bill would add 27.5 miles of Sespe Creek and 31 miles of the Sisquoc River to the wild and Scenic Rivers system. 152

I applaud the leadership and initiative of Hr. Lagomarsino in raising this matter and bringing focus to the areas which he believes warrant special recognition in H.R. 1473. I would urge the Committee to carefully weigh the recommendations to ensure they provide adequate protection to that portion of the Los Padres.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to alert the subcommittee that I am interested in pursuing legislation to protect important natural resources in my own area of the Los Padres. I am currently reviewing opportunities for both wilderness and wild and scenic designations in the Ventana area. I recently met with representatives of the Sierra Club and other conservation organizations in my district to discuss some of their proposals for wilderness additions in the Los Padres -- recommendations that they will share with you today.

Briefly, the Sierra Club has recommended an additional 77,700 acres of wilderness for my district in the Los Padres. Of the areas proposed, over 63,000 would consist of additions to the existing Ventana wilderness. Another 14,600 acres would constitute a proposed Silver Peak Wilderness. However, I understand that the final forest plan recommends no wilderness designations in this part of the Los Padres.

In addition, in my discussions with the Sierra Club, they have identified three rivers in the 16th district which they would propose for wild and scenic designation. These include Little Sur, Big Sur, and Arroyo Seco. Of these rivers, the Forest Service has recommended wild and scenic designation for only the Big Sur River. 153

The areas proposed by the Sierra club for wilderness designation support a diversity of flora and fauna, including critical habitat for endangered species such as the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and the California condor. These areas vary widely in character, including some that truly represent the pristine character of wilderness and others where signs of human entry and activity remain and cannot be erased. Several include valuable archaeological sites and outstanding scenic vistas of Big Sur and the Pacific shoreline.

However, many of the areas also proposed for wilderness designation by the Sierra Club also support activities that would conflict with and perhaps preclude wilderness designation. It is these conflicts which we are now in the process of identifying and further investigating.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I have no specific wilderness or wild and scenic area designations to recommend to the Subcommittee this morning. However, I do intend to meet further with representatives of the community and the Forest service, as well as others who share an interest in the resources of the Los Padres National Forest and a concern for how it will be managed in the future.

It is my hope that during the August recess we will be able to identify areas that truly warrant wilderness or wild and scenic river designation in my district and resolve any conflicts that might hinder their potential for special recognition. Then, with your assistance and the aid of your staff, I hope to be able to develop a package of 1M recommendations that the Subcommittee might consider during mark-up of

H.R. 1473.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, although I come to the Subcommittee with no specific recommendations at this time, I remain strongly interested in pursuing this matter further. By this fall, I fully intend to be in a position to offer my recommendation to the Subcommittee for measures to be taken to protect the splendor of the Los Padres National Forest for present and future generations.

Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to appear before you today. 155

Written Testimony submitted to subcommittee on Nation'al Parks & Public Lands

HR 1473

Public Record Opened July 18, 1989

by Raymond D. Green Mutau Meadows, Inc. Friends of the Mutau 3200 La Rotonda Dr., #514 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 156

Congressman Vento and Subcommittee Members:

I am submitting this statement in order to provide input fOl HR 1473 on behalf of the family and friends of private landowners (inholders) situated in Los Padres National Forest. This property consists of several hundred acres now held by the direct descendants of the original cattle ranchers who homesteaded the

property in the 186~'s. For more than 12G years and 6 generations, the Snedden/O'Keefe families have maintained cattle

ranching and other operations within Los Padres National Forest. The present operations are conducted by Mutau Meadows, Inc, as well as by various individual families, These families, their friends and Mutau Meadows, Inc., support HR 1473 and the sections therein designating the Sespe

Wilderness. HR 1473 is an appropriate step in accomplishing the goals set forth in the Los Padres National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan. We ~ecognize the propriety and

necessity creating such areas to p~eserve and enjoy the unique attributes of the sespe. HoweVer, of specific concern are the boundaries established for the Sespe Wilderness. Section 2 "Designation of Wilderness

~!eas" of HR 1473 (page 2, line 18 et seq.) potentially impacts our property interests for the reason that the designated Sespe Wilderness abuts the family land holdings. On a map, the family parcels known as "Mutau Flats" are situated on the northern boundary of the Sespe Wilderness. Proposals have been made to move this boundary further north and substantially increase the

~15-l473.SMT 157

size of the Sespe ~ilderness. These ohanges would thereby surround or subsume the family holdings within the Sespe Wilderness. This result is unaoceptable for the reasons stated herein. HR 1473 establishes the Sespe Wilderness oonsistent with the recommendations set forth in the Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (the "Plan") drafted by the Forest Service. More that 7 years of preparation, review and input (both oral and written) from more than leee conoerned citizens resulted in the Plan's recommended location of the Sespe Wilderness northern boundary. HR 1473 is consistent with that

recommended northern boundary. ~o ignore those recommendations and to now accept different boundaries would be to ignore the best information available. In addition, past and present operations in cattle ranching, agriculture and other developments have left their indelible mark on Los Padres National Forest and remove such lands from proper consideration as wilderness. Increasing the ,area of the sespe wilderness beyond that designated in HR 1473 would be incongruent with the past and present uses of Los Padres National Forest and would therefore fail to achieve the stated purposes of the wilderness designation. We feel that those proposals increasing. the area of the Sespe Wilderness are proposals based strictly on acreage and not upon the suitability of those acres as wilderness.

rnS-1473. SMT page 2

43-252 0 - 91 - 6 158

In conclusion, our support of HR 1473, as submitted by Congressmen Lagomarsino and Oa11egly, is based on the fact that HR 1473 follows the established recommendations for the designation of the northern boundary of the sespe Wi1derne~6. HR 1473 best affects the coexistence of private lands and wilderness areas and baiances the limited resources of the Forest Service to provide effective management. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,

Inc. of the Mutau RDC/

CIlS-1473.SMT Page 3 159

FRIENDS OF THE R I V E R

July 28, 1989

The Honorable Bruce Vento Chairman, House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Land . 818 House Annex #1 Washington, D.C. 20515

R.. : U.R. 1473

Dear Chairman Vento, Thank you for accepting additional written testimony on H.R. 1473. As you know, Friends of the River testified at the 7/18/89 hearing on this bill and submitted written testimony. This follow-up is Intended to clarify some Important Issues and .rebut some ot the pOints raised by the opponents ot tull Wlld'and Scenic River protection for Sespe Creek.

FREEMAN DIVERSION & WATER DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES A contentious issue raised at the hearing was whether rhe Keep the Sespe Wild Committee (KSWC) was proViding the public the "full story" about water development and the supposed need for dams on Sespe Creek. Enclosed are copies of the KSWC's August '88 and December '88 newsletters. Please note that the August newsletter discusses the Freeman DiVersion and the groundwater overdratt problem while the December newsletter provides detailed information on water conservation. In addition, KSWC submitted a video ot their slideshow to committee stall and several members. This Video prominently mentions the Freeman Diversion, the overdraft problem and the need for water conservation measures. Dam proponents have been caught off guard by the tremendous outpouring ot public support for full protection of all 01 the Sespe, even in the face of possible water shortages. It appears that the public is cognizant ot a basic fact that the dam proponents ignore: damming the Bespe will not solve Ventura County's groundwater overdraft problem or meet future water needs. Ironically, this fact was Inadvertently confirmed by one of the dam proponents at the hearing. Carolyn Leavens, a local farmer, past President of the Taxpayers Association and Chair of the Ventura County Economic Development Association Water Committee, stated In her testimony: We have been most reluctant to accept this compromise since our figures show that we will surely run out of water by the turn ot the century even It we are able to develop all our resources) conserve all that we can, and recycle all the water available to that process. In effect, Ms. Leavens is stating that the county will be out of water within 11 years even If the Sespe was dammed. This shocking statement confirms the tact that dams on the Sespe will not solve the county's water problems.

909 12da Sa.s. SIIite 207 • :s-.-a. CA 95114 (916) 442-3155 • S.F. 0f6c:r. Fon .-- Calef, I..ua.,; c., SP Fracilco. CA 94123 (415) 77I.cMOO 160

Equally startling statements can be found in the eight page "Business Action Alert" published by the Ventura County Economic Development Association (VCEDA) and submitted for the record by Chuck Bennett. For example, VCEDA's alert indicates that the county will need up to 300,000 acre feet of "new" water to meet future population growth (which is grossly overesUmated) and then states elsewhere In the text that the Coldsprings and Oat Mountain Dams will only supply 8,000 acre feet. Significantly, the alert, as well as most of the pro-dam testimony at the hearing, made only the briefest mention of water conservation.

This issue boils down into four basic points:

1) Beyond what the creek is already contributing at the Freeman Diversion, the Sespe cannot meet, in any slgnficant way, lhe county's current and future water needs.

2) There are alternative water sources to damming the Sespe, including the State Water Project, water reclamation and conservation.

3) Local governments and agencies have not made any signf1cant efforts to seriously enact water conservation measures.

4) The groundwater overdraft problem-will only be resolved by regulating groundwater pumping.

