Page images


On motion of Supervisor Break, duly seconded by Supervisor Dana, and carried unanimously, the Board of Supervisors adopts the following resolution:

Whereas the Board of Supervisors and the citizens of San Bernardino County have expressed their concern and desire to preserve the primitive character of portions of the U.S. National Forest; and

Whereas San Bernardino County is an important segment of the State of California, consisting of one-eighth of the land area of the State of California and comprising more than 20,000 square miles; and

Whereas within San Bernardino County there is a major national forest area within which is located the San Gorgonio wild area; and

Whereas the County of San Bernardino is a part of the southern California area which is now experiencing rapid growth and urbanization, with a present population in southern California exceeding seven million persons and destined to double in population in a comparatively few decades; and

Whereas because of these evidences of growth and the obvious accompanying critical need for all types of recreation and recreation areas: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors, by action on this date, reiterates its previous stand and again urges the Public Lands Subcommittee of the U.S. Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and the House of Representatives in Congress to support and approve a wilderness bill as comparable to that of Senate bill 4 as possible, and to preserve the integrity of the San Gorgonio wild area as it is now classified and used, in order that there may continue to be recreational opportunities in areas preserved in their natural state and as free as possible from commercialization and disturbance by man.

Dated: December 30, 1963.


Chairman of the Board.

County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Break, I would like to ask one or two questions. What happens to the visitors who visit this place in the summertime? You are talking about contaminated water. It is my understanding that between 50,000 and 60,000 people use this area in the summer? Mr. BREAK. That is right, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what happens to the sanitary waste removal? Is it hauled out?

Mr. BREAK. No, sir; they are in the lower levels where it can be taken out. But, you are going to have to supply greater sewage system to take care of it.

I wish that you had gone in and made a trip to Bear Valley to see what had to be done there. That is what is going to have to be done at Running Springs; the same thing which is taking place at Lake Arrowhead. There will be a terrific expense for taking care of the affluence for about the same number of people.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I believe you are going to have increased use in this area during the summer months; greater numbers, probably, than you would have in the winter months?

Mr. BREAK. Well, that may be, sir.

But, I still think that this is something that was set aside and I hope we are looking at a group of people that are going to try to perpetuate some of the area, a little bit of it, that we can leave to posterity so that we can show another generation what it looked like before man destroyed all of it. This is a very small part of the overall in

58-133-67- -2

San Bernardino County, and it is the largest county in the United

Mr. JOHNSON. I am very familiar with winter sport areas.

I have 24 winter sports areas in my own congressional district at the present time.

Mr. BREAK. I understand, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. We have a great many people using them during the winter. We do not have any real problem at the present time. All of these winter sports areas are at high elevations and all the way down to about the 6,000-foot level.

The snowfield that you have here at San Gorgonio is no different than the snowfields that we have at Squaw Valley and at Heavenly Valley or at Mammoth or at any of the other areas.

Mr. BREAK. And is the formation of the land the same, sir?

Mr. JOHNSON. Pretty much so. The mountains of California are pretty much the same.

Mr. BREAK. Well, I have been here since 1904, I came here as a lad. I have traveled this mountain area and I have ridden horseback through most of it and I have hiked through a lot of it. I have grown up here.

I have skiers in my family, I have a son who was a skier before he was drafted into the Army or taken into the Army and was injured to the point where he cannot ski anymore. But, his son is a good skier and loves to ski in the mountains. We have areas that can be expanded and the San Bernardino Mountains, there is still more room and snow available that is not being used.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, that answers my questions.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Break.

Please leave the material I mentioned with the reporter.

Mr. BREAK. All right, sir.

Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr. BARING. Naturally, we cannot have a display of emotion after every speaker. We are limited on time and it is necessary that you do not applaud.

The next witness is Mr. Hinckley, San Bernardino County Flood Control District.


Mr. HINCKLEY. I am chairman of the Zone 3 Advisory Flood Con-
trol District Committee for San Bernardino County, for this flood
control zone which embraces the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area.
In interest of time, I will make my statement very brief.
Zone 3 of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District em-
braces the Santa Ana drainage portion of the San Gorgonio Ranger
District of the San Bernardino National Forest. For many years,
this zone of the flood control district has contributed substantial local
tax money directly to this forest to help Federal and State forestry
agencies in the construction of heliports, access roads, and pre-fire-
attack planning and other watershed activities. We have endorsed

[ocr errors]

and actively supported the multiple-use management plan devised for this ranger district.

The zone advisory committee, which is charged with recommending tax levies and designating water conservation and flood control projects to be supported, has concluded that the wild area should remain in its present status. In the event that the area is opened for commercial ski resorts, this committee may be compelled to consider that the management plan has been refuted and recommend that these local funds be discontinued because it would counter the zone's efforts in combating the fire and burn problems in the management of this watershed.

Thank you.

Mr. BARING. Are there any questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have just one or two questions.

At the present time, this area is being used as a ski area and it is also being used as a summer recreation area?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you disagree with that use?

Mr. HINCKLEY. No; that is the established use.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, if the area were opened up to a day-use ski area, it is my understanding that the legislation would open it up for only day-use ski area and there would be no overnight facilities in there whatsoever. The people would move in and move out of the area daily. Do you object to that use?

Mr. HINCKLEY. Well, you are putting more people in the watershed, and our experience has been here that the more people you have in the watershed, the more chance you have of fire, use of water, and things of that nature.

