Brent Eldridge, Chairman

**White Pine County Commission**

**Statement on S. 3772, the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation,
and Development Act of 2006**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**November 16, 2006**

Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, thank you very much for holding a hearing
today on S. 3772, the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act of 2006.

On behalf of the White Pine County Commission, I am pleased to be here
today to provide our testimony on the White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act of 2006. We appreciate the time and
effort the Committee, its staff,

Senators Reid and Ensign, and their staff have committed to development
of this bill.

White Pine County residents have devoted hundreds of hours in our
efforts to develop our proposal for a Public Lands bill. Our Commission
and advisory boards have discussed various aspects of a potential bill
on a monthly basis over the past two years. We've held workshops; spent
hours reviewing maps with ranchers, agency staff, and recreationists;
and conducted tours of the proposed projects. We've appreciated the
working relationship we've developed with the representatives of the
Wilderness Coalition and we are proud of our citizens and their
commitment to reach consensus on the many and varied issues addressed in
the bill.

The County Commission has asked me to report to you that we support the
overall concept of a public lands bill, the community has five critical
issues we would like to see

addressed in the final version of the bill, and we have numerous
recommendations for minor changes in wording that we are submitting with
our written testimony.

The critical areas of concern remaining include:

1\. Throughout the discussions in the proposed bill, the community's
primary concern has been the need for extension of the water resources
studies initiated with the BARCASS project in the Lincoln Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act. There is a need for an a transient
ground water flow models for the Colorado Flow System and the Great Salt
Lake Flow System to fully understand the water resources for both
eastern Nevada and western Utah. We do not view the request for
additional funding to continue the water studies as antagonistic to the
Groundwater Development Project proposed by southern Nevada. As the West
deals with the demand for water and the balance between urban and rural
needs as well as environmental concerns and economic growth, we believe
that it is in everyone's interests to have the best possible scientific
information available, developed through the public sector, and
available for public review and comment. To date, there are no
provisions for additional water studies in the White Pine bill.

2\. The community has asked for limited access to the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act Capital Improvement and Conservation funds to
establish a Central Steptoe Valley Environmental Enhancement project.
White Pine County is experiencing substantial residential growth in the
central portion of Steptoe Valley due in large part to the influx of
southern Nevada residents purchasing and building summer and retirement
homes. In addition the majority of the use of recreation facilities
owned by the State of Nevada including the Steptoe Valley Wildlife
Management Area and Cave Lake State Park comes from Southern Nevada
residents. The residential growth and recreation activity do not provide
enough additional local tax revenues to address their impacts. We feel
it is critical and appropriate to use SNPLMA funding to protect the
environment and recreational activity in Central Steptoe Valley. We
propose that \$30 million in SNPLMA funding be set aside for the Central
Steptoe Valley Environmental Enhancement Project for three purposes: 1)
Renovation the Comins Lake Dam. The lake is a prime trout fishery that
supports over 70,000 angler days of activity per year and the Department
of Wildlife reports that the use is 70 percent from Southern Nevada
residents. It is located 6 miles south of Ely and the dam supports a
portion of US Highway 50. It has been surveyed by Nevada Department of
Transportation engineers and is in need of immediate repair. 2)
Expansion of water and waste water treatment facilities to serve the
growing residential areas in Steptoe Valley, reduce dependence on septic
systems and potential for contamination of the area, and provide
adequate water sources for fire protection along the Ward Mountain
foothills. 3) Purchase of private land that includes sensitive habitat
to contribute to environmental quality, open space, and recreation.

3\. The community has been extremely concerned about the provisions in
Title VIII providing hundreds of millions of dollars for projects in
both urban areas of the state: the Las Vegas Wash Waste Water Conveyance
System, the Southern Nevada Water Authority Cash for Grass Program, the
Tahoe Basin Restoration Project, the purchase of private land for a park
in Washoe County, and providing Nevada State Parks Division with access
to SNPLMA funds for development of parks located in Clark County. At the
same time, under the current version of the bill White Pine County would
have no access to the SNPLMA account for projects that will benefit the
environment and recreational attractions which receive the majority of
their use from Southern Nevada residents. Much of the growth currently
being experienced by Clark County has been facilitated by the access to
federal lands for disposal without the requirement to determine
available water resources to support that growth. Now, Southern Nevada
Water Authority is seeking to export all of the available water from
Spring Valley and much of the available water from Snake Valley to the
potential detriment of White Pine County's environment, economic
activity in the eastern portion of the County, and the Great Basin
National Park. White Pine County residents believe that it is only right
that we should have access to a portion of the fund.

4\. The most controversial aspect of the bill for White Pine County has
been the Tribal Proposal outlined in Title VI. The proposal would convey
hundreds of acres south of Ely to the Ely Shoshone Tribe. Residents in
the area feel betrayed by the federal agencies that proposed the
specific acreage to the Tribe, because they felt they were assured that
the land would not be recommended for development due to environmental
and jurisdictional concerns. State agencies have expressed strong
concerns that concentrated development on those lands could result in
negative environmental impacts to the Wildlife Management Area adjacent
to it. The Ely City Council feels strongly that the proposal interferes
with the ability for the City to expand. The City Council and County
Commission recommended alternatives that would allow expansion of Tribal
residential and commercial activity while avoiding the potential for
negative environmental impacts. The staff recommendation has been to
negotiate with the Tribe to develop an agreement to adhere to County
zoning and planning standards. The Tribal Chairman expressed willingness
to approach the Council about the potential of an agreement, but it has
gone no further. The County Commission asks that the concerns of all
citizens of the County be taken into account and the proposal supported
by the local governments should be reconsidered.

5\. In outlining the proposed wilderness areas, the County asked that
the criteria include avoiding any actively used roads, negative impact
to traditional uses of the land, and avoidance of areas with evidence of
mineral potential. The Wilderness Coalition honored that request and
made every effort to exclude areas with active mining claims. However,
the mining industry has recently expressed strong opposition to the
proposal to include land in wilderness areas that did not have a full
mineral inventory as a Wilderness Study Area. We continue to receive
calls from miners and mining companies concerned about claims within
proposed wilderness areas. The County Commission would appreciate
consideration of language to allow boundaries of proposed wilderness
areas to be adjusted to accommodate active mine claims and documented
mineral resources that may have been included within the designated
wilderness areas.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment and
testimony on the proposed bill. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have about the process used to develop the County's proposals
and the concerns remaining in the community.