267 



Mr. Wright. I am a member of the Nevada Tar k Force and also 

 representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation. And we support S. 

 59, with the one exception and one area where we feel the issue is 

 moot. 



We concur with the findings and the purpose of the act. The ex- 

 ception is the elimination of the BLM lands on and around Peavine 

 Mountain, Washoe County, lands that were included in the 1986 

 act. 



I feel the Federation would also support the addition of lands in 

 southern Nevada that meet with the findings and purpose of the 

 act. In our opinion, the highest and best use of those Peavine lands 

 are watershed protection, recreation, and scenic background. 



Mining would continue under the transfer as a legitimate use. 

 Being in close proximity to the metropolitan Truckee Meadows 

 area and the valley communities north of Peavine, there is a need 

 for a more intense management of all activities than they have 

 been receiving. 



Mining on the site, therefore, needs to be better administered to 

 be compatible with the other uses, thus minimizing hazardous sites 

 close to the urban population. 



We feel mining interest objections to more diligent surface man- 

 agement, and certainly any objections to bonding requiring reason- 

 able reclamation of the site, should be considered secondary to the 

 greater public benefit that would come from placing the area under 

 the Forest Service jurisdiction. 



The concern that miners will lose their one-stop shopping, that is 

 having to deal with the Forest Service in addition to BLM, should 

 be set aside in lieu of greater concern over how well the public 

 lands are being administered. 



In supporting S. 59, we want it understand that we recognize 

 that the BLM professionals are concerned and diligent in their 

 management efforts. But as an agency, they are so structured that 

 they are more vulnerable to pressures of the commercial public 

 land users. 



While the proposed BLM Forest Service interchange was bad for 

 Nevada, it produced a positive result. It brought out the generally 

 held public belief that the Forest Service had a better reputation of 

 natural resource protection and management. 



It has a larger budget and is less subject to political pressure 

 than BLM. Therefore, adding the lands to the forests in Nevada fol- 

 lows that public concept. We have actively encouraged local gov- 

 ernments in Washoe County to support S. 59, with the inclusion of 

 Peavine Mountain. To date, Washoe County commissioners and the 

 Spark city council have each adopted a resolution in support. 



In regard to the issue that we feel is moot from Nevada's per- 

 spective is reserve water, for all the reasons that you have heard. 

 And we would hope that S. 59 does not become burdened with a 

 national water issue. 



Thank you for your time. 



[The prepared statements of Mr. Wright follow:] 