KSWC'S BUSINESS ENDORSEMENTS

The more than 800 business endorsements collected by KSWC in support of full protection of the Sespe are far more than mere signatures on a petition. Each endorsement was personally solicited, completed and returned to KSWC. The endorsements emphasize the strong local support for designation of all 55 miles of the Sespe. It Is Important to note that the Farm Bureau and Chamber of Commerce have never bothered to poll their membership concerning their support of dams on the Sespe.

THE LOWER SESPE

You will recall the confusion over the generic use of the term "Wild and Scenic". The proposed classification of the lower Sespe downstream of the National Forest boundary Is "Recreational". None of the organizations supporting protection of the entire Sespe have ever proposed the downstream private land segment for "Wlld" or "Scenic" classjflcation.

It is important to note that many rivers currently in the National Wild and Scenic System are entirely comprised of private lands. Granted, the lower segment is somewhat developed and is less scenic than the publ1c!y owned segments, but the retention of this segment's free flowing character 1s essential for the protection of the creek's "outstandingly remarkable" anadromous fishery (a resource identified by the National Park Service and Forest Service). Although we support "Recreational" designation of this lower segment, an amendment to H.R. 1473 that guarantees the maintenance 161 of downstream flows for the purposes of anadromous fish passage without actually designating the lower segment would be acceptable.

OAT MOVRTAIR DAM & SEDIMERT PLOW In his oral testimony, consulting engineer Phil White ably rebutted the United Water Conservation District's (UWCD) contention that a Oat Mountain dam could be designed to prevent the restriction of sand, gravel and sediment flow. He noted that such a facility could be designed for sediment passage, but the sand and gravel would then accumulate just downstream of the dam since the structure would restrict high flows necessary to flush the materials downstream to the ocean. UWCD used the Red Bluff Diversion Dam as an example of a dam designed to provide for the downstream passage of sand and gravel. This is true only to the extent that the design is intended to prevent the filling-In of the Red Bluff reservoir, not necessarily to guarantee adequate downstream migration of sand and gravel. In addition, the design of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam has contributed signficantly to the endangered status of the Sacramento River winter run chinook salmon. There is a strong possibility that a similar design at Oat Mountain could threaten the already decimated Sespe steelhead runs.

LOW WATER PLOWS IR THE SESPE As Kevin Coyle of American Rivers noted in the hearing, nothing in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits the designation of rivers with seasonal flows so long as they are free flowing. Much of the segment two of the Sespe falls Into this category, with the creek flowing under gravel at several spots only to re-appear in crystal clear and cold pools teeming with trout and swimmers. Despite its seasonal nature, this segment sustains much of the recreational use On the Sespe, with two major campgrounds, a . developed trail system and the scenic wonders of Sespe Gorge along Highway 33. Congressman Lagomarsino indicated that he has caught trout in this segment and the Forest Service has determined that It Is Indeed eligible and would be suitable except for the Cold Springs dam proposal. The proximity to Highway 33 to the upper portion of segment two should not disqualify It for protection. Congress has deSignated many rivers which are adjacent to roads and highways. In summary, we still support full protection of the entire 55 miles of Sespe Creek. At the minimum an amended bill should designate all of segment two and three, as well as guarantee the preservation of the Sespe's free flowing characterlsltics downstream of the National Forest boundary to allow for anadromous fish passage. Our position-on other aspects of this bill remain unchanged, including: * Designation of 33 miles of the Sisquoc River instead of 31, including the two miles of the river downstream of the San Rafael Wilderness boundary. 162

* Amending the bill to incorporate other areas and rivers on the Los Padres National Forest. • Increasing the size of the Sespe Wilderness and permanently closing the Johnston Ridge trail to motorcycle use.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony concerning H.R. 1473. We are willing to work with the committee to Improve this bill '"' F~" - ••~, _'"oo,~ :t:t=-

Steven L. Evans Associate Conservation ·Director 163

rri('l1ci~ ()f t.he Ventura River

ilarcrl 31. 1989

P.ob~rt J Lagomarsino 19~n C0ngr~sslonal DIstrl,=t 2332 Rayburn Bulldmg Washington. DC 20515

Dear Congressman Lagomarsino.

RE: los Padres National Forest, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Designations (HR 1473)

Thank you for sendmg a copy of your proposea bIll whIch would aeslgnate portIons of the Los Padres National Forest as wilderness. and portions of Sespe Creek and the Sisauoc River as wild and scenic rivers.

The FRIENDS, an organization of approximately 500 members, were especially pleased by the proposed designation of the Matll1ja Wilderness Area. This area comprises an Important part of the Ventura River watersMd, and before the construction of Matilija Dam in 1948 was the principal spawning area for mIgratory SteE'lhead trout in the Ventura River The MatlliJa Creek and tributaries still support an important population of native resident trout. and could aaain be accessible to ocean aoina Steelhead with the' eventual removal of the Matill.ia dam which has been severeiv damaged ana Silted in.

Our membership has also been involved with the efforts to protect the Santa Clara/5espe Creek river system. For the past 12 years we have worked diligently wltn tne State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Fish ana Game, ana the' U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServIce to protect and enhance the remnant Steelhead fishery in the Santa Clara River system. The Sespe Creek comprises the most important Steelhead spawnina area of the Santa Clara svstem. and Its protection is essential to the maintenance ana restoration of this uniQue resource in southern California. For this reason, we would urge you to modify HR 1473 to designate the entire 55 miles of the Sespe Creek as a wild and sceniC river.

Excluamg portIons of the Sespe CreeK from thl' wild ana scemc designation to rl'Sl'rve pOSSible damn sites IS not only inconsistent WIth the baSIC purpose of the wild and scenic rivers designation but runs counter to the efforts which have been

62 :>OUTH OLIVE STREET SAN BUENIlYENT!lRA "AIIFORNIA 93G01 ,aOSI643·€()74 164

maoe oy me State water Resoun:es Control Board and others to ensure mat tht' new Vern Frl:'eman DiverS10n on the Santa Clara RIVer IS equipped With a fiSh passage facility to allow adult Steelhead entering the Santa Clara River from the ocean to reach the spawn Ina arounds of Sespe Creek. It is Important that the effort and public mOnies Wh-ICh have been expended over the past dozen years are not be wasted by failure to Include portions of Sespe Creek essential for the . protection and restoration of the anadromous fishery of the Santa ClaralSespe river system.

The Friends appreCIate your Interest in thiS Important legislation and hope that our comments will be useful In the further deliberation and modification of the HR 1473.

Sincerely, ~~.~ru-Jk MARK H. CAPELL I Execut ive Director

MHC/

State Water Resources Control Board California Department of FiSh and Game U.S. Fish and WlIdllfe Service 165

®

May 2, 1989

Keep the Sespe Wild Committee PO Box 715 . Ojai, CA 93023 To the committee: BACKPACKER magazine endorses your efforts to preserve all of the Sespe Creek from damming projects. Please use this letter as needed to represent our support. The Sespe is California's last major free-flowing river; it supplies sediments and water flow vital to downstream ecology; and it is a backcountry recreational resource valued by our 170,000 readers, as well as the approximately 9 million backpackers nationwide. The Sespe's remarkable natural beauty prompted BACKPACKER to feature the creek in our May, 1988 issue. Exposing half of this ecosystem to development would damage it as much as total development; the creek must be protected in its entirety if any preservation efforts are to be effective. BACKPACKER urges officials to first exhaust the environmentally sound alternatives to water conservation available before turning to the proposed dam projects. Sincerely,

Bruce Franks Assistant Editor Enclosure: Sespe WW

33 EAST MINaR STREET, EMMAUS, PA 18098 • 215"967-5171 • FAX #215"965-5670 166

Board of Directon HANNEL ISLANDS BEACH JAMES ,. HENRY. President JUDY M. DUNN, ViC(' Preident JAMES A. ANTONIOLI PATRICK M. FORREST WANDA M. PIRKLE II OMMUNITY G SE~~:; DlS:C; CERARD W. KAPUSCIK, Grn~al MiRol8ef

353 Santa Monica Drive. Channel Islands. CA 9303~598 • (805) 985-6021 A PUBLIC ENTITY SERVING CHANNEL ISLANDS BEACHES AND HARBOR

June 8, 1989

Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino U.S. House of RepresentaUves Washington, DC. 20515

SUBJECT: CIBCSD SUPPORT OF HR 1473 - SESPE CREEK WILD & SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION

Dear Congressman Lagomarsino:

I am wriUng to you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Channel Islands Beach Community Services District. The Board reviewed HR 1473 during a recent Board meeting. The Board voted to support your-legislation as the first step in a process that we strongly feel should ultimately lead to the protection of the WIm 55 miles of Sespe Creek as a Wild and Scenic River.

Our District provides a variety of public services to residents and businesses located within the unincorporated beach communities that surround the Channel Islands Harbor, better known as the Hollywood Beach, Hollywood by the Sea and Silver Strand tracts. Among those services is the production, treatmenl and transportation of water. We are also Ex-Officio members of BEACON. As such, our Board is greatly concerned with the issue of balance in the management of our valuable natural resources, both water and sand.

Our District is a groundwater pumper located on the Oxnard basin. We support UWCD in its efforts to combat seawater intrusion and increase the recharge of groundwater in our local aquHers through the construction of the Freeman Diversion Facility. In fact, our District annually pays about $17,500 in ground_ter pump charges to help finance these projects. As such. we are keenly aware of the need for sound water management and conservation practices in our community. We participate in the County's Water Conservation ..anagement Program. And. we have structured our water rates through a 'Increaslng block-tiered rate" system to encourage wise use and frugal habits in the daily use of water by our residential and commercial customers.