Mr. JOHNSON. The area is open at the present time for use, there is no limitation placed on those who go in there to ski, there is no limitation placed on those who go in there to find summer recreation within the area; is that not true?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, to use this drawing, is it not for use both for a winter sports area and also for a summer recreation area?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That is true, but they have to walk in there now. If you build a road in and let everybody go in you will have thousands more people.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are not talking about building a road into the wilderness area as such.

I think we have had enough testimony from enough people to say that if this was opened up for day use, this would be used only for skiing purposes, at least as is proposed in legislation introduced by your Congressman and some of the rest of us in Congress.

Mr. HINCKLEY. Well, the creation of commercial ski resorts is not planned in the multiple-use plan for this particular forest area that was gotten up a number of years back.

We say that the forest officials should stay by their plan.

Mr. JOHNSON. You believe in multiple use? If you do, you certainly believe in recreation in the forested areas of the United States. That is what is taking place in most of our forests.

Mr. HINCKLEY. Recreation in certain areas, yes, and we do not say that this area should be opened to commercial recreation.

Mr. JOHNSON. There is to be no commercial use as intended by this bill. This legislation does not call for that.

The legislation opens up a portion of this for day use only for skiing; for a ski area. I have 24 of these in my own district, 24 of these areas that are on Forest Service land plus some located partly or completely on private lands.

Overall, they are generally using a good deal of the Forest Service land. I have 10 national forests in my own congressional district and we have recreation of all types on a multiple-use basis under the multiple-use bill enacted by the Congress a few years ago.

Now, I think we should hold our testimony here to what the legislation calls for. We are here to hear testimony as it relates to the legislation pending before the Congress.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARING. Mr. Hosmer?

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Hinckley, do you see a difference in the circumstances here in San Bernardino County, closely adjacent to a large metropolitan area, in fact, comprising a part of that large metropolitan area, any difference than the situation that might exist in Congressman Johnson's larger congressional area and perhaps one more remote from, let us say, the teeming masses of people, as far as the issue is concerned of possible fire hazard and so forth?

Mr. HINCKLEY. The answer to that, sir, is that there are other areas out of the San Bernardino National Forest that have been set aside for ski lifts and commercial ski resorts. I say that those can take care of that business and leave this particular area, the wilderness area set aside in San Gorgonio as a wilderness area. That is the position of the water conservation and flood control committee that embraces the district.

Mr. HOSMER. One further question and that is with respect to the proposed road or roads.

Is it your understanding that the road would be open all year round and therefore available for use not only by skiers at appropriate times, but to other persons at all times of the year except for nighttime closure?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That has been the history of the roads that were built by the CCC in the San Bernardino National Forest, that they were locked and closed for a portion of the year, and 20 years later, they are open to the public on a year-round basis.

We just felt that they that that would probably be what would develop for the access road to this ski tow.

Mr. HOSMER. Has your committee found it possible to make any estimate of the additional population that might ensue as a result of such a road?

Mr. HINCKLEY. No; we have not made any estimates.

Mr. HOSMER. Are they in the thousands or the tens of thousands; would you know?

Mr. HINCKLEY. Well, from the patronage of the ski tows in Big Bear Lake, around Big Bear Lake, I would say it could be up in the tens of thousands.

Mr. HOSMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinckley.

Next, we will call on Mr. Edward F. Dolder, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation.


Mr. DOLDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am presenting the summary statement of Fred L. Jones, the director of the California State Department of Parks and Recreation.

In May 1964 the U.S. Forest Service produced an excellent report entitled "National Forest Lands Adaptable to Winter Sports Use in Southern California." After discussing the existing winter sports areas in the national forests of southern California (and this includes practically all such developments in this part of the State), some of which are dependent entirely on natural snow and some of which supplement the natural snowfall with artificial or "custom" snow, the report then discusses potential sites for further development of winter sports in southern California. These are six in number, including San Gorgonio. The best of these areas are in Kern and Tulare Counties in the extreme southern part of the Sierra Nevada. Although farther from Los Angeles than the San Gorgonio Wilderness, these better areas are within a 4-hour drive of the metropolitan region. While admittedly better from the winter sports standpoint than any other areas south of the Tehachapi, San Gorgonio does not always have completely adequate snow, and during some winters its use would be limited unless artificial snow were added to the natural snowfall.

The report concludes, among other points, that the winter sports needs of southern California can be met without developing facilities at San Gorgonio; and that development funds might equally well be spent in the southern Sierra areas where there would be greater capacity, present availability, and no invasion of a dedicated area nor the controversy attendant thereto.

There is another important factor bearing on the availability of winter recreation in southern California. Within the last 2 years, the State of California has begun the acquisition of a major unit of the State park system immediately adjoining the San Gorgonio wilderness on the east. This area has recently been named Heart Bar State Park, and some 4 miles of its boundary adjoins that of San Gorgonio. It is our plan and intention to develop winter sports facilities in this new and very fine unit of the State park system. Although at a slightly lower elevation than the lands proposed for development at San Gorgonio, this new State park will obviously have much the same climate and similar weather, by virtue of its immediate proximity. I submit that it would be better public policy to provide for winter development in this adjacent area, which cannot itself qualify as wilderness, than to invade a dedicated wilderness with roads and other mechanical contrivances necessary for the enjoyment of winter sports. The fact of the matter is that there simply is no other land that can be added to San Gorgonio Wilderness as a replacement, as a true replacement for that proposed for diversion for development purposes, as contemplated in the bills under consideration by your committee. If there were, it probably would have been included in the primitive area when it was first established in 1931. Heart

« PreviousContinue »