3. On page 3, strike lines 5 and 6 in their entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: "hereby incorporated in, and shall be deemed to be a part of, the Jarbidge Wilderness as designated by section 3(a) of the Wilderness Act (16".

This is a clarifying amendment.

4. On page 10, lines 4 and 5, strike the words "United States". This is a technical amendment.

5. On page 10, strike Section 7 in its entirety and renumber the subsequent sections accordingly.

This amendment deletes the language in S. 974 as introduced which would have authorized the use of snowmobiles within the proposed Mt. Rose Wilderness. The Committee does not believe that an exception should be made to the provisions of the Wilderness Act prohibiting the use of snowmobiles in wilderness areas.

6. On pages 11 and 12, strike section 9 in its entirety and insert the following new section:

SEC. 9. WATER ALLOCATION AUTHORITY.

(a) Within the wilderness areas designated by this Act, there is hereby reserved a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the wilderness areas created by this Act.

(b) The priority date of the water rights reserved in paragraph (a) shall be the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) The Secretary shall file a claim for the quantification of the water rights reserved in paragraph (a) in an appropriate stream adjudication and shall take all steps necessary to protect such rights in such an adjudication.

(d) The Federal water rights reserved by this Act shall be in addition to any water rights which may have been previously reserved or obtained by the United States for other than wilderness purposes.

This amendment deletes several findings of general applicability dealing with water allocation authority contained in S. 974, as introduced. The amendment retains, with certain conforming changes, the language in the bill concerning Federal reserved water rights specifically for the wilderness areas in Nevada designated by this Act.

7. On pages 12 and 13, strike section 11 in its entirety and insert the following:

SEC. 10. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION.

Subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, nothing in this Act or the Wilderness Act shall be construed to prevent, where appropriate, the installation and maintenance of hydrologic, meteorologic, or climatological collection devices within the wilderness areas or additions thereto designated by this Act, where such facilities and access thereto are essential to flood warning, flood control and water reservior operation purposes.

This amendment clarifies the language in the bill as introduced dealing with installation and maintenance of climatological data collection devices in wilderness areas.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides a short title for the legislation-the "Nevada Wilderness Act of 1989."

Section 2 designates 14 areas, totalling approximately 733,400 acres, in the State of Nevada as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The Committee recognizes that four of the wilderness areas proposed in S.974 lie within two potential Military Operations Areas (MOA's) which would be used by the Navy for operations associated with Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon. These areas are Alta Toquima, Arc Dome, Table Mountain, and Currant Mountain. The Committee notes that these areas are potential MOA's and any formal designation of these areas would likely not be completed until sometime after 1993. The 7 existing MOA's used currently by NAS Fallon are not affected by the wilderness designations in S. 974.

The Committee recognizes the important mission of NAS Fallon in providing air warfare training facilities for the Navy Carrier Airwings prior to deployment. The Committee also is aware that other important military training efforts depend on adequate air space in sparsely populated areas. At the same time, the Committee is aware that controversy exists regarding the issue of military overflights, especially low level flights, over noise sensitive areas such as some national parks and wilderness areas.

The bill as reported from the Committee does not change the existing law, policies, or regulations concerning this issue.

Sections 3 and 4 contain standard language found in most wilderness bills regarding maps, legal descriptions, and administration of the wilderness areas.

Section 5 contains release and sufficiency language.

Section 6 has three subsections. Subsection (a) reaffirms the provisions of the wilderness Act that permit livestock grazing in wilderness areas and incorporates, by reference, language regarding the administration of grazing in wilderness contained in the RARE II wilderness bill for Colorado (Public Law 96-560) and House Report 96-617. Subsection (b) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to review grazing policies, practices, and regulations in national forest wilderness areas in Nevada to insure compliance with the intent of Congress. Subsection (c) requires the preparation and submission of a report to the appropriate Committee of Congress regarding the administration of grazing in wilderness areas in Nevada.

Section 7 provides that no protective perimeters around wilderness areas in Nevada will be established due to the enactment of this Act.

Section 8 contains provisions relating to Federal reserved water rights. There are four subsections. Subsection (a) reserves the quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the wilderness areas designated by S. 974. Subsection (b) establishes the priority date of such reservation as the date of enactment of this Act. Subsection (c) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to file a claim for the quantification of the water reserved in (a) in an appropriate stream adjudication and to take the steps necessary to protect such

rights in the adjudication. Subsection (d) makes it clear that the water rights reserved in S. 974 are in addition to any water rights previously reserved or otherwise obtained by the United States for other than wilderness purposes.