We understand that if a dam would be built on the Sespe Creek. it would be so expensive that the cost of water produced would approach $1 DOO/acre foot. By way of comparison the current cost of water obtained from the Hueneme & Fox Canyon aqoHers. treated and supplied to our customers approximates S 250lacre loot (Ie. I'fItaIl cosl).This would mean that it we had to begin to rely on water from the Sespe Creek dam. we estimate that costs to our customers would at least qusdruple. We don't think that water from Sespe Creek is very cost effective. And we believe that there are JI1bn alternatives to damming the Sespe.

~mbl"r 01: AuoclatlOn oi (.hlOm,a \\'0111'1 "1If'nn("!.· o\C\\" .. tori'll POWf'1'l- In~ur.m' .. "u!lv·~;:·. Calliomla iilOd \ll!'I'ItUT. Count\ 5~,,,1 O,st~ln' "~!out'allOr.. \.t':l:U'.:ll

Congressman Lagomarslno-HR1473 June .8. 1989 PegeTwo

In addition to being Involved In the supply of water to .our beach community. we are also residents and homeowners of a beach community. As such. we have expresSed our concems in the past regarding the need to mWaala downstream erosion Impacts associated with water resource projects. such as the Freeman Dlveralon FaCility. by "pre-filling" Impoundment areas with Imported material. We do not see how It would be possible to mitigate such Impacts should a dam be built on Seape Creek. According to published technical reports from BEACON. the Santa Clara River represents the I.IDA1I. largest source of sand supply to the Santa Barbara UHoral Cell. It Is estimated that sand production In the river represents approximately 60% 01 the total longshore sand transport rete moving south In this littoral cell. We also understand that It Is estimated that mo", than half of ths sand slud sediment delivered to our oceen beeche. trom the Santa Cia", River Is ettrlbutable to Sespe Creak. Accordingly. any major reductions In the rate of sand produced In the Santa Clara River (Ie. Sespe Creek Dam) has the potential for causing utlmIa beach eroSion.

We urge you to continue to exert a leadership role in attempting to balance various Interests while seeking a resolution to these resource management problems. We would appreciate II greatly if the District could be kept Informed of any significant developments regarding HR 1473. II there is anything further that our District can do to support your efforts in these mailers. please feel Iree to contact the Districlthrough our General Manager. Gerard W. Kapusclk. at the District Office. Tel. No. (805) 985-6021.

Sincerely.

James J. Hanry. President Board of Directors

ex::: Congressman Elton Gallegly Senator Alan Cranston Senator Pete Wilson Supervisor John K. Flynn Oxnard City Council Port Hueneme City Council EIE'GCN UV«:O 168

Citizens to Preserve tlie Ojai p.o. Box 635' Ojai, CaCifomia 9JO:!J

12 July 1989 Congressman Robert Lagomarsino Subcommittee on National Parks Room 508, House Annex 1 Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: Hearings on Sespe Bill HB 1473 Dear Congressman Lagomarsino: Citizens to Preserve the Ojai, a non profit public interest group in the Ojai Valley with 700 members of which you are a member, wishes to submit comments on the upcoming debate for House Bill 1473. The Sespe Creek is a resource of such value for the County of Ventura that it may be compared to the value the Yosemite Valley has for the rest of the nation. Much has been learned in the past two decades about the importance of the natural environment. We must save this last remnant of a wild California stream. The activities of man must not be allowed to· take all of the natural resources for its use and abuse. We do not live here as a single organism without regard to the remainder of life. You can make this bill a model for the 21st century. Demonstrate to your colleagues in congress and to your constituents, that respect for the natural environment and the wildlife the lives therein also are your constituents, by strengthening your bill to include the entire 55 miles of Sespe Creek. . To provide a water resource for an area that has overpopulated itself with an artificial water source and polluted itself because of that same reason, is no longer an acceptable justification for further dependance on a hydraulic society. Please leave us a wild Sespe Creek as a legacy of your public service. KEEP THE SESPE WILD. Thank you for your continued efforts for a Ventura County fit for the future.

;at'a;;:reene President 169

ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION

12 July 1989 Congressman Robert Lagomarsino Subcommittee .of Natienal Parks Room 508, House Annex 1 Washington D.C. 20515 Re: Subcommittee Hearings on HB 1473 sespe Creek Bill Dear Congressman Lagomarsino: The Environmental Coalition of Ventura County has taken a strong position of support fer the protection of the complete 55 mile stretch of the Sespe Creek. We urge you to recensider your position te allew the damming of this great stream. Southern Califernia has been addicted te the growth previded by extraterritorial water resources for over half a century. Continuing to shoot water inte the veins of this unholy need by using this last resource .of our own, will someday lead to a more barren landscape than the desert that existed here before us; an urban desert. devoid of beauty. This water reseurce is being used as a hedged bet against future economic growth. Ecenemic growth will exacerbate the buildup of carbon diexide and ozone. We can understand your desire to reach a compromise position - en the issue. However, Cengressman Lagomarsino, we seem to be past the point .of balancing one side against the other for compremise as we stare inte the future of the "Greenheuse Effect". To previde for econemic grewth at the expense of life on earth is net a fair compromise position for anyone. Please reconsider yeur pesition en this last vestige .of a California wild and free stream. Please Keep The (ENTIRE) Sespe Wild. - Thank yeu. c

POST OFFICE BOX 68 • VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93002

43-252 0 - 91 - 7 170

')""b/YI>m·.t & ::]6.",r&y , C /J 93'11'(.) Subcommittee on Public Lands House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Vento and Subcommittee Members:

The Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club has long been concerned with Wilderness issues In the Los Padres Forest. We have commented on the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE I f) process, and are In the process of appealing the latest Forest Service Management Plan.

The Lagomarsino BfI1 HR 1473 designates a small additional Wilderness area, however, it fails to consider the needs of the Los Padres National Forest as a whole. It allows for the continued use of off-road vehicles in the Wilderness Areas, an activity that is incompatible with the Wilderness des Ignat! on.

The Lagomarsino 8f11 has alerted the Sierra Club to the need for legislation that encompasses the entire Los Padres Forest. Specifically, In Monterey County, we would like to see the following areas Included in a total Los Padres Forest Wilderness Bill:

* The Sliver Peak Area, a new Wilderness designation in the southern coastal area of Monterey County, and

* 4 areas which would expand the southern and eastern boundaries of the existing Ventana Wi Iderness: Chalk Peak, Bear Mountain, Bear Canyon, and Black Butte.

SILVER PEAK AREA: Sliver Peak Is a popular primitive recreation area, containing 3 important botanical areas - Alder Creek, Lion Den, and the Southern Redwood, Including the southern most stand of native redwoods In existence. The area is also Important because of the sensitive vlewshed of the Big Sur coast. 171

Condor Range and Rivers Act

CHALK PEAK' The naturalness of this area seems little disturbed, and possesses a true primitive character. Due to the wide range of elevation, the vegetation ranges from chaparral/madrone/oak and riparian vegetation. This wide range of vegetation supports a wide variety of wildlife. When this area was considered under the RARE II process, there was overwhelming public support for a Wilderness designation.

BEAR MOUNTAIN: The Arroyo Seco River Gorge is located in the Bear Mountain Area. This scenic river provides outstanding recreation opportunities In a wilderness setting, accessible to nearby populated areas. The river Is lined with spectacular rock formations and winds through scenic steep narrow gorges.

BEAR CANYON: Junlpero Sera, the highest peak In Monterey County, Is In this area. The University of California has withdrawn Its application to build an observatory on the peak. Bear Canyon Is a critical wildlife habitat for the Golden Eagle and a possible nesting area for the Prairie Falcon. The spring wildflowers are an annual attraction.

BLACK BUTTE: Public comments on the Forest Service Plan favored Wilderness designation for this area containing Lower Pines Creek, noted for its colorful wildflower displays of rare and seldom seen species. The Black Butte area Includes the major drainages of the Arroyo Seco River and the Tassajara Creek. Its cool, mOist, shady canyons forested with California sycamore, alder, and other vegetation provide pleasant relief from the surrounding steep, dry brushy terrain.

