Exhibit "B" Question 12: There has been much discussion recently about Findings: Level of Agreement Overall Оде Percent by Region Three Four Strongly Agree 65.0 70.8 59.8 Six (N-2014) (N-616) (N-199) (N=590) (N=209) (N-200) (N=200) Five 75.9 37.3 55.5 58.5 Mildly Agree Mildly Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Observations: Statewide, just under two-thirds of those questioned "strongly agree" with the idea of establishing a national Park in nevada. Once again, support for this idea is strongest in Regions One and Three, and weakest in Four and Five. Support is particularly low in Region four, with just 37 percent there expressing strong agreement. As in the previous questions, support for this idea is weakest among those who have resided in Nevada for more than 10 years, and among older respondents: Senator HECHT. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of you who have come from long distances to testify. Some of you live locally, but many came at a tremendous expense, and that is greatly appreciated. I want to thank the staff for their indulgence, and all the work which they have done. Tony, again, you are great. And last but not least, our court reporter who has sat there so patiently and recorded every word for the record. Thank you all, and we are now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Honorable Malcolm Wallop Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Reserved Water, and Resource Conservation Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Wallop: In response to your letter of July 23, enclosed are our answers to questions submitted by Senator Johnston concerning S. 2506, the proposed Great Basin National Park, on which we testified at the hearing before your Subcommittee on July 18, 1986. Sincerely, Home Berts J. Stephen Britt Enclosure 1. QUESTIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONCERNING S. 2506 Subsection 3(e) of S. 2506 states in part that the "Secretary shall permit grazing on lands within the park to the same extent as was permitted on such lands as of July 1, 1985." Does this give the Park Service adequate flexibility to regulate grazing and protect park resources? Could such a provision conceivably lead to overgrazing in the park since levels appear to be fixed without regard to possible changes in use, climate, etc.? Could this provision be interpreted as requiring the National Park Service to find users for AUM's abandoned by present permittees since the level of grazing cannot, by statute, fall below July 1, 1985, levels? also provides ANSWER: Subsection 3(c) provides that grazing shall continue on lands within the park to the заде extent as was permitted on such lands as of July 1, 1985, but that such grazing will be subject to such limitations, conditions, or regulations as the Secretary may prescribe to ensure that overgrazing does not occur and proper range management is maintained. It is our understanding that the provisions of subsection 3(c) were to ensure that grazing was not terminated but would be allowed to continue under proper range conditions. We believe that the appropriate interpretation of this subsection is that the National Park Service shall allow grazing (i.e., the same number of animal unit months) not in excess of a ceiling level of July 1, 1985, should the present permittees abandon their allotments. 2. How much private land is located within the boundary proposed by S. 2506? How does this compare with the area included in the 174,000-acre park passed by the House? ANSWER: It is our understanding that there are ΠΟ privately owned surface estates within the proposed 44,000-acre boundary. Also, we have been informed that there are approximately 877 acres within the proposed 174,000-acre boundary that are privately owned in addition to numerous valid mining claims that constitute an interest in land. 3. Do you support the provision in the House-passed bill specifically abolishing the Lehman Caves National Monument? ANSWER: Yes. We support the provision in the House-passed bill that would abolish Lehman Caves National Monument and would incorporate the lands within the Great Basin National Park. 4. It appears that subsection 3(c) of S. 2506 limits the contents of the management plan for the park to provisions related to grazing and fish and wildlife management. Do you find such language too restrictive? ANSWER: Section 12(b) of the Act of August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C. la-7), requires the National Park Service to prepare general management plans for each unit of the National Park System, which shall include measures for preservation of the resources, type and intensity of development, and carrying capacity. If a national park were authorized by Congress, the National Park Service would address the provisions of subsection 3(c) during the preparation of the general management plan required pursuant to the Act of August 18, 1970. 5. Do you feel that the language in S. 2506 regarding the prohibition of any reservation of water for park purposes could affect any existing withdrawal made when the Humboldt National Forest was established? If so, how would you propose to amend the language to avoid this problem? ANSWER: We believe that under S. 2506 sufficient water would be available to successfully manage the park for the purposes set out in the bill. |