Mr. Jerry Greenberg
Vice President of The Wilderness Society
On behalf of Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Nevada Wilderness Project, Campaign for America’s Wilderness, Red Rock Audubon Society, & The Wilderness Society            

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Forests
United States Senate               

Hearing on S. 3772 White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006
November 16, 2006   

Chairman Craig, Members of the Committee and staff, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.  My name is Jerry Greenberg.  I am the Vice President for Regional Conservation of The Wilderness Society.  I am here today representing Friends of Nevada Wilderness, The Nevada Wilderness Project, Campaign for America’s Wilderness, Red Rock Audubon Society, and The Wilderness Society. Collectively these organizations represent more than 3600 Nevadans including members in White Pine County and nearly 210,000 citizens across the country. On behalf of the five organizations, I would like to thank Senators Reid and Ensign and their staffs for the hard work that has gone into this legislation.  Their process has been fair, and they have worked hard to listen to the concerns and recommendations from all interested parties.  I would also like to thank the staff of this Subcommittee for visiting White Pine County and touring some of the areas that would be designated as Wilderness under this legislation.   As you know, S. 3772 is a complex public lands bill built upon five years of local citizen efforts that addresses a variety of issues in White Pine County, Nevada.  Although not perfect, this legislation is a compromise that addresses a number of competing uses on public lands and is product of a true bi-partisan effort.  With the improvements recommended in our testimony, we believe that this legislation represents significant gains for the National Wilderness Preservation System and should be enacted without delay. While I will briefly address each title of the bill, our expertise is on the wilderness title of the legislation; therefore I will focus the majority of my testimony on that title.   

TITLE I – LAND DISPOSAL

We recognize that many rural Nevada counties have communities that are surrounded by public lands. White Pine County is composed of about 95% federally managed land. Out of 5.7 million acres in the county, only 195,840 acres (3.4%) are privately owned, with much of this being family ranches.  We are pleased that the bill defers to current law and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Use Planning process for determination of which public lands are appropriate for sale in the future.   We believe that the far reaching planning decisions of determining which public lands might be eligible for disposal should be made with extensive public involvement as part of the agency’s land use planning process and carefully consider impacts to communities and natural and cultural resources.  Over the last several years, there have been extensive public meetings regarding the potential sale of public lands in White Pine County.  From the dozens of meetings we have attended, it seems clear that the majority of White Pine County citizens do not want to see a massive sell off of their public lands. These lands in public ownership are very important to people for a number of reasons, including serving as important watersheds, places for camping, hunting and fishing, caving, climbing and a broad array of other recreational opportunities.  In our view, another vital component of this bill is its retention of current law requiring environmental reviews prior to determination of whether or not a sale should take place.  It is important to assess in detail what values may be found on these public lands, including cultural resources, prior to finalizing the determination of which lands should be sold. Utilizing the planning process referred to above, the Ely BLM Field Office draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement released in summer of 2005 identified about 23,000 acres for potential disposal in White Pine County.  As stated, we believe that the agency planning process appropriately applied should be the basis for determining the extent of any land disposal.   Thus, we recommend that the 45,000 acres mentioned in Section 101 (b) be reduced to more accurately reflect the amount of land that might reasonably and appropriately be identified for sale through the BLM Resource Management Plan or subsequent amendments.   It is also important to note that the lands identified in the RMP for potential disposal are primarily located in the Steptoe Valley and contain little to no ecological value.  This valley contains the communities of Ely, McGill, and Cherry Creek, and is the location of the bulk of the county’s infrastructure.  This includes the airport, industrial park, railroad, highway, and transmission corridors.  With respect to allocation of proceeds from land sales, we acknowledge Nevada’s unique laws regarding the disbursement of land disposal proceeds.  However, we believe that proceeds from the sale of public land should be used for conservation purposes, as Nevada’s current laws intend. 