In conclUSion, we wish the 81,000 acres of Monterey County wilderness described above to be added to a comprehensive Wilderness Bill for the Los Padres National Forest, called the CONDOR RANGE AND RIVERS ACT The areas to be protected in this legislation would provide habitat for the eventual release of the American Condors following the current captive breeding program. There have been sightings of the recently released Andean Condors using historic Condor range covered by this proposed comprehensive Wilderness B1II. 172

CONDOR RANGE AND RIVERS ACT los Pmres N.F. Wilderness & Wild RIvers B111 Summary of Wilderness Component

A Congressman Panetta's District:

New Wilderness Area: I. Sliver Peak - Roadless Area 106 (released) 15,000 acres AddItIons to the Ventana Wilderness: 2. Chalk Peak - Roadless Area 105 (released) 8,000 acres 3. Bear MountaIn - Further Planning Area 103 21,000 acres 4. Bear Canyon - Further Planning Area 104 15,000 acres 5. Black Butte - Further Planning Area 102 22.000 acres

5UB-TOTAL ...... 81,000 acres

B. congressman Thomas's District: 1. Garcia - Roadless Area 15,000 acres

C. Congressman LagomarSino's District: C1 1. LaBrea (San Rafael addition) -1'6,500 acres 2. Mat111Ja 3~,000 acres 3. Plnos-Quatal (Sawm1ll-Badlands) S'S'60,000 acres 4. Sespe ;)-0-' 250.000 acres

SUB-TOT AL...... 356,S()()'Qcres rf'f'(j TOTAL NEW AND ADDITIONAL WILDERNESS ACREAGE IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST: 452.500 acres S-f'3 ) u-rJ 173

Condor Range and Rivers Act - Monterey County Section Page 2

A mixture of vegetation cover consists of 45% grassland; 35% chamise/chaparral; 10% woodland; 5% woodland/grassland; an isolated grove of redwoods found in Villa Creek and Redwood Gulch; groves of Sargent cypress at the head of Salmon Creek; and a 10 acre plantation of Ponderosa pine in the vicinity of lion Peak. Other species include scattered groves of Digger pine, Santo Lucia fir, and Douglas fir.

There are six trails (20 miles) and eight trail camps located along streams. The area provides many scenic views of the ocean. There are a number of sensitive plants in this area, and the Forest Service has proposed three small Botanical Areas - Alder Creek, lion Den, and Southern Redwoods. The limited boundaries of the Forest Service Botanical Areas do not provide sufficient protection for the species that are out of Botanical Area boundaries. Alder Creek and lion Den areas contain a number of rare serpentine endemiC plants. The Southern Redwoods Botanical Area includes the southern most stand of native redwoods in existence. There have been sightings of the. Cal1fornia condor and Peregrine falcon. Wildl1fe is mainly deer, bear, cougar, small game, and there may be some zebra and elk which have strayed form the Hearst Ranch. Wild turkeys are found in one isolated pocket, and there is a native trout fishery within the area. Archaeological sites are numerous and the frequency is significant.

The Silver Peak area is supported for wilderness designation because of its rich botanical resources, sensitive location in the viewshed of the Big Sur Coast, and its popularity for primitive recreation. Resource protection should be the highest goal for this area. When this area was considered for Wilderness under the RARE II process, the public supported a Wilderness claSSification by three to one.

2. CHALK PEAK: The Chalk Peak area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of King City, in the southerly portion of the Monterey Ranger District, adjacent to Ft. Hunger-liggett. Access is via State Highway 1 to the Nacimiento-Ferguson Road, Highway 1 to the Plaskett/South Coast ridge Road, and from Ft Hunter-Liggett via the NaCimiento-Ferguson Road. The Ventana Wilderness is located on the north side of this area. 174

Condor Range and Rivers Act - Monterey County Section Page 3

Located in the Santa Lucia Mountain range, the elevation of the area ranges from 1300' to 3550', features highly dissected canyons with tributaries to the Nacimiento River, with the major drainage being San Miguel Creek. Vegetation is characterized by a mixture of chaparral/madrone/oak species and riparian vegetation in the canyon bottoms, especially along Nacimiento River. There are some archaeological sites in the area. Wildllfe includes deer, cougar, bear, along with valley and mountain Quail, rabbits, bandtailed pigeons and doves. The natural integrity of the area seems little disturbed. Chalk Peak posses an untrammeled primitive character.

When this area was considered for Wilderness under the RARE II process, the Forest Service dropped it despite overwhelming public support for a Wilderness cklssification.

3. BEAR MOUNTAIN: The Bear Mountain area is seven miles west of King City between Reliz Canyon and Juniper Serra Peak on the east boundary of the Ventana Wilderness. It includes Bear Mountain and Pinyon Peak and an unimproved dirt road (limited access) leading from the Pine Canyon area to Bear Mountain, Pinyon Peak and Juniper Serra Peak. This area contains a unique assemblage of relict plants on the summit of the peak, including one of the two stands of sugar pines in the Monterey District. The predominant vegetation type is chaparral with inclusions of grasslands, hardwood forest, and conifer forest. Along with the adjoining areas, Bear Mountain is histOric Condor habitat. Wilderness designation is strongly recommended to preserve the area's wildlife and watershed values.

4. BEAR CANYON: Bear Canyon, located in the Monterey Ranger District, lies ten miles west of King City. Its northwestern border adjoins the Ventana Wilderness . . Access is gained from the Indians via a four-wheel drive route to Junipero Serra Peak and onto Bear Mountain. This route is usable as a foot and horse trail. The Santa Lucia Trail (0.5 mile) lies within the westerly portion of the area. The roodless area, located in the Santa Lucio Mountains, is composed of highly dissected canyons containing tribut.aries to the San Antonio River. The two major drainages are Santo Lucia and Bear t;anyon which flow south into the San AntoniO River. 175

Condor Range and Rivers Act - Monterey County Section Page 4

Elevations range from 2,000 to 5,465 feet on the main ridge south of Junlpero Serra Peak. The area Is characterIZed by chaparral covered slopes along the main ridges and riparian vegetation in the canyon bottoms. TM area contains mule deer, wl1d pigs, and associated species found in mixed chaparral vegetative type. Valley quail are found in the canyon bottoms and mountain quail occur at higher elevations. Rabbits, bandtailed pigeons, and doves also occur. There is critical wildlife habitat of the Golden Eagle and the Prairie Falcon (possible nesting areas). There are three archaeological sites identified In the area. The area Is noted for its spectacular Spring wlldflower displays. The University of California has withdrawn its application to build an observatory on Junipero Sera Peak, the highest peak In Monterey County.

5. BLACK BUTTE: The Black Butte area Is twelve miles west of Greenfield between Chews Ridge and the Arroyo Seco. It Includes the area north of the Arroyo Seco Gorge, and Black Butte, Rocky Creek and much of Lower Piney Creek, which Is known for Its colorful wildflower displays. Part of the area Is adjacent to the easterly boundary of the Ventana Wilderness. Cool, mOist, shady canyons forested with California sycamore, alder, and other vegetation provide pleasant relief from the surrounding steep, dry brushy terrain. The predominant vegetation type Is chaparral with Inclusions of grassland, hardwood forest, and conifer forest. Wilderness deSignation for Black Butte IS needed because of Its Intrinsic natural value and Its key location adjoining the Ventana wilderness. Wilderness designation for this area wlll preserve wildlife and watershed values. This area needs to be protected from overgrazing and the establishment of any new off road vehicle routes.

Wild Rivers Component In Monterey County:

1. Arroyo Seeo Rlyer: This river was not assessed by the Forest Service In the planning process. Legislation was proposed several years 176

Condor Range and Rivers Act - Monterey County Section Page 5

ago thot would have allowed the construction of a dam reservoir on this river which would have flooded a portion of the Ventana Wilderness. Although this legislation was defeated, Wild and Scenic designation would assure thot any dam would be built on a downstream site of the river. The Arroyo Seco River provides outstanding opportunities for developed and primitive recreation and is highly regarded as a superb seasonal class III-IV Whitewater run.

2. LITTLE SUR RIVER: The Big Sur Multi-Agency Advisory Board is currently exploring the potential of a cooperative Wild and Scenic study of the little Sur by federal, state and local agencies. Outstanding remarkable values include the largest steel head fishery on the central coast, redwood groves, threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species, and opportunities for primitive and developed recreation. These values are imminently threatened by a proposed large scale limestone mining operation (Pico Blanco) and by urban development on the lower river.

We recommend designation within the National Forest boundary and a Wild and Scenic study of the lower river downstream of the National Forest. (See the Protected Waterway Management Plans for the Big Sur and the little Sur Rivers which are part of the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan of Monterey County, certified on April 10, 1986 by the California Coastal Commission.)

3. Big Sur River: Another important steel head stream flowing through stately groves of redwoods, the Big Sur also accommodates heavy recreation use. The river and the surrounding area remain in a natural condition. Additionally, the abundance of rapid flowing water, interesting landforms, pools, springs, occaSional waterfalls, and diverse vegetation including redwoods, provide a combination of visual features uncommon to this region. The Big Sur River is one of the longest and most gradual of the coastal streams lined with redwoods. -

We propose on expansion beyond the Forest Service recommendation to include the North and South Fork headwaters and a Wild and Scenic River - study of the lower Big Sur River downstream of the forest boundary. 177

AWA6 Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County

'~QrIdar:...... Boardofllflel:lln

-.''''''S;m"'W~LJD ...... / --""'--.CdlasIlWD ~ JIlly 13, 1989 ~RoatAlWC..... -..l:ldlCu'fs v....-a",-cwo '!he Honorable Robert ragomarsino Aidla-dt~ LW_dl'lCD 5740 Ralston Avenue .....CJtrdVnn Ventura, CA 93003 P~ridr.1.tlIet- """"'''''' --..V"",Co.FItm8.nrill Dear congressman ragomarsino: '!he i\sSOCiation of Water lIgencies of Ventura COUnty voted on Jtme 8, 1989 to take a fonnal position of support for HR 4746, designating 27.5 miles of the sespe creek as a Wild and scenic River. We UIKlerstand this bill represents an important compromise between opposing positions regarding ..nether or not the sespe creek should remain in its current status or be a possible site for a future dam.

