Mr. BARING. That will be, without objection, included as a part of the file. Dr. GOODMAN. Thank you very much. That completes my presentation. Mr. BARING. Thank you, sir. Now, the next speaker. That will be Mrs. Henry H. Hoddle. STATEMENT OF MRS. HENRY H. HODDLE, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS Mrs. HODDLE. Mr. Chairman and committee, this organization is opposed to substituting other acreage for the precious heart of the San Gorgonio Wilderness 'Area. If this encroachment by commercial interests is allowed, other interests will seek remuneration in other wilderness areas-soon all will be defaced. Future children will never experience the benefits of natural wilderness recreation. This gift of nature will be tainted by the unreal. The Federation of Women's Clubs have for 75 years worked to help Mother Nature keep in balance all her natural resources. We have preserved many heritage spots from destruction. We resolved to support the Wilderness Act made law September 3, 1964. Incidentally, we have a total membership of 61,189 members. I would also like to include, on behalf of the Izaak Walton League of America, a statement of their position. I am their legislative chairman. The Izaak Walton League of America is an organization of citizens dedicated to the wise use of our natural resources. This includes the safeguarding of special reservations such as parks, wildlife refuges, and national forest wilderness areas such as the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area. These areas have been set aside by legislation to preserve a specific feature of our wonderful out of doors so that future generations may also be able to see and appreciate the glorious heritage which is ours. The wilderness areas were not set aside to suit the desires and needs of assorted groups and individuals at their will, but were given this distinction in order to preserve the primitive conditions which still exist within their boundaries and to stop encroachment for designs other than the primary purpose. The San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, renowned for its Arctic-Alpine forest life zone and its outstanding examples of Ice Age geology, is also known for the ideal wildlife habitat which may be observed in its natural environment which extends from 7,000 to 11,500 feet in elevation. Because of its close proximity to large population centers, this area is used by a great many organizational groups, including Boy and Girl Scouts, Young Men's Christian Association, various church and private groups, as well as innumerable individuals during all seasons of the year. The use of this area by these individuals is principally to experience wilderness recreation, but a great many persons also travel in and through the area just to observe the natural state specific to this locale. The president of California State Division of Izaak Walton League of America has spent many hours as a youth and an adult in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, hiking, camping, and skiing, and recognizes the benefits derived from this 35,000 acres of forest land. It is also known personally that the acreage which is being considered for removal from wilderness classification is the very heart of the area. most heavily used because of its primitiveness. The above testimony points out why the Izaak Walton League of America is opposed to the placement of a commercial ski area or resort within the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, and why we feel that such reclassification of this land would be an act which would remove forever the opportunity for youth and adults to observe this truly primitive forest area as nature produced it. This would destroy a part of the rightful heritage which belongs to this and all future generations. Thank you very much. Mr. BARING. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF MISS GERTRUDE AGNES HAGUM, CONSERVATION Miss HAGUM. I am Miss Gertrude Hagum, of Redlands, representing 500 members of the San Bernardino Valley District, California Garden Clubs, Inc. I have also been asked by Dr. Paul Allen to present a letter in behalf of the San Bernardino County Historical Society, the City of Redlands Park Commission, of which he is chairman, and the Fortnightly Club of Redlands, an organization established in 1895 for the purpose of scholarly research. All of these organizations are unanimously opposed to H.R. 6891. However, my testimony is based on study and research during the past 2 years, correspondence, and questionnaires which I have sent to more than 150 groups and individuals who oppose or support H.R. 6891. I should like to present a brief résumé of my most important findings as the result of this original research. H.R. 6891 states "with adequate access thereto north of the portion of the said wilderness area." How would this access be achieved? To discover what methods of access to ski resorts are presently in use, I wrote letters of inquiry to the Forest Service regional offices of the California region, Southwestern region, Pacific Northwest, and Rocky Mountain regions. My statements are based upon replies from these regional forest offices. (1) There is no ski lift resorts accessible by foot or horseback only. (2) The only ski lift resort