TITLE II – WILDERNESS AREAS 

We believe the wilderness title represents a significant gain for conservation and wilderness in this part of the state.  In order to present a better understanding of the wilderness quality lands found in White Pine County, I thought it would be helpful to first begin by providing some background information on our wilderness proposal and our involvement with the White Pine County Commission and others that have been engaged in wilderness discussions over the last several years. White Pine County’s Wild Landscape White Pine County is located in the eastern portion of the state, adjacent to the Utah border.  The county consists of approximately 5.7 million acres of which approximately 95% is federally managed public land.  Ely, the county seat, is located about four hours north of Las Vegas.  The areas proposed for wilderness in White Pine County are at the heart of the Great Basin, where majestic mountain ranges tower over wide valleys of sagebrush.  This rugged and scenic landscape supports diverse plant and wildlife species, including elk, mule deer, cougar, pronghorn, sage grouse, a major raptor migration route, and a host of other birds, mammals, and reptiles. Our Involvement in White Pine County Discussions Almost 5 years ago, Nevada’s congressional delegation asked all interested elected officials, groups and individuals, including our organizations, to develop and forward proposals for public land legislation dealing with White Pine County.  At that time, we made a decision to engage in discussions and work with interested parties to find solutions to protecting the county’s wild lands. During this process we have submitted the citizens’ wilderness proposal to the county Public Land Use Advisory Committee, the White Pine County Commission and to the congressional delegation.  In addition, over the last few years we have attended countless meetings and numerous public hearings with local elected officials, ranchers, off-road vehicle user groups, agency staff, sportsmen and women, and staff from the congressional delegation to discuss our proposal.  We have also participated in numerous field trips with various interested parties to proposed wilderness areas to view the land firsthand and to find solutions to these complicated issues. Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal For decades, citizens of Nevada have been inventorying wilderness quality lands in the state.  Once the congressional delegation shifted focus to White Pine County, our organizations compiled existing data and began to collect new data in order to create the Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal for White Pine County.  Utilizing this two prong approach, we were able to develop a more accurate and up to date wilderness proposal for 730,000 acres. The wilderness quality lands in the county are managed by two federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service.  Since part of our proposal is based on data collected from the land managing agencies we will first describe our proposal for lands managed by the BLM. It is our belief that the Bureau of Land Management’s wilderness inventories of the late 1970’s were faulty for numerous reasons, and in order to develop an adequate wilderness proposal we needed more current and accurate information.  In 1979, during its eight-month Initial Wilderness Inventory, the Nevada Bureau of Land Management used “existing information” and “inventoried” roughly 49 million acres and immediately dropped 32.9 million acres from further consideration. This was a rushed process by any measure. The public was then given only 90 days to comment on the decision. The Bureau of Land Management then spent six months on “intensive” on-the-ground surveys of the remaining 16.1 million acres. Assuming they worked seven days a week, this “intensive” inventory required Bureau of Land Management personnel to survey 88,462 acres per day. After this intensive survey, which was cursory at best, the agency dropped 11.1 million acres from further consideration. Once again, the public was given only 90 days to comment on the decision. Given the inadequate results of that rushed process, our coalition determined it was necessary to inventory public lands in the county managed by the BLM.  The Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in White Pine County includes all of the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) that lie partially or entirely in the county.  Our organizations advocate for the protection of entire WSAs, whether recommended or not recommended for wilderness by the BLM. Based on field inventories and extensive research, we assert that each of these WSAs qualify as Wilderness and merits protection as such.  In addition to the WSAs, we have included some Bureau of Land Management managed lands that were not given WSA status by the agency following the Intensive Wilderness Inventory conducted during 1979-1980.  The Coalition has conducted updated field inventories of many non-WSA public lands within the last several years and has determined that many do qualify for Wilderness based on the criteria of the Wilderness Act.  Many of these areas recommended for Wilderness designation in our Citizens’ Proposal were originally dismissed by the BLM from further Wilderness study based on flawed criteria and rationale, which resulted in the dismissal of significant wild landscapes throughout Nevada.  The other federal agency that manages a significant amount of wilderness quality lands in the county is the Forest Service.  