We appreciate your leadership and perserverance on this difficult issue. If there are any adelltional efforts the i\sSOCiation can make to support your position on this bill, please do not hesitste to ask.

Sincerely, ~~~~K4~'- Frank Brarnmenschenkel President

cc. Ventura COUnty Economic Developnent i\sSOCiation Ventura COUnty Taxpayer's AssOCiation

do Resource Management Agency· 800 South Victoria Ayenue • Ventura, CA 93009 • (805) 654-3615 178

SIERRA CLUB NATIVE AMERICAN SITES COMMITTEE

Department of Anthropology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608

July 13, 1989

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman Interior Committee, Public Lands Subcommittee Attn. Dale Crane, Staff Director 812 Annex 1 Washington, DC 20515 31 Re: HR 14i3- of Hon. Lago~Marsino

Dear Mr. Vento~

I 'am writing this letter to express my considered opinion th~t Mr. J-a.!1 P - Marsino's bill is flawed in that it does not give protection to many {J cultural resources which lie outside the proposed wilderness boundaries. As an archeologist and anthropologist, I am aware that the general region of the proposal contains a large number of documented rock art sites. For example, .Piedra Blanca Creek has several such sites (mainly picturgraphs). The Piedra Blanca area is not in Mr. Marsinols proposed 197,000 acres of wilderness but is within the larger Condor Range and Rivers proposal.

From an etlmographic perspective, several sites sacred to the Chumash ~ribe are also not' protected by HR 1473 but ar,e, under the other proposal. These include sacred areas along Piedra Blanca Creek and also the sacred site of Mt. Pinos. The lattar is tha highast, point in the area and is felt to have been the Chumash t s world center.

WhUe these important cultural resources outside of the HR 1411= protective limits presently retain their integrity, failure to protect them now could result in their being damaged and desecrl\ted. Mining activities, in addition to obvious primary impacts, are known to cause significant increases in visitors which frequently results in vandalism and even looting of rock art. Potential dam sites are present along the drainages in this area, th~ development of which could further damage these precious and fragile resources. I therefore urge you to add to the proposed wilderness by including the full 280,000 acres as defined in the Condor Range and Rivers proposal.

Sincerely, I-I~IJ~ Harvard G. Ayers Chair

To preserve' and protect the rich heritage of past and present Nanve ~rican peoples, 179

1 19 SOUTH POW AVENUE O.lAI. CALIFORNIA 93023

(eo!!) 64e.o7157 14 July 1989

Congressman Lagomarsino

Subcommittee on National Parks Room 508, House Annex 1 Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Business Community Support for a Wild And Scenic Sespe

Dear Congressman Lagomarsino:

The employees and management of Baby Boots are in complete support of the position the Keep the Sespe Wild Committee has taken. We hope that you will amend your position to dam the upper and lower reaches of the creek and support the designation of a Wild and Scenic River status for the complete 55 mile length of the creek.

The development community support for these dams is misguided because the yield from the proposed dams is not cost effective, is growth inducing, and would worsen already existing pollution problems. Also, the geology on which these dams would rest is also not conducive to a safe dam site.

Now is the time to demonstrate to your colleagues in congress that the environment is the most compelling issue facing the nation today.

We urge you to support Keep the Sespe Wild Committee and their position.

Thank you for your attention in this most important issue in your representative area.

Sincerely, 180

SA('"RAMENTO OFFICE CQ\tt,.1ITTEES STATE CAPITOL CHAlR?Ei=lSON PO BOX 942a~9 SACRAMENTO. CAUFQRNIA 942.:9·0001 SUBCO.l\l, roES 0N [9161.145·8292 WtlC.:.t l)'~AL :::EF0:::'.1 SANTA BAABARAOFF',CE J\.ss:emblg WAYS ;'NO \t1E;..~:S STUDIO 127. EL PASEO SLrSCOMMITTEE ...'~. SANTABARBARA 0.93101 RESOloRCES .!GRC:":'T'.. AE {80St966·2296 (!!,difnrniu 'lfi:egislutur:e AND TrtE ENv,FlO~;"lE'IIT QXNAADOFflCE MEMBER 300 SOUTH C STREET SUITE 4 JACK O'CONNELL EDUCATION OXNARD. CA 93030 FINANCE AND :NSvRANCe ASSCMSl.YMAN. THlRTY·F1FTH OISTRICT 18051487-9437 RULES ,!\ni.lant ~p ...ur 'ro m.mpan WAYS ANO MEANS

July 14, 1989

Alasdair Coyne, Secretary Keep the Sespe Wild P. O. Box 715 Ojai, CA 93023 Dear Mr. Coyne: I understand that the Congressional Subcommittee on National Parks and Wildlife will be taking testimony next TUesday on Bill t1473 to give approximately half of the Sespe River a federal Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. I want to add my support for the effort to designate the entire Sespe River as a wild and scenic river. As you know, the sespe is one of Southern California's last free­ flowing rivers and for that reason alone should be preserved in its entirety. In addition, the Sespe is a significant natural and recreational resource. Its extraordinary scenic qualities have made it a focal point for hiking by local, as well as state residents. The only way to ensure long term protection of the Sespe River is to protect it in its entirety. Again, I want to add my name to the list of those encouraging Congress to extend full protection to the Sespe River by designating its entire 55 miles as a Wild and Scenic River.

Sincerely, '~

a k O'Connell

~ .. 181

PATRICE DAVISON FIELD REPRESENTATIVE P.O. Box 2151, Riverside, CA 92516 7H-359~a960

... ;.j 'JJIY 1" 1989 ...... --; T~a HonoTnhlp Race.t L~qQ~arsino" Attn: Matt Reynolas ',J.;U6 House of Represent.atives D. C. f.S:'.... Washington,'·1 i RE: Hearings on HR 1473 • :',r, Dear Mr. Lagomarsino: Having just received a phOlll() call notifying me that hearings have been scheduled for tomorrow on HR 1473, I wish to add the Association's comments, albeit brief, to the hearing record. -, ~.- J The Sespe/Matilija Wilderness proposals as submitted in HR 1473 r~present a significant compromise on the part of multiple use advocates. This Associat~on. strongly urges that no amendments receive further consideration where those amendments recommend ,;aoditional wilderness acreage." .' '1 .. Of particular concern to this l'Issociation has been the dele-tion c.lf the Se-spe Road from consideration for motorized use. This Association continues to feel that some accomodation of this 'historic route is paramount. Certainly, in the overall context: some reasonable means can be provided that allows for limited travel. Further, this Association registers extreme dissatisfaction with ~he short notice of the hearings, and the resultant inability to l?rovide actual testimony in Washington.:: Please include these comments for t.he record. I wish to be notified, of any and all developmen~s of this Bill. Sincerely, . ,i /J 1\ • ··';W~}J~ ~atrice Davison field Representative ~ 182 ORVA CAl.lrORniA orr ROAD VCHICI.£ 17802 Altamirano Ln. ASSOCIATion. mc. Huntington Beach, CA. ~-==----=------~

7/18/89

Mr. Matthew A. Reynolds . 'Legislative Director '. CongresS!ll9Il Robert Laganarsino . 2332 Raybum House·'Office Building .Washington D.C. 20515-0519 Re: H.R. 1473 Sespi Wildemess Proposal

Dear Mr. Reynolds, I have been info:rmed within the past twelve' hours of the National Parks and Public Lands decision to hold hearings on H.R. 1473 today. We are quite dis­ appointed with the camdttee's decision to hold these hearings with little, if any, public notice. .Be it as it may, we wish you to convey our official position on this proposal. This "association Supports H.R. 1473 in it's current fOllD. However, we wish that the provision for the Johnson Ridge Trail would enc1ude language that would forever keep this trail open for Off-Highway Vehicle (motorcycle) use upon enactment of this legislation. It might be noted, this association, along with several others, has been enguaged in a administrative appeal of the Los Padres National Forest, Land and Resources Management Plan. Currently, our appeal is before the Chief of the Forest Service waiting for a decision on the merits of our appeal. A por­ tion of our appeal deals with the Johnson Ridge Trail. Additionally, we wish to convey our recent trail project on this trail, which saw sane 100 OHV enthusist give over 800 hours to correct prob1t?m areas on the trail. It would be quite a shock to our membership:to lose this trail. F\n:theJ:trDre, we deem this current proposal a cCXIIpranise between the wishes of the preservationist ccmnunity and the desires of the Wise Use Movement. Any additional acreage or IOOVement of the current boundries is not warrented by the facts. .

