Big Sur Scenic Area Proposal Meets Strong Opposition

A proposal to designate Big Sur as a national scenic area, banning new development of 75,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land, met with strong opposition Thursday from Administration officials as well as from residents who fear “federalization” of private land and increased tourism.

The opposition came at a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee on public lands to consider the legislation sponsored by Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.).

Wilson’s proposal would permanently ban new mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development on the Forest Service land, and offshore oil and gas development within 20 miles of Monterey County’s Big Sur, considered one of the nation’s most spectacular coastal areas.

“We do not see sufficient justification for the bill’s provision to withdraw lands from mining or mineral leasing,” said George S. Dunlop, assistant agriculture secretary for natural resources and environment. He also said “the Administration is strongly opposed to legislative withdrawals of the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas leasing or other economic uses.”

A written statement from the Interior Department echoed displeasure with the bill and estimated that as much as 25% to 35% of the undiscovered oil and gas resources of Central California would be prohibited from future offshore leasing if the bill becomes law.

Karin Strasser Kauffman, Monterey County supervisor, expressed residents’ fears that the government would seek to expand into the 55,000 private acres abutting the federal land, and that local preservation efforts would be “scrapped and overruled.”

At the center of those efforts is a restrictive county land-use plan adopted in April that allows only small-scale development.

“If those efforts are being made at the local level, then the worst step we could take right now is to undercut those efforts,” California Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey) said. But Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), co-sponsor of the bill, said that federal law “would provide permanence and reinforce the local effort.” Five years ago, Cranston proposed legislation to designate Big Sur as a scenic area by seeking $100 million in federal funds to buy more than 700,000 acres from private land owners. But the legislation failed.

Wilson said that under his legislation the Forest Service could only take over private property in Big Sur that is being developed contrary to the county’s land-use plan. If passed, his bill would be the second designation of a national scenic area--the first being Mono Lake, also a bill that Wilson sponsored.

He said federal regulations on land development would protect Big Sur from the changing attitudes of “tomorrow’s supervisors.”

Wilson, responding to fears that publicity generated by a national scenic area would drastically multiply the more than 3 million annual visitors to the region, cited a Forest Service report that said “designation of Big Sur Scenic Area would not result in a significant increase in visitor use.”