|
|
|
|
|
2080 Cubic yards |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Last Updated 02/23/2010
PNMTA |
|
|
||
By Jeff DeLong • jdelong@rgj.com • April 6, 2008 A proposal to designate a vast swath of rugged terrain in western Nevada as wilderness has alarm bells ringing in several rural communities, with scores of residents voicing opposition and some of Nevada’s congressional delegation distancing themselves from the idea. Environmentalists pushing the proposal to label nearly 700,000 acres of Lyon and Mineral counties as well part of adjoining Esmeralda County as wilderness insist they’re only initiating discussions. But residents suspicious of both them and their federal representatives are mobilizing to block a proposal many insist could damage their economy and a cherished way of life. “This is the hot issue down here right now,” said Jim Sanford, a 50-year resident of Yerington and the former publisher of the Mason Valley News. “Emotion wise, this is as big as any we’ve ever had, probably.” That emotion was demonstrated last Wednesday, when more than 700 people crowded into a meeting at Smith Valley High School — most to voice their disapproval of any new wilderness designations. “There’s a fear here over what government is going to do to us and not for us,” said Sanford, 60. “The feeling here is we don’t trust them.” The issue stems from the congressional delegation’s early movements toward passage of legislation affecting public land in the three counties. No proposals have yet been drafted, but the legislation would likely be similar to other public lands bills successfully pushed by Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign over the last six years. Those bills — targeting public land in Clark, Lincoln and White Pine counties — freed up some public land for development while designating more than 1.7 million acres as wilderness. The last one, passed by Congress in 2006, allowed the auctioning of some 45,000 acres of federal land in White Pine County to private bidders, with proceeds going to fund education, law enforcement and transportation planning. The bill also established 13 new wilderness areas and expanded two existing protected areas, putting more than a half-million acres into wilderness. “We were able to give the communities down there the ability to grow,” said Reid, Senate majority leader. “It’s a way for them to raise money.” Discussions now under way in Lyon, Mineral and Esmeralda counties, Reid said, are consistent with his and Ensign’s desires to address public lands issues in Nevada on a county-by-county basis. Any lands bill approved will contain a component designating some land as wilderness but the amount and location have yet to be determined, Reid said. Wilderness areas are those designated by Congress for special protections to maintain wild characteristics of the landscape. Environmental protection urged Growing controversy is connected to a proposal by a coalition of several environmental groups that would designate roughly 700,000 acres in Lyon and Mineral counties as wilderness, said John Wallin, director of the Nevada Wilderness Project. Targeted land is composed of rugged, beautiful slices of rural Nevada that provides critical habitat for wildlife, supporters say. They insist the land — which includes parts of the Pine Grove Hills and Sweetwater Range in Lyon County and the Gabbs Valley and Excelsior ranges in Mineral County — warrants special protection for future generations of Nevadans. “What wilderness does is keep a part of Nevada’s wild heritage there,” said Shaaron Netherton, executive director of Friends of Nevada Wilderness. “It’s a place for wildlife to go, it’s a place for people to get away. It’s an opportunity to really, truly keep it the way it always was.” As word of the coalition’s proposal spread, so did controversy. Meeting halls were packed with opponents during several public discussions of the plan in March and