Please send this letter to the carmittee via messenger upon reci~pt. Wewish our position to be read to the carmittee by CongresS!ll9Il Lagcmarsino. '!hank you for your time and anticipated cooperation. 183

~ COMMITTEE DISTRICT~I? ~.' AMA. INC. ~ 1989 President July 18, 1989 Ken80yd t304Lo

~COMMITTEE DISTRICT~7 AMA,INC. ~ 1989 President 20 years. The plateau pictured is bisected by one, KenSOyd and only one, trail. 1304 Londonderry S\ Cos:aMesa CA92626 714·751·9238 ..'; The Johnston Ridge Trail is a versatile and popular ViCe President access route down to the Sespe Hot Springs. On the Bob Alexander 4811 Ramsdell Ave day before the trail project an equestrian group LaCresce"la CA91214 818-24'l.41310 rode down to the Springs, and while the project was .....ta .. underway four backpackers and three mountain N"", S'~~'I bicyclists all utilized the trail. The membership 15272 Center S! V,c\O'V1I:e.CA92392 of District 37 hopes that by supporting H.R.1473 619'245'5~80 the traditional uses of the Johnston Ridge Trail Treasurer f 06 Fbstma will continue and that the proposed Wilderness PO 80>.526 IJ areas will be be conserved. Pearblossom CA93553 If you would like further information from our Referee Oav'dKerst,"9 ~.~ organzation or if we could assist in the passage of PO 80,,3036 f'lectondoBeach CA9:J277 the Bill we would be happy to meet with you at any 21)'376'132>? b time during the August recess. I would appreciate DistrICt legISlative f;J notice if amendments are considered or should any Office. OartaBe:: further hearings of the Bill be scheduled. S764CamPOWk Long Beacl'l CA'?08J3 ~:i 213-438·6527 BLM COOrdinator t'~ Sincerely; R,c)"Hamme' 23502 La"">l

Membership - BQO·AMA-JOIN(ToIF'eej

2 185

2537 Murrell Road Santa Barbara, CA 93109 July 20, 1989 .JUt 2 J 1989

Congressman Robert Lagomarsino 5740 Ralston, Suite 101 Ventura, CA 93003

Dear Congressman Lagomarsino:

Subject: BICYCLE ACCESS TO THE SESPE WILDERNESS AREA

Thank you for meeting with me on July 6 to discuss the International Mountain Bicycling Association's concern over the potential loss of bicycle access to what may become the Sespe Wilderness Area if the Sespe Wilderness Act becomes law. This letter is to confirm a few important points made at that meeting.

The IMBA would like the Sespe Wilderness Act to specify that the local Forester shall have the authority to restrict access to trails in the Sespe Wilderness by non-motorized vehicles only after an investigation, which shall include a public hearing, has found such restriction necessary. Each trail being considered for closure to non-motorized vehicles should be considered individually.

The IMBA believes that bicycle travel in Wilderness Areas is consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964, section 4(c) of which states that" .•. there shall be •. ·.no use of motor vehicles ... [or] other form of mechanical transport ... within such area." On the face of it, the Wilderness Act appears to rule out the use of bicycles in Wilderness Areas as an "other form of mechanical transport." How­ ever, when bicycles designed for use on trails became popular in the early part of this decade, the 1983- Code of Federal Regulations, section 293.6(a) defined "mechanical transport" as any contrivance which travels over groun4 ... on wheels ••• and is propelled by a non-living power ~ contained or carried on ••• the device." Thus, the IMBA maintains that section 4( c) of the Wilderness Act does not, in any way, prohibit travel by bicycle on Wilderness Area trails.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Forest Service has chosen to ignore the official defini­ tion of "mechanized transport," as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations, and has used its misinterpretation of section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act as just­ ification for closing all Wilderness Area trails to bicycles. Because it appears that this issue will not be resolved for qUite some time, the 1MBA asks that you give specific recognition of bicycles in the text of the Sespe Wilderness Act, along the lines stated in the previous paragraph of this letter.

Gi ven that hiking and backpacking have declined in popularity over the past decade (as noted in the L.A. Times article I left with you), as bicycling has become an increasingly popular trail activity, the IMBA believes that all Wilder­ neSs Area bills passed from this date forward should reflect this important change in wilderness values. This view is supported by section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act which indicates that Wilderness Areas are to be administered in such a manner as ... "to devote them to the public purposes. of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Please note that the order of stated uses implies that recreation is to take precedence over all other uses. (Please note, as well, that bicycles have a history of use in the Sespe Wilderness which' predates the Wilderness Act, and are now vying with hikers as the largest user group on the trails in that area.) 186

2

I understand from our meeting that you believe that bicycle use on trails is consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964, and that you are convinced that bicycles are specifically appropriate for use on the Sespe Wilderness Area trails. It is my understanding that you intend to propose to the National Parks and Public lands Subcommittee that the Sespe Wilderness Bill be amended to recog­ nize bicycle use along the lines given in the second paragraph of this letter. I further understand that you expect the Chairman of the Subcommittee to reject this proposal, based on your belief that he is categorically opposed to bicycle use on Wilderness Area trails.

The IMBA appreciates your efforts to address the apparent misunderstanding which presently prohibits over five million Americans from enjoying our nation's Wild­ erness Areas on their ttmountain bikes, It which are designed to be ridden. on rugged trails. Furthermore, I am thankful for your offer to identify a forum in which the concerns of offroad bicyclists may be voiced. before the members of Congress. Given the growing popularity and concern associated with offroad bicycles, It and the 1MBA, believe that the time has come for those legislators most concerned wi th outdoor recreation on public lands to gain a thorough understanding of the facts regarding mountain bikes.

I am sorry, and a bit embarrassed, to inform you that a careful review of the Wilderness Act has led me to conclude that there is no clause in that law which precludes the enactment of a policy on the grounds that the appropriate admini­ strative body shall not be reasonably capable of enforcing it. I do recall seeing such a provision recently, however, and I now suspect that it is contained within the General Plan of the U.S. Forest Service. Given the size of that document, I expect it shall take me considerable time to relocate that provision, but I shall refer you to it when I have found it.

On behalf of the International Mountain Bicycling· Association, I wish to thank you for your careful attention to the ;issue of bicycle access to trails on U.S. public lands, particularly the Sespe Wilderness Area. I enjoyed our meeting, and I look forward to visiting with you again to discuss the concerns of offroad bicyclists. Please be sure to contact me if you believe I can be of help to you or your colleagues when offro~d bicycle issues are under consideration. Also, I should appreciate it if you would let me know what, if any, progress is being made toward accomodating bicycle access to the Sespe Wilderness Area.

Sincerely yours,

~.../ ~J I • , . Todd Ourston Member, IMBA cc: John Boggs Don Douglass Eric JackIe 187

Alan Coles 5637 Keynote St. Long Beach, CA 90808 (213) 420-9270 home (213) 948-6863 work Chairman Rep. B. Nento Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands Room 812, House Annex 1 Washington, D.C. 20515 Jul Y 24, 1989 Dear Mr. Chairman, Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. E.R. Blakley, Naturalist and Historian of th~ Ventura an~ Santa Barbara back country regarding the possible Cold Spring dam slte. Rep. R1chardson expressed concern about any Native American archaeological sites in the vicinity so I ask Mr. Blakley whom I know is one of the most knowledgeable people regarding information of this type to write a letter that I could send to the committee for consideration. Also, I would like to comment on some of the information given to the committee from my testimony to further clarify the policy of the Sierra Club. Look at a map of the proposed Sespe I,ilderness and note the proximity of the state owned Hungry Valley State Vehicular Recreation Area located just northeast of the proposed boundary. Adjacent to the ORV area are several off-road vehicle trails in the national forest including the Snowy Creek Trail (19W04) in quadrant T7N R191, which connects the area with Alamo Mountain. There is a road called the Sewart Mtn Rd (6NlD) connecting Alamo Mtn with Sewart Mtn where it dead ends. There are 4 hiking trails that lead into the wilderness from this road. With the road open, it will be nearly impossible to keep ORV activity out of the wilderness. If the road were closed at the Alamo loop road (8NOl) then one gate that is easily maintained would help enforce the wilderness boundaries. That is why we feel very strongly that the wilderness boundary should be moved next to the Snowy Creek Trail and around the Alamo loop road. This boundary change does not close any existing ORV routes but would make a far more manageable boundary. This particular area is extremely important because a newly intoduced herd of Nelson Bighorn Sheep has been introduced and they require solitude for their adaptation. To the west in quadrant T7N R2lW is Little Mutau Valley, a high alpine valley with a perennial stream flow~ The soils in this valley are very sandy and illegal ORV activity "from": the Johnston Ridge Trail to Alamo Mtn has caused considerable damage to native plant life. The forest service moved the boundary to exclude this important valley because it is easier to draw the line atop the ridge to the south. It would be far wise to move the boundary to the north around the private property to include this valley and the peak Thorn Pt (T6N R22W). In the southern part of the wilderness, the upper portion of Santa Paula Ck (T4N R2lW sections 1,2,11,12) was left out to allow for slant drilling of oil wells. We feel that the drilling can occur with wilderness designation since the ground is stable enough that no collapsing should occur. The wilderness boundary should be moved to include Lion Canyon (T5N R22W) and the upper portion of Sisar Canyon. The last 4 miles of road 4N15 should be closed from the junction of trails 21W08 and 21W06 to provide more opportunities for wilderness. This area is'very popular with Boy Scouts as one of the requirements to obtain a merit badge. Als~ in the section are some of the most scenic formations along the Topatopa Bluff. H1nes Pk ~t 6704' (T5N R2lW section 15) is the highest point in the Topatopa range and 1S a dramatic rise from both the Santa Paula plain and the Sespe River to the north. Please give our boundary changes your upmost consideration. These changes may seem minor but they playa very important role in preserving the character of 188 this highly important botanical and topographical region of Southern California. Please contact me if there are any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerly,