accessible by gondola lift is found at the Sugar Bowl resort on old Highway 40 in California, which is reached by a gondola lift of about 12-mile distance. Because of its wealthy clientele and corporate structure, the Sugar Bowl is unique as a ski resort. (3) All ski lift resorts, except Sugar Bowl, are accessible by road. (4) There are no ski lift resorts where the access roads are closed in the summer. Unless the intent of H.R. 6891 is to limit use of the ski lifts to the above average family who could save $50 on a weekend by going to Dry Lake instead of Mammoth, gondola lift transportation for family winter recreation. Then, too, the distance of such a gondola lift would have to be considerably longer than the 12-mile lift going into Sugar Bowl if it were to start at the edge of the wilderness area, a distance of more than 21/2 miles, as the crow flies, from the Dry Lake site. The usual length of an access road has been estimated as about 6 miles. To transport families in great numbers in below freezing temperature over this distance is possible but not too practical. Ken W. Dyal, our Congressman, author of H.R. 6891, has said, “I do not want any access roads into that area nor parking" (letter of May 6, 1965). We conservationists agree with Congressman Dyal on this important issue. However, I do not find exclusion of access by road mentioned in H.R. 6891. Therefore, access by road would be permitted by H.R. 6891. Since access by road is the only practical possibility, it is only logical to assume that a road would be built. And if there is a road, there will have to be a parking lot or lots somewhere within the 3,500 acres withdrawn from the wilderness area. There are those who contend that the road could be closed in the summer. It is of interest to note that there are no ski lift resorts in the California, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest or Rocky Mountain regions where access by road is closed during the summer. "More and more of the larger ski resorts are striving for increased summer business or considering the start of a summer trade," according to a letter received last week from the California regional office. So we must logically conclude that there would be access by road to a Dry Lake ski resort and that the road would be opened in the summer. Mount San Gorgonio has been referred to as our Snow Queen, who sleeps under an ermine cloak of snow all winter. Yesterday someone suggested that it might be possible to pull up a drawbridge to prevent invasion of the Snow Queen's castle during the summer. This is not a practical possibility because no moat encircles the area. People would be using the road during the summer-the same type of people who now compose 75 percent of the business in the Mount Baldy ski lift area, according to a witness yesterday. These people are nonskiers who will ride to the end of any road, or up any lift just to say they have been there. There is nothing wrong with riding up a lift just to look at the view if you are unable or unwilling to hike to the top. However, is this the purpose of H.R. 6891-family winter recreation? If the ski lodge and ski lifts can operate at a profit during the summer, they will keep open all summer. And the thousands of casual tourists-estimated to be one-half million at Mount Baldy-will not be parking on a layer of snow during the summer. My second basic research is in regard to overnight accomodations. True, there is no word about overnight accommodations in H.R. 6891. But neither are ski lifts mentioned. And I think all the lift skiers would be most unhappy if the bill were carried out as written-for family winter recreation which could conceivably include just tobogganing and other forms of snow play which are perhaps more suitable for family togetherness and small children than standing in long, cold lines at ski lifts. Although ski lifts are not specifically mentioned by H.R. 6891, most people assume that they will be built. In a survey of the 12 leading California ski resorts as listed in the California Winter Sports Guide, 1965-66, California State Chamber of Commerce, Travel and Recreation Department Publication, 1964, I note that 10 of the 12 have overnight accommodations at the site or within 412 miles. The farthest away are two which are 6 and 10 miles distant. People who demand the convenience of a road for access, who demand the convenience of lifts for skiing, are also apt to demand the convenience of nearby overnight accommodations. Since the nearest areas are the small community of Camp Angelus, which would be more than 15 miles away and Big Bear which would be more than 30 miles away, it is very probable that motels and/or hotels would be built at the Dry Lake site. If overnight accommodations are to be built at Dry Lake, additional water would be consumed by people using showers and sanitary facilities in these motels. If 50 gallons of water per day per person is used in this way for even 1,000 persons a day-one-fifth of the 5,000 which might visit the area-this would amount to 50,000 gallons of water a day. Where is this water to come from? And how will the effluent be disposed of? This area contains the headwaters of the Whitewater and Santa Ana Rivers. While it is difficult to prove how much harm this sort