Section 9 reaffirms the provisions of the Wilderness Act that pertain to state jurisdiction over fish and wildlife in national forests. Section 10 permits, where appropriate and under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary, the installation and maintenance of hydrologic, meteorologic, or climatological collection devices in wilderness areas established by this Act. Such facilities, and access thereto, are to be permitted only where essential for flood warning, flood control, or water reservoir purposes.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of the cost of this measure has been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
Washington, DC, August 24, 1989.

Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed S. 974, the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on August 2, 1989. We estimate that enactment of this bill would increase federal expenditures by about $250,000 in 1990. S. 974 would designate 733,400 acres of land in Nevada as wilderness and would release another 2.4 million acres for other uses. The bill would also: Protect valid existing rights within the wilderness areas; require that, within one year of the bill's enactment, the Department of the Interior review and report on grazing in wilderness areas in Nevada; require the Forest Service to ensure that sufficient water supplies are retained by the federal government to preserve the wilderness characteristics of the designated areas; and permit under certain circumstances, the installation of hydrologic, meteorologic or climatological devices within the designated areas. Based on information from the Forest Services, CBO estimates that enactment of S. 974 would result in additional costs to the federal government totaling about $250,000 in 1990, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. These costs would be primarily for the development of boundaries, visitor maps and signs. Subsequent annual operations and maintenance costs are not expected to be significant.

We do not expect enactment of this bill to affect the budget of state or local governments.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Theresa Gullo, who can be reached at 226-2860.

Sincerely,

ROBERT F. HALL

(For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out S. 974. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards of significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses.

No personal information would be collected in administering the program. Therefore, there would be no impact of personal privacy. Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 974, as reported.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On July 11, 1989, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget setting forth executive views on S. 974. These reports had not been received at the time the report on S. 974 was filed. When the reports become available, the chairman will request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the appropriate agency at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. LEONARD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF,
FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

MR. CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: I appreciate the opportunity to testify for the Department of Agriculture regarding S. 974, a bill to designate certain lands in the State of Nevada as wilderness, and for other purposes. Of the 5.7 million acres of National Forest System lands in Nevada, only one area has been designated as wilderness. That is the 65,000-acre Jarbidge Wilder

ness.

The Forest Plans are the basis for our recommendations regarding this bill. The Department of Agriculture recommends enactment of S. 974, if amended to reflect the 412,400 acres recommended for wilderness in Forest Plans. Our recommendations include ten new wilderness and an addition to the Jarbidge Wilderness.

We support the enactment of S. 974, if amended.

I would like to briefly address areas of particular con

cern to us.

PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS AND BOUNDARIES

Significant differences occur between some of the boundaries proposed in S. 974 and our recommendations in the Forest Plans. With respect to the Jarbidge addition and the nine new wilderness areas we would like the opportunity to work with the subcommittee to consider alternative boundary locations that would improve our ability to manage these areas.

We do not recommend wilderness designation for those areas that are not recommended for wilderness in the Forest Plans; namely, Currant Mountain, Quinn Canyon, Table Mountain, and Santa Rosa. Our specific views on these areas are summarized in the attached supplemental statement that is attached to my testimony. I have also attached an acreage table comparing our wilderness recommendations with those of S. 974.

"RELEASE" AND "SUFFICIENCY" LANGUAGE

We think it is essential that the Congress resolve the uncertainty over future management of roadless areas within the National Forests in Nevada. Thus, we urge the subcommittee to carefully consider the "release” and “sufficiency" language in section 5.

"Release" and "sufficiency" are related, but separate, concepts. Release language provides a legislative declaration that lands not included by Congress in a wilderness, wilderness study area, or special management area shall be managed for multiple-use values in accordance with the Forest plans. Sufficiency language provides a legislative declaration that the Forest Service review of wilderness issues is legally sufficient and not subject to judicial review.

The original "RARE II language"-like that in S. 974was intended to remove the wilderness question from judicial review and to promote some certainty in resource management. However, since all of the Forest plans in Nevada have been completed, the RARE II language is moot, because the Forest plan recommendations supercede RARE II.

Retaining the RARE II language in National Forest wilderness legislation for Idaho might cause further litigation to determine the relationship of the RARE II language to the Forest plans, thus adding to the uncertainty over management of lands not designated as wilderness or another special category. Updating the RARE II language would help promote more certainty, but would not guarantee it. The updated language would more clearly spell our congressional intent, and thus be helpful in resolving both administrative appeals and litigation that might arise after enactment of S. 974 or similar legislation.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that the release and sufficiency language in this bill be updated to reflect that the Forest Land and Resource Management Plans-rather than the RARE II recommendations-provide the basis for congressional release and the congressional determination of sufficiency. We would like to work with the subcommittee in drafting suitable language to replace that now in section 5.