Alan R. Coles 189

July 20, 1989

Mr. Alan Colen 5637 Keynote Street Long Beach, Ca. 90808 Dear Mr. Colen: There is a proposed Dam Site on the upper Sespe River in Ventura County, California. This site is not a good site from a geological standpoint in that the bedrock and side walls of the canyon are composed of Rincon Shale. This shale formation is noted for its unstable condition after it becomes moist. A lake impounded on this formation would be a danger from a dam failier. The Sespe river valley upstream from the dam site is bordered by stream .terraces which contain possibl Indian sites. No field t'1ork has been done to study the area and there is a possibility of several sites of Chumash Indians that would be covered if the area was flooded by construction of the Cold Springs Dam. One site that has not been recorded but is a sustance camp site is located where the Sespe River Trail climbs up from the river bottom to a terrace about one half mile down stream from Beaver Camp. Also possibly the site of Frazier Cold Sprimg will be flooded. This is a historical site which has potential historical materials and other information of the early anglo use of the Sespe Piver Area. Beaver Campground would probably be flooded. This is a very popular site for public camping. On every weekend the year around it is full to capacity. Ofter it receives considerable use in spring when fishing is good and again in the fall when the local hunting seasons are open. I would like to see the old road from Lion Campground down to the Sespe Hot Springs remain open for the use of }!ountain Bicycle riding. It is used now very often by riders an their is no conflict with hikers and equestrian use of the old road. Sincerely, . u-i;;i () 117n.u ~ E. R. ~~~"'7 Naturalist and Historian of the Santa Barbara and Ventura county Backcountry. 190

_ MECHANICAL ENGINEERS - 12 "SArli' 811 e;REET. VENTURA. CA 93001 • 1605) 653·1722 'Ita EAST MAIN sr.

July 29, 1999

Ccn9~~~$m~n Bruce Vento Chai.-m".n - Subcommitt.ee on Naticn~l Parks and Public: Lands AS12 Hoe Annex 1 Washington, DC 20515-6207 FAX. (202) 226-7751 SUBJECT;" HI'! 1473 - SUPPL.ENENTAL. TESTIMONY SUPPORTING FUL.L. PROTECTION FOR THE ENTIRE SESPE CREEK AREA Dear Mr. Vento:

As YOll reca.ll, I £I.m a consulting engin~Qr from Ventur~, with considerable e>:parienc:e in the area5 of beac:h erosion and water ·con5erv~~ion. I presented written and verbal testimony to your committee on July 18th in •. ?-ypD....ort .o.f ;Ftn._L.Rro1:sc·u..9.rt_fB!: ... th~._sntire Sese!> S~"al'"e",. In P"'l'"ti C:LIl a I'" , I presented teshmony on the subjects 0-1= E~Etc:h):~t""osion (the e-Ffec:ts on saniJ Lr'c.~n=..,ur l:. u·F de:ulIS on the Sespe) and Water _Cons~ryaticn (the need for the Uni J·ed Ni\ter Conservation District to do more in the ~rea of water c.nservation befol'"e embarking on dam pl'"oject~).

I would like t:o pres~nt your c:ommittee with some Jadditional infol""'mEttion en thE:lse two 5ubjGcts. It is my wish tha-I:, this letter be entered into the offi~ial record, ~nd that the infcrmation contained within be con5idel'"ed" by th .. committ",e m",mb",,"s before making a decision on the Sespe legislation.

Beam.Erosion There presl?ntly is a very 5erioL,15 beac:. i , ~ro5ion problem in VentL.!ra. County - a. problem resl.l~ting primflrlly trom the ~onstructicn o~ d~ms and a mismnnogement of riverbed sediments. Th~rC' i'=" .:l group c:.:tll~d BEACON which is "ddre5Ging the beach erosion problems in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.. Since your July 18th hearing, a technical report (Comprehensive Sanu Mana9GmGn~ Plan) commissioned by BEACON has b"'en re1e~c~d. Som~ of the rl!'~ol .. t·~ c:onc:lLl~icns bear rept!ating, because they hcvt? direct relevance to the issue oT whether to dam, Dr to prole~t~ Scspe Creek. The following are quotes from the report:

"Si\nd Sources t'lnd Sinks" (page 27) •••• liThe Ventura and S ..")nta Clara Rivers are t.he mG\jor dre.inage basins bet''1~en Ventura and Mugu Canyon. Tog",ther they al'"e I'"esponsible for all of the fluvial sand delivery B\long this sec:tion of the 5hol"elin~." 191

"Sediment Budget Results - Ventura H.. rbor to Channel Islands Harbor"

" ••••• So long as s~.fficient sand is available from the delta, beaches downcoa~t will be stable or accrete. However, shOUld sediment supply diminish, the onset of erosion is expected. Analysis at this time indicates that the cumUlative effects of the dam ~onstru~tion and ~and mining have ~au5ed a seriOUS depletion tc the area's sediment budget. If lI ... bl.ortfall is not corrected, it is expected that sever beach eroslon within the subcell will begin in the mid 1990·s. "Summary (page SS) •••• The Ventura. and Santa Clara Rivers have been severely altered by dam construction and sand mining activity. As a consequence, the signlficant reduction in sand supply to the shoreline will soon result in the onset of serious erosion problems wi thin the Oxnard Plain shoreline." "Recommended Sand N.,nagement Strategy (pages 6S & 69), •• The long­ term strategy is recommended to contain the elements listed belcw: •••• Institute public policy to maximize natural sand delivery to the beaches by rivers and 5treams and natural cliff erasion." It is clear from the BEACON report that any dams on the Santa Clara River Drainage (including Saspe Creek) will only exacerbate the already serious problem. This fac~ should carry great weight in deciding the fate of the Sespe. Water Conservation - I testified on July 16th th.,t the United Water Conservation District should do more in the area of water conservation b~fClr w. k'lnlrcu k.i. •• u UtI If,~ Vt:'f y, !:;'xU~!.~.i.Y'i!',.Hr ",U"'?" L.i. y!..' , !:d.. dammina the Sespe. The following are some of the many very specific actions which should be undertaken by United. 192

1. Water Reclamation - Presently, over 30,000 acre feet of water per year are lost to the ocean from the wastewater plants at Ventura and Oxnard alone. It is estimated that over 90,000 acre feet per year are unused from all the wastewater plants in Ventura County. This quantity of potential neW water dwarfs the potential yield of the Sespe, and could be developed at a far lower cost. Presently only about 2-1/2 % of the waste~jater from Oxnard and Ventura is reclaimed, all of that at Ventura; none at Oxnard. 2. Municipal and Industrial Source Control - There is great potential for reducing the amount of water used in these 5ectors. United should coordinate a concerted effort to significantly reduce the con5umption in these sectors, inciuding the adoption of reverse tier rate s~hedyle5. 3. Agricultural Sector - United should greatly increase the ongoing efforts to make the use of water in the agricultural sector mere effi~ient. Mandatory reduction programs should be implemented requiring all agricultural users to establish specific reduction targets and deadlines, backed up with reverse tier rate schedules. 4. Reverse Tier Rate Schedules - As a wholesaler of water, United shOUld require that all the water districts which it serves adopt reverse tier rate schedules, whic:h heavily penalize wasteful consumers of water, and reflect the true cost of water. Examples of districts with such rate schedules are the Channel Islands Seach Community Services District and the City of Santa Barbara.

5. Water Meters - United should require that all di~trict~ have water meters. It is shocking that the City of Port Hueneme still does not have water meters! 6. Plumbing Fixtures - United should require that all new constructi on be bui 1 t ~Ii th water consel"vi ng pI umbi ng fi xtures such as low-flow toilets.

7. Staff - United needs to creat~ staff positions in its organization whos~ sole purpose it is to implement mandatory water conservation programs throughout its territory. e. Goals - United needs to adept very specific water use reduction targets and deadlines aimed at eliminating aquifer overdrafts and implementing all cost-effective conservation programs~ 9. Legislation - It is recognized that United may not have the legislative authority to implement all of these programs. United should seek sponsorship of the necessary legislation to give them tho ~uthDrity they need.

United needs to take a leadership role in water conservation. They need to take the word "conservation" out of their name and put it to work. To date, they have only scratched the surface, and incredible amounts of water have been ,wasted due to their lack of effe~tive action. . 193

Thank you for the opportunity to pre5ent this information. firmly believe that your committee should expand the proposed legi5iat1on to protect the entire Sespe Creek area.

Sinc:erely,

~-~PHIl. WHITE PW/mos 194

Keep the Sespe Wild P.O. Box 715 Ojai, California (805) 646-5960

MA.JOH ENflOk::lEHS m" A 55 MILE WILD AND Sr:ENIt: SESPE.

