Senator HECHT. Thank you. Please convey to the Governor my thanks for giving testimony for this hearing. Mr. RICHER. I certainly will. Senator HECHT. Mr. Ferrel Hansen, White Pine Chamber of Com merce. STATEMENT OF FERREL HANSEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WHITE PINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ELY, NV Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. For the record, my name is Ferrel Hansen. I am here representing the White Pine Chamber of Commerce in Ely, NV. Senator HECHT. Excuse me, Ferrel. Would you mind? Could we recognize Senator Hollings? Senator HOLLINGS. Let's wait on Senator Thurmond. Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. Senator HECHT. I'm sorry Ferrel, I did not want to hold up the Senator from his busy schedule, but he wants to wait for Senator Thurmond. So please continue. Mr. HANSEN. Again, my name is Ferrel Hansen. I am here representing the White Pine Chamber of Commerce in Ely, NV, the county in which the Great Basin National Park will be created. I have brought with me today for entry into the record many letters of support from residents and organizations of Nevada and Utah. These represent, and I can honestly say that these letters show overwhelming support for this park in the areas of eastern Nevada and western Utah. Nevada is the only Western State without a national park. More important, the Great Basin is the only ecosystem in our country that is not represented by a national park. In a 1981 report by the Department of the Interior entitled "Study of Alternatives: Great Basin National Park," it clearly indicates that the South Snake Division of the Humboldt National Forest is the choice area to represent this ecosystem. It is time to preserve this area for all future generations of Americans to see and enjoy. The effort to establish this park in the Mount Wheeler area of Nevada is more than 60 years old. Now, with your support, it will become a reality. This creation will give a much-needed boost to the economic depression of White Pine County and help make it a destination tourist area of our country. An estimated 200,000 visitors will spend an average of $55 daily in the local economy. Compare this to the 38,000 visitors who vis ited Lehman Caves in 1984 and you can see that there are economic benefits that will accrue. Another key point is that the national park in Nevada will go hand in hand with our State's principal industry, which is tourism. A park means increased tourism. Nevadans are overwhelmingly in support of this park because they would rather be known for it than nuclear waste disposal areas. Because of our mining and agricultural heritage, we would also like to see the rights and privileges established for the mining and agricultural sectors preserved. The park as proposed in S. 2506 will in some respects impact the grazing allotments of three producers unless their privileges are preserved. The overriding need to preserve the area is only equaled by the need to create the park in a size that will incorporate within its boundaries those features which make it unique and beautiful. Those have been expanded upon many times in previous testimony. Also important to the creation of the park is that it be a manageable area. Capital improvements, both those existing and other designated areas for future expansion, need to be included in any park legislation. Giving these features proper consideration when planning boundaries will preclude the need for future park expansion, an issue that would be opposed bitterly by some residents of our county. The debate in White Pine County, NV, and surrounding the Great Basin National Park issue has been a long one. It is now time for all of us to get down to the business of deciding upon the specific elements of the park. We are now at a critical crossroads that will determine the very existence of the park. These crossroads are the reaching of an agreeable size between the Senate and the House of Representatives. If there is not a solution to this in this session of Congress, we see this as a potential fatal flaw in the obtaining of a park for White Pine County. Do this not only for White Pine County but for everyone, including future generations of Americans. S. 2506 is a good bill and is written with the best interests of America in mind. If this committee has those interests at heart, you will recommend passage by the Senate and will work diligently to see that the question of size is resolved soon so the Park Service can begin preparing the area to receive all future generations of Americans. Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of myself, the White Pine Chamber of Commerce, and the 69 percent of Nevadans who want the Great Basin National Park to shine as a crown jewel of our State. [The letters submitted by Mr. Hansen follow:] WHITE PINE COUNTY FAIR AND RECREATION BOARD February 10, 1986 HONORABLE CHIC HECHT 302 Hart Senate Office Building Washing, D. C. 20510 Re: Public Hearing on the Great Basin National Park Dear Senator Hecht: It is the feeling of the Fair & Recreation Board of White Pine County, Nevada that if faced with the choice of a National Park or a Wilderness Area at the Mount Wheeler Peak area, the Board is in favor of a National Park. This motion was voted on and approved at the White Pine County Fair and Recreation Board meeting of 11-19-85. The White Pine Chamber of Commerce Tourism Committee goes on record supporting the creation of the Great Basin National Park. We feel the National Park would be a great tourist attraction for White Pine County and the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada Tourism Commission has targeted rural Nevada to develop tourism. Our chance of developing industry is slim; we see our our best chance of economic development through tourism. The Great Basin National Park would give the State Tourism Commission a big plus to work with. We would not have a sudden impact to deal with, but a steady growth that we could adjust to in an orderly manner, and blend into our present economy of the area. We feel the uniqueness of the area has long been overlooked as a potential National Park. We hope our Washington representatives see fit to give us the long awaited National Park that will preserve and utilize the area for everyone, not just a select few. JMB/la 65-854 O- 87 - 4 Sincerely, ,M. Bybee, Chairman, White Pine Chamber I wish to express my support for the creation of the Great Basin National Park. Just last week, I visited the area including the Lehman Caves and am very impressed with the unspoiled beauty which should be available to everyone. I see a National Park status as a hedge against the demands of those individuals who would lock up our resources making them available to only the affluent who have the time and money to visit remote wilderness areas. As manager of a major bank serving the contiguous Utah area, we feel strongly that National Park legislation must protect existing grazing permit rights, water rights and private property within the boundaries and contiguous areas to the proposed park. I A park boundary should be just as denoted a boundary. wish to enter my objection to any "vistas" which treat non park property as if it were in fact a portion of the park and thereby precluding resource development outside park boundary. The area needs both the scenic park and economic development of any untapped |