The effort to create a national park in this area, which is already under competent public administration, is ill-advised. The area is already being competently administered by the U.S. Forest Service, where all uses are integrated, where the resources can be more fully met. Multiple-use management in this area, or in any similar area, would be essentially wiped out should action be taken to lock it up as a national park or monument. Argument that the area should be added to the National Park System while there is still time, is an indication of the lack of understanding of National Forest management policies and administration and is a deliberate attempt to create an erroneous impression. The area has been safely administered by the Forest Service for more than 50 years under the multiple-use concept of land management. It is generally in very good condition and there is no danger whatsoever of damage to scenic or recreational values. A long-range program of conservation and recreational development has been recommended by the Forest Service and is in effect at the present time. This plan gives full recognition to scenic, scientific, recreational, and renewable resources. Most of the area is comprised of long, steep, narrow canyons with a road and creek in each one. These creeks all flow down and are used for other things off the national forest, including culinary. It would be impossible to put anywhere near the amount of people a national park would bring without destruction to the vegetation in these areas and, most certainly, pollution of the waterways. Two of these canyons nearest to Lehman Caves National Monument are already near capacity for camping and they would be the ones that would receive most of the pressure from the additional people. It would also be infeasible to push anywhere near this number of people through the caves. The inclusion of this area in a national park with the increase of people it would bring would destroy the very thing that it was designed to preserve. Why should we sacrifice an area like Mount Wheeler to single, or limited-purpose use and the deterioration of even this use that a park would bring, when we can have recreation and preserve the scenic values without sacrificing our basic industry. The only possible advantage I can see in the park is the possible bolstering of a few businesses in Reno, Nevada. I cannot see the justice in trying to inflate the economy of one group of people at the direct expense of another. One of my other vital concerns is money. Because of the topography and area covered, this would be an economic boondoggle to try to administer under Park Service management. Because of the many canyons that are not connected to each other, there would be a problem with controlling access and policing those people that were there. It would cost a lot to provide facilities at all these places to even provide minimum services for the people that proponents claim are going to come. There is only a small portion that is connected to Lehman Caves and the cost to provide roads for people to see the rest would be astronomical, given the terrain that would have to be traversed to get people from one part of the park to another. The $1 million provided in the bill wouldn't even get started, especially considering it cost nearly half that much just to run a new power line from the Forest Service boundary up to the caves. I have to agree with Secretary Hodel in a recent speech in Reno when he said that at a time when the Park Service is having to shut down parts of already established national parks, we cannot justify establishing a new park. And to establish a park and curtail a lot of these uses that are there now, and not provide for the increased use a park would bring would be pure folly, indeed. Respectfully yours, Owen L. Gonder Senator HECHT. Thank you for testifying. Again, thank you for your indulgence to allow two busy Senators to testify. Mr. GONDOR. That is quite all right. Senator HECHT. We will now have a 5-minute recess, and we will reconvene in exactly 5 minutes. [Recess.] Senator HECHT. Our panel No. 9. Mr. Gordon Robertson, Mr. Russell Butcher, Mr. Brock Evans, Mr. Jay Meierdierck, Ms. Barbara Agonia, and Ms. Marjorie Sill. Mr. Gorton Robertson, would you please begin. Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin on a note of correction of the title that was furnished to the committee. It should read "Great Basin National Park Act, S. 2506," as opposed to the Nevada Wilderness Act. Senator HECHT. We will correct that. Give him another start. Do not take that off of his time. Mr. ROBERTSON. Give me a few more seconds. [Laughter.] STATEMENT OF GORDON C. ROBERTSON, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Mr. ROBERTSON. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was founded in 1902 and is a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies that possesses the legal authority for protection and management of fish and wildlife resources. The association's governmental members include the fish and wildlife managing agencies of the States, provinces, and Federal Governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. All 50 States are members. The association does not support the proposal for a Great Basin National Park as provided in S. 2506. The association's position is that the Wheeler Peak area should remain under Forest Service jurisdiction with a potential for congressional designation as a Ñational Forest Wilderness Area. The Wheeler Peak's area is already designated as a National Scenic Area, and the association believes that this serves the broader public interest. There are several reasons for this position. Nevada currently has an extremely high acreage of Federal lands, and further land designation that curtails or negates the State's authority and ability to manage wildlife is not in the best interest of the resource. National Park status would bring a halt to the Nevada Department of Wildlife's successful program of reintroduction of rocky mountain bighorn sheep, as well as management and research on all other forms of fish and wildlife within the area. The investment for the reintroduction of bighorn sheep and management of other wildlife species financed by hunters and anglers would be lost. No hunting would be allowed under park status, and access for those interested in fish and wildlife would be more restricted. In addition, we note that S. 2506 would allow grazing within a National Park, and it also makes no provision for water rights. If, however, the National Park bill advances, we request modification of the current Senate bill park boundaries to accommodate management of bighorn sheep and critical wintering range of mule deer. The eastern boundary of the proposed park would best suit wildlife management needs if it followed the Pole Canyon Road to its terminus in section 28 and then roughly followed the boundary of the existing Wheeler Peak Scenic Area. Mr. Chairman, there is a map attached to the testimony which shows the area of least impact. Senator HECHT. It will be put into the record. Mr. ROBERTSON. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 2506, and I will take any questions if you have them. [The map submitted by Mr. Robertson follows:] |