of use-winter and summer-would do to our watershed, no one has suggested that it will help in any way. My third area of research regards an analysis of the types of groups and individuals who oppose and support H.R. 6891. I concluded that a greater variety of groups of many types-oppose H.R. 6891. The groups supporting H.R. 6891 are mainly chambers of commerce, ski associations, and realty boards with a motivation of improving the economy of their local communities or providing a place for downhill lift skiers to pursue their hobby every possible day from November to June, without having to travel the long distance to Mammoth on weekends when snow was not available in southern California. Individuals who oppose H.R. 6891 include many more professors, scientists, and teachers. Individuals who support H.R. 6891 include more real estate men. Some might hope to sell privately owned land near the access road to the ski resort at Barton Flats for the building of overnight accommodations and other commercial facilities. Some might hope to reap a benefit from skiers using their communities for overnight accommodations. However, it is difficult to imagine someone driving as far as Lucerne Valley or Victorville over a long, icy road, and perhaps, having to put chains on and off, to stay overnight there. Yucca Valley, where my parents lived for 12 years, I am very familiar with. For the realty board to contend as they did in a letter to me that they support H.R. 6891 for "the future growth of the desert" is quite unrealistic. The long roundabout road from Yucca Valley to Lucerne Valley to Big Bear Lake to Barton Flats or via Beaumont, Banning, and Redlands would be quite impossible for the skier at the Dry Lake ski resort. I would not attempt to "guesstimate" how much the Yucca Valley economy would be bolstered by tourists from Arizona who might stop overnight on their way to a ski resort at Dry Lake. It is interesting to note that the Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce is on record in opposition to H.R. 6891. They do not state their reason. But is only reasonable to assume that they might feel it would be a detriment to their economy for any large number of the wealthy families who now use the Palm Springs-Rancho Mirage area-for their family winter recreation by swimming in pools under the warm desert sun on winter weekends-to start patronizing Dry Lake ski resort in massive numbers. Perhaps those who justify Government expense in building a public road to ski resort as their rainbow to a "pot of gold" will find it as illusive as the usual "pot of gold" sought at the end of a rainbow. The only city of any size to the east of Lucerne Valley and Victorville and Barstow is Las Vegas, Nev. It is unlikely that skiers from Las Vegas would swell the motel trade in any of these California desert communities to go to the Dry Lake ski resort because they already have a ski resort very nearby at 11,919-foot Charleston Peak. (The material referred to follows:) I. ORIGINAL RESEARCH A. ACCESS-RAINBOW TO A POT OF GOLD? 1. How would “access from the north" be achieved? (a) By foot or horseback as advocated by one person who supports H.R. 6891? (1) There is no ski lift resort in the California, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest, or Rocky Mountain regions which is accessible by foot or horseback only. This statement is verified by personal correspondence during the past week with the four regional Forest Service offices. (2) It is doubtful if a ski resort of any size could operate for long if it did not have an access road or sufficient parking. (b) Gondola lift? (1) Sugar Bowl resort on old Highway 99 in California is reached by a gondola lift of about 2-mile distance. Because of its wealthy clientele and corporate structure, the Sugar Bowl is unique as a ski resort. (2) A gondola lift to the Dry Lake area would have to be considerably longer than one-half mile if it were to begin outside the wilderness area. (3) The added expense of such transportation would not be suitable for an area designated for "family winter recreation." (c) By road? (1) Ken Dyal has said, "I do not want any access roads into that area nor parking" (letter of May 6, 1965). (2) There is no ski lift resort in the Southwestern, Pacific Northwest, or Rocky Mountain regions which is not accessible by road. There is no ski lift resort in California other than Sugar Bowl which is not accessible by road. (3) There would have to be a road and parking for a ski resort at Dry Lake if H.R. 6891 is enacted. 2. Could the road be closed in the summer as many advocates of H.R. 6891 have suggested? (a) There are no ski lift resorts where the access roads are closed in the summer in the California, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest or Rocky Mountain regions (verified by personal correspondence last week). (b) The road to Dry Lake ski resort would be open during the summer. (c) More and more of the larger ski resorts are striving for increased summer business or considering the start of a summer trade, according to the California regional office of the Forest Service. (d) Government expense in building a road to a ski resort is justified by those who consider it "a raibow to a pot of gold"-the ski resort shining at the end. |