Currently, the Forest Service manages the only two designated wilderness areas in the county, Currant Mountain Wilderness, partially located in the southwest part of the county, and Mt. Moriah Wilderness located entirely within the eastern part of the county.  Both wilderness areas were designated in 1989.  Similar to our review of BLM WSAs, we reviewed the boundaries of the congressionally designated wilderness areas to verify that the existing boundaries made sense from an ecological and management perspective.  There are a number of Forest Service Inventoried Roadless areas in White Pine County that have extremely high wilderness values.  Based on our field work, we included a number of them in our Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal.  Wilderness values and wildlife habitat do not stop at administrative boundaries. When we created our proposal, we based our boundaries on ecological and physical features, rather than county lines or agency administrative boundaries.  Our Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal for White Pine County recommended Wilderness designation for approximately 730,000 acres of public land managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. Using the latest technology and mapping methods, and with thorough research into biological, wildlife, cultural, and economic aspects of the landscape, we developed a comprehensive proposal for Wilderness in White Pine County.  The process for creating this proposal consisted of conducting updated field inventories as well as researching current data provided by federal land managers, state offices, local citizens, and local governments. The field inventory process involved sending paid and volunteer field crews out to Eastern Nevada to photo document wilderness values as well as man-made impacts on the land and mark precise locations on a topographic map using a global positioning system (GPS) unit. To date, the field inventory process has yielded thousands of photos taken since 2000.  The field inventory information was then compiled with existing data from other sources including people who lived and worked in the area in an effort to minimize potential conflicts with other uses and create the best possible boundary. Our data was then compared to information and rationale from the land managing agencies to help determine the validity of their recommendations.  Finally, based on updated fieldwork and additional research, Wilderness proposal area boundaries were delineated and descriptions and Wilderness rationale were documented. One of the most heartening wilderness efforts we engaged in was a jointly agreed-upon wilderness proposal for the High Schells (Schell Creek Range), signed by longstanding ranchers in White Pine County and endorsed by our organizations.  This cooperative effort began in the late winter of 2002, as we discussed the possibility of garnering lasting protections for this wondrous mountain range, while finally halting the negative impacts to landscape being caused by years of irresponsible off-road vehicle use.  During the spring and summer of 2003, this collective group of concerned citizens met on a regular basis.  Together, we traveled every key road and access point, talked over important ranching facilities that required continued motorized access along with historical uses of valid roads and routes in the area.  The vast majority of ranchers who run livestock in the High Schells had a direct hand in drawing the agreed upon boundaries.  Finally, in November of 2003, the group signed a letter supporting a new wilderness proposal for the High Schells, and recognized that existing grazing rights are permitted under the Wilderness Act, subject to such regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary. The letter further stated that the area should be managed in accordance with the Congressional Grazing Guidelines which emphasize that all reasonable measures must be taken to minimize the impact of grazing activities on wilderness character and to protect other resource values.  The letter was sent to the Nevada Congressional Delegation and given to the White Pine County Commissioners.  Although there have been minor adjustments made to the boundary of this proposal in order to prevent conflicts with snowmobiles and mountain bikes in certain areas and to increase hunter access in another area, this effort stands as a great example of cooperative conservation action based on understanding, respect and trust. As a result of this effort, we were able to break down existing barriers to communication and bridge the gap between polarized viewpoints and work with other ranchers in the area.  This work resulted in a number of jointly agreed upon boundaries that satisfied many of the interested citizens. Wilderness Designations in S. 3772 We thank the Nevada congressional delegation for addressing wilderness in White Pine County.  Additionally, we appreciate their willingness to consider our wilderness recommendations from our Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal. As you know, the legislation designates 13 new Wilderness areas and makes two significant additions to existing Wilderness areas, totaling approximately 545,000 acres (BLM = 285,000 acres; Forest Service=260,000 acres.).  This bill would release approximately 65,000 acres from BLM WSA status. Although not perfect, S. 3772 would protect a significant amount of wilderness and make important additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Some highlights of the areas and resources that would receive Wilderness protection under S. 3772 include: 