Planning and CGns2rvation Leasue Ga,'y f< Hat't :Ca State Se~ator) ~atural R8source~ D3tense Council Ja::::, O'Connell Cal Tt'out (2.4 mi 11 ior. lic(!;"lsed an.glet's) (C .. Stdt:;; Assmmb ly)

Amct"ican F:iver's Th~ City of Ojai

Friends of the Riv:;;r Backpacker Magazine

WiJdern£ss Society ~inda ~~elsey (Star of Lou Grant), Los F'adt"'2S Chapter" of Sie"r"'r"'? C!'_tb ,,5(h:Je) ~cmbe:"s)

Ventura County Environmental Co~litiGn

Citizens to Pr~es~rve The Ojai

Soutljt:~"'n Califot"'nia Rock F't"'oduc't:; AssDcia':)on

Channel Islands ?gach Community Services District O::nard Shores CGmmunlty A5~ociatior. Trc (cont:er"'ned about rossibl:::: loss of beaCh sand)

Fil1mor~ Irri8ation Company

(~IT,on8 ct!r' 800 business er.;Jot"'set... s (as ci·~ T. 15. a9) at.. s,:·

6:3 Doctot... s and Lawyet... s~ 23 F.3r'met··s, 108 Contt'actot'S, Realto~',= and Engi...,eet's. 195

-r?:> NHOM ,,-M,Mf aJN~NI

..k7.4 Me.M~p. OF- -r:1f6:. ~N~ c.oMMUNfTt/j_!.._~mOIl/(::rllf ~R7" -rHf!. F1.JU- PR.071iEC/lON OF ~ ~ f.)NI//fEJ{ -rH&- -~ NIU;J ANO ~/c.- ~/VEJ.Z!:7 ~IC:./I.-1.

;J.. UNO~AN£) -mAl c..u~-r J.£&I~710N WILl- ONW f!5~&UARO (We. - HA-I.r cr- -rJ.t1f; ~ 1 ANtJ J..CAt/J!.. a::E:/V 0Pt70/16 FOx -rWO 6P'~/PlC- ,q~VO/~ Sm:;~. 77-fe; C()?, tJp. W~ f7:IoM geSf'e OA-M$ - ONe 77-fCX.e,ANO ~7 p~ ~c. POor - ~ WAtt -reo ~-1{)CIf ~ - ~IW~ 1..OCAJ-l.I1. _-rl+.!!! P;::?OP(Jf?et:) OM MrN. !1~MVO/R jAJlU-- 1-14f;{ -rHe ItJp:u... FLow CJr ~pe­ £;Gt;?ltvtIEN1" 7b ()C..eA.N ~iJCHJ.E:S; tr WIU- At-~ tAt(.,.tm::p A FAUJ..-r CAPA~te- or- ANI) Pue pop. A &!EVEN ft)IN7 trtJA-XE-/ Fo;;nN&- A MOf2.e ~aJ? -riff::fE:.t.rT JC:> C:OWN5r~ fp.C;Pt:-PJ"(I( /HAIV AN,! NI/tI'fJE:R~Of2M ev~ COuJ..t), IHt!- P~P07I#) e.ow ~JN(;6 P£~t/OIF1~ "RIa:. /Z:e5 ~ INCLUoe ~V'1./t:::NS -ro Co~JP..{)C.:r A eecv~ t:4:1tt4 ON A W.eAJi GeOJ../A::rlc.., '2?HAU! PoUA{04TICN, NOf{~.7 II" INCJ..Ut?6 IHe c.t:Yr or- ~/W/N& 7}f~ MItES or- BrA1l!:- &:ce.N16 111M/WAIf 35. z e.eJ-Jg;.ve. -rl-l:tJ.r ,v;~ ~4rlt/e. ~ or- p~~ A/.4r1:/f r..5VPP/-Ie5 IN,u- 60 Pf)PrT~ ----ntAN A ~e Q:1tI4, IbW~ 1--147'CHING OUR OP/l4AN~ '70 OUt:!- euPPJ.-lEb. N~ yvlU- et/~ FUNO A ~.e {)AMI FOff -n-te SMAU--~pPJ.1-7_ Ir CO()/...O Pf2.0VIf}!£. 17M--r I~ ~/$E-J.lf Wit« IT 1/,47 f1[EMI!INW UNOAMlvtJU/ "1D 7H1? OJ¥..(. ::L WAIY710 ~t/I£ .so. (!A{..fPOPII//tY5 Ubr f2iEMAINI/V6 r~-rt.oN!N(;:r f?[t/~ I IN rr6 ,A~N()'N6Ltt IU:AurtPVL eN77f{};-ry­ ~~ tr~ INOf?iH M~e- -r7-fA'J A .PAM. ,·Z /(/) / S/&N~... /'/,0<, .f-.,,~~ 196

6/17/89

PETITION TO PBESERVE WATER CONSERVATION OPTIONS FOR CITIZENS OF -- VENTtmACOUNTY Reference recently introduced House Resolution 114746 We citizens of Ventura. County, as responsible wa.ter conserva.tloniste, do not wa.nt to give up Importa.nt wa.ter options without good ca.use 0 locluding a. potentla.l reservoir a.nywhere on Sespe Creek. H.R.4746 seeks to deslgna.te Sespe Creek a.s pa.rt of the • Na.tlonal Wild a.nd Scenic Rivers System" The currently propoeed 'Wilderness' a.nd 'Wild a.nd Scenic' des!gna.tlons preclude the only rea.lly VIable wa.ter reservOir left In a.ll of southern Ca.llforn1a. - at Topa Topa.. ThIs Is a. right a.nd a.n optlon tha.t we In Ventura. County wa.nt to keep. Callforn1a. 'County of Origin" statutes give county's rights to as much as they need of the rain and snow that fa.lls within their borders. We 'are now 2.3-mUllon acre feet overdra.fted state wide. The state admits It Is overcommitted by 60% on promised watsr. Lawsults are pending a.bout getting wa.tsr piped down from the Delta. The north sa.ys with some Justlflca.ton, "develop your southern wa.ter supplies first, then 1st's talk.· Wa.ter from Mono Lake has been cut back. Hea.rlng ha.ve re·opened to further restrict pumping of Owens River area. Recently Coa.chella. Va.lley sued our Metropollta.n Wa.ter District a.nd Imperia.! Valley over dWIndling Colora.do river rlghte showing they ha.ve first rights 0 this will mea.n even less Imported wa.ter for us. With 36% growth a.ntlclpa.ted In 20 yea.rs - even with ma.nda.tory conserva.tlon a.nd more moderate growth plans we will require more Imported water than the state can a.esure us - before our children grow up. Add on our first three year drought In 140 yea.rs, current underground wa.ter conte.mlna.tlon findings a.nd H.R.4746 tha.t proposes to take a.wa.y our water conserving options Just does not make sense now. Ventura. County Economic Development AsSOCiation (VCEDA), Ventura. County Taxpa.yers Association (VCTA), a.nd the Ventura. a.nd Oxna.rd Chamber's of Commerce are against the proposed deslgoa.tlons. As thoughtful wa.ter conservatlonlsta, we wa.nt to elmply keep the option of being responsible citizens for Ventura. County's difficult wa.ter situa.tlon. To a.ct responsibly for future wa.ter needs 20 yea.rs from now a.e best we ca.n foresee them today. ,0) :.J. /' V Signed: ,'/i:~%~~ Printed Nama../ I

Printed Name Slgna.~re '-...... / I -- UJR!<,HT 1v J.L ~ '\J~d:: Printed Name SIgna.ture

kLL.L-, 6:"'( k'SE:L.e:.L Printed Name IA-=- ~

Printed Name SIgna.ture

Printed Name Slgna.ture 197

Honorable Robert Lagomarsino 2332 Rayburn

OP-inion 8-12 Sun., July 16, 1989 The Veatura C~aatv (CaUf.) St~r:ir,!':a:eo!'~ Editorials------, Preserving the Sesp~ A s II lesso~ in legislative ·com- conditioned on acceptance of ~romise, It would be hard to HR1473, as . written, by environ­ find a better example than HR1473, ' mental organizations. So far, that. Rep. Bob Lagomarsino's bill relat- acceptance is not visible. ed to damming Sespe Creek. The primary anti-dam organiza- Since it bans damming the tion, the Keep the Sespe Wild Sespe, the bill can be supported by Committee, wants the entire creek the conservationists who want to designated as ''wild and scenic," preserve this as the only remain- which would prelcude any dam­ ing free-flowing creek in Southern mingo And the Ojai City Council California. has endorsed that position. . Since it pennits damming the

July 12, 1989

Mr. Alasdair Coyne Keep the Sespe Wild Committee P.O. Box 715 Ojai, CA 93023 Dear Alasdair, I'd just like to congratulate you and everyone in your organi­ zation for the excellent efforts you've made to protect the Sespe. I once kayaked the Sespe at high water with some of my friends. It was one of the most difficult rivers I've kayaked, and one of the most beautiful. Our company is located near the Ventura River, a once important river in Ventura County. Now, due to dams, the steelhead run is practically gone and most of the river flow is diverted into a reservoir. Utilizing local water sources carefully and prudently is good business, but using ALL of our sources to provide water for more development that is destroying our community is just plain stupid. It would be a shame to dam the Sespe to provide water for uncontrolled urban growth. The power and beauty of that river would be lost forever. I want future generations to able to fish for trout on the Sespe, not stand on a ridge looking'at man-made reservoirs covered with powerboats. All other water sources in our area have been exploited, and the people of this area deserve to have wilderness and wild rivers to enjoy. That includes the Sespel Your organization has my full personal endorsement and the support of Patagonia, Inc. Many of our employees are actively involved in preserving the Sespe and we will continue to en­ courage that participation and to send you donations to support your efforts. Keep up the good work. Best regards, y~u~

Patagonia. Inc. subsidiary of Lost Arrow Corporation 259 West Santa Clara St, 93001 P.O, Box 150 Ventura. CA 93002 18051643·8616 TELEX 69·1729 FAX 18051653·6"5 o