GRAZING IN WILDERNESS AREAS Section 6 reiterates certain provisions of the Wilderness Act and the grazing guidelines that were developed during the discussions on Colorado wilderness designations (P.L. 96-560). These guidelines were implemented nationally. Therefore, this reference is not needed. MT. ROSE SNOWMOBILE CORRIDOR Section 7 would permit the use of snowmobiles within the proposed Mt. Rose wilderness from January 1 to April 30. We strongly oppose this section, because it is in direct conflict with the Wilderness Act. Allowing the use of mechanized equipment within wilderness for recreational purposes would not be a good precedent to establish. PROHIBITION OF BUFFER ZONES We support section 8 that would prohibit "buffer zones" around wilderness areas in the State of Nevada. WATER ALLOCATION AUTHORITY The Forest Service is responsible for assuring that the water and other resources on National Forest System lands are managed in accordance with applicable legal authority. This authority is derived from numerous statutes, including but not limited to: the Organic Act of 1897, the Organic Act of 1944, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Wilderness Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Forest Service has several management mechanisms in place to protect water resources in accordance with our management responsibilities. These are: administrative control, appropriation of water rights under State water laws, reserved water right claims under Federal law, acquisition of land or water rights, and, finally, as a last resort, condemnation of lands or water rights. We believe decisions involving Federal water rights in wildernesses should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and each wilderness designation should contain a clear expression of the intent of Congress with regard to the creation of such water rights. As presently drafted, section 9 provides specific direction and authority for the protection of the water resources of the areas to be designated. Because the wilderness areas designated by S. 974 are at the top of the watersheds and encompass the headwaters of the streams within them, we believe that the Federal reserved water rights created by section 9 for the protection of wilderness characteristics will not interfere with water rights and uses downstream from those areas. STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AUTHORITY We have no objection to section 10 that would clarify the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada with respect to the management of fish and wildlife in National Forests in Nevada. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION We do not oppose the gathering of climatological data within wildernesses. However, we recommend that section 11 be amended to ensure that installation and maintenance of data-gathering devices is conducted within existing regulations and in conformance with the overall intent of the Wilderness Act. SUMMARY In summary, we would support the enactment of S. 974 if amended to substantially conform to the recommendations in the Forest Plans for the Toiyabe and Humboldt National Forests. Amendments should also reflect our other recommendations in the attached supplemental statement. I would be pleased to answer questions or provide additional information. Comparison of National Forest Plans and Wilderness Bills for Nevada, 101st Congress #NRA * Includes lands on Inyo National Forest. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT ON S. 974, NEVADA WILDERNESS WILDERNESS AREAS RECOMMENDED FOR DELETION Currant Mountain Wilderness (Section 2(4)) The Currant Mountain area was not recommended for wilderness in the Forest Plan due to the following reasons: much evidence of past activities by people; pine nut gathering activities by Native Americans and other recreation users, high mineral potential, and moderate wilderness qualities. Quinn Canyon Wilderness (Section 2(8)) Quinn Canyon was not recommended for wilderness because of high mineral potential and an incomplete mineral inventory. There are over 900 mining claims staked in the area indicating a high potential for gold, silver, mercury, fluorspar, and molybdenum. Uranium and lead deposits have also been identified. Mineral potential exists throughout the area. Table Mountain Wilderness (Section 2(11)) Table Mountain was not recommended for wilderness in the Forest Plan due to the intensity of ongoing and planned management programs which include wildlife habitat improvement projects. In addition to existing structures, there are plans to build more watershed stabilization structures and to use prescribed burning or mechanical methods for vegetation manipulation for wildlife habitat improvement. Examples of structures include: fenced enclosures, check dams, loose rock structures for sediment control, and stream improvements for fish habitat. Rocky Mountain elk were reintroduced into the Table Mountain area. The initial elk transplant consisted of 50 animals. The herd expanded rapidly to 300 animals. Prescribed fire and mechanical manipulation are both useful in managing aspen stands frequented by the elk. These activities are inconsistent with wilderness designation. Santa Rosa Wilderness (Section 2(14)) The Santa Rosa area is characterized by low wilderness values and wilderness designation would conflict with an ongoing intensive range management program. There are many structural and nonstructural range improvements within the area that require maintenance. Although we do not recommend designation, if Congress decides to designate this area, we recommend that the name be changed to "Santa Rosa Peak Wilderness." This would help avoid confusion with the existing "Santa Rosa Wilderness" on National Forest System lands in California. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 974, as reported. Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2 (legislative day, January 3), 1989 Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee on Energy and Natural REPORT [To accompany H.R. 419] The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was referred the act (H.R. 419) to provide for the addition of certain parcels to the Harry S. Truman National Historic Site in the State of Missouri, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the act do pass. PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE The purpose of H.R. 419, as ordered reported, is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire three homes for addition to the Harry S. Truman National Historic Site in Independence, Missouri. BACKGROUND AND NEED Harry S. Truman, the 33d President of the United States, lived for over 50 years at his home in Independence, Missouri. The home and its grounds were deeded to the United States following the death of his wife, Bess Wallace Truman, in 1982. The 0.77 acre site was designated as a National Historic Site in 1983. The entire site is included within the Harry S. Truman National Historic Landmark District. H.R. 419 amends Public Law 93-32, which established the site, to add three homes which are adjacent to the Truman home to the Truman National Historic Site. |