• Schell Creek Range Wilderness, consisting of approximately 122,000 acres, contains prime wildlife habitat, and popular destination for primitive types of recreation and hunting.
• Red Mountain, Bald Mountain, White Pine Range, and Shellback Wilderness Areas, along with additions to the designated Currant Mountain Wilderness comprise an extensive block of relatively intact wild landscapes and wildlife habitat.
• Becky Peak, Government Peak, and Bristlecone, are citizen proposed areas with high wilderness values that the BLM failed to include as WSAs during their intensive inventory.
• Highland Ridge Wilderness, adjacent to Great Basin National Park, protects a significant amount of wildlife habitat as well geologic and other natural resources.
• Mt. Grafton Wilderness, which includes the tallest peak on BLM land in Nevada and which protects low elevation benchlands important to wildlife.
• Goshute Canyon Wilderness—the diverse landscape and vegetation of this area is also excellent habitat for several important raptor species including peregrine falcon, bald eagle and American kestrel, and limestone cliffs and caves.

 The legislation makes a technical correction to the Mt. Moriah Wilderness, designated in 1989.  It is our belief that these technical corrections are long overdue.  The original Mt. Moriah Wilderness boundary erroneously contained portions of well used vehicle routes, parking area as well as primitive camping and staging areas for hunters and horseback riders.  There are other slight adjustments made to allow for historical motorized access to range facilities like water troughs and pipelines.  By working with local ranchers and those involved during the development of the legislation in 1989, we were able to come to a joint agreement that resulted in support for the technical corrections along with adding additional acres to be designated as wilderness in the area. Recently, mining interests have expressed concerns about small portions of certain areas being included in the wilderness proposals for White Pine County.  Every effort has been made to exclude known and active mining areas from these proposals.  Some mining groups have erroneously claimed that the Wilderness Act requires mineral surveys before areas can be designated wilderness.  They specifically reference Section 4(d)(2) of the Wilderness Act.  It is clear to us that Section 4(d)(2) deals only with already-designated national forest Wilderness areas.  Perhaps they are mistakenly referring to Section 3(b) of the Wilderness Act, which was expressly limited to the study of 34 national forest "primitive areas" that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  It is very clear that there is no requirement in the Wilderness Act that mineral surveys be conducted before Congress can designate wilderness areas.  Over all of these years, regardless of what party was in control, no such requirement has ever been put into law. Specific Comments regarding the Wilderness Title of S. 3772 Although we are appreciative of the wilderness designated under S. 3772, we have some specific comments regarding the Wilderness title.  We understand that over the years, conditions on the ground can change and sometimes these changes require minor boundary adjustments, resulting in small gains or losses for wilderness, in order to best protect the wilderness resources.  We believe that some of the boundary modifications can be accommodated.  However, we do not support a net loss of habitat in legislation due to the inappropriate management of an area. This happened to the South Egan Range Wilderness Study Area.  Much of the central portion of the WSA was not included for wilderness designation in this bill because illegal vehicle routes were created over the last twenty years after the area was designated as a wilderness study area.  The wilderness values within the South Egan Range WSA were to have been managed so as to protect them until Congress had the opportunity to determine what should be wilderness.  Unfortunately, a number of illegally created routes have been created within the WSA and have led some to believe that these are “historically” used routes.  We believe that some requests put forth by local residents and the county to use some of these routes can be agreed to.  We however, believe that an expanded boundary, closer to the original WSA boundary is necessary to prevent further irresponsible off-road vehicle use and to halt the fragmentation of key wildlife habitat and to protect the wilderness characteristics of the area. There were a number of other areas worthy of protection that were not included in the legislation.  We have provided detailed information of these areas in our Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal.  In addition to the South Egan WSA, the areas not designated as Wilderness under this legislation that are most troubling to us include Blue Mass/Kern Mountains and the Antelope Range.  The White Pine County Commission has repeatedly expressed a need for protecting the incredible scenic values of the Blue Mass/Kern Mountain area.  We believe it is critical that this bill address protection for the Blue Mass/Kern Mountains area. We also believe that the wilderness values in the Antelope Range are worthy of wilderness protection.  We request that these areas be added to the legislation and will continue to work with the delegation to ensure these places receive the protection they deserve. The water rights language found in this legislation closely resembles language used in previous wilderness bills and is commonly referred to as “headwaters” language.  Given the fact that many of these proposed wilderness areas contain more widely distributed water resources they require slightly different language than what has been used in previous public lands bills in Nevada.  It is important to note that this language has been successfully enacted and implemented for the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (PL 103-77) and subsequent wilderness laws.  We feel this language is appropriate and will protect the flowing waters and wilderness resources of the areas designated in this bill. Our organizations recognize certain “cherrystems” to allow for wilderness boundaries to be brought to lower elevations and to provide key access points.  However, we also recognize that an abundance of “cherrystems” can accelerate the spread of invasive plants and further fragment wildlife habitat.  Allowing vehicle access directly to natural springs greatly increases the harassment to wildlife using these water sources.  We strongly believe that in order to best protect and lessen harassment and impacts to wildlife, “cherrystems” should be pulled back at least 0.5 to 1 mile from the water sources.  Often, “cherrystems” are proposed as a result of an individual or group of people that desire to have motorized access on that particular route.  Our organizations take pride in working with affected users to find common sense solutions that can work for everyone. The presence of native wildlife at naturally fluctuating population levels is an important component of wilderness character. White Pine County, unlike Lincoln and Clark County, contains many natural springs and creeks for wildlife thus requiring the installation of fewer artificial water sources.  In the event that new artificial water sources are determined to be necessary, we believe that the construction of new “guzzlers” should be prioritized outside of Wilderness areas. 

TITLE III- TRANSFERS OF JURISDICTION 

These transfers of jurisdiction in this title make good sense ecologically and from a management perspective.  First, we support the transfer in this title that would transfer 645 acres of BLM land to the Fish and Wildlife Service. This acreage is currently a BLM inholding within the southern portion of the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge in the northwestern corner of White Pine County.  Second, we support the transfer of the Forest Service lands totaling about 117,000 acres to the BLM.  Approximately 70,000 acres would be designated as Highland Ridge Wilderness.  This transfer would allow for more effective management between the Park Service and the BLM instead of having three agencies managing a single unit.  We believe that it is positive for wildlife and habitat management that the remaining 47,000 acres would be withdrawn from the BLM’s land disposal and mineral laws, and that vehicles will be limited to designated routes. 

TITLE IV – PUBLIC CONVEYANCES 

We are supportive of the conveyances outlined in this title.  Most of the conveyances are open space to open space conveyances and will result in consolidated management of the areas and natural resources found within them.  Specifically, we believe that the conveyance of 650 acres of BLM managed lands to Nevada State Parks in order to expand Ward Charcoal Ovens State Park, which is currently being managed by the State Parks, and the conveyance of 6,281 acres of BLM managed lands to the Nevada Department of Wildlife to enlarge the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management area just south of Ely are sensible solutions.  We are generally supportive of other public conveyances for appropriate community needs when the lands do not possess any wilderness qualities or sensitive habitat. 

TITLE V – SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL 

Our organizations encourage a fully transparent decision making process independently initiated by the affected land management agency. We recognize that this bill provides some protections in the form of a study, criteria that must be met prior to designation (e.g., no significant impacts), and limits the extent of a trail system.  In these respects, this bill is an improvement over the Lincoln County legislation that legislatively designated a site-specific trail system.  We would prefer that the agency’s obligations for monitoring and enforcement were mandatory and fully enforceable.  In addition, we are concerned that this provision does not adequately address the current issues of inappropriate ORV use in the area.  It is our belief that the BLM should have the opportunity to fully complete a comprehensive travel planning process for the district before decisions are made on this trail.  Lastly, we support adding language to the bill that ensures that any proposed trail system will not significantly impact traditional uses such as livestock grazing.  It is our preference that this legislation provide clear congressional direction that the study and planning process be conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements. 

TITLE VI – TRANSFER OF LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE ELY SHOSHONE TRIBE 

We believe that it is important for the native people in White Pine County to be fairly treated.  Increasing the amount of land by 3,500 acres to be held in trust for the Ely Shoshone Tribe seems appropriate.  It is our understanding that the bulk of the land is to be designated for traditional and ceremonial uses and that no gaming would be allowed on any of the parcels. 

TITLE VII – EASTERN NEVADA LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROJECT 

We support the goals of the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project, which is part of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative.  The ecological health of our Great Basin ecosystem is important given the increasing loss of our native grass and shrub lands to invasive and exotic species.  It is our understanding that the projects implemented by this act would be small in scale and would be conducted in compliance with the Ely Field Office Resource Management Plan and the National Environmental Protection Act. 

TITLE VIII – AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1998

This title makes amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (PL 105-263).  The original goal of that legislation was to make funds available to mitigate the results of the sale of public lands for development in Clark County.  As previously stated, we believe that the proceeds from the sale of public lands should be used for conservation purposes.  This ensures that the American public does not lose the conservation benefits which they cherish.  To the extent that these amendments would move the use of these proceeds away from conservation benefits we would not be supportive of those changes. We are supportive of the amendment to allow Washoe County to apply for funds to purchase land (up to 250 acres) of the Ballardini Ranch and develop a regional park and natural area. This is an important component of the acquisition provision in SNPLMA and in line with its purpose. In closing, we hope the subcommittee will give our comments and suggested bill improvements very serious consideration.  With the improvements recommended in our testimony, we believe that this legislation represents significant gains for the National Wilderness Preservation System and should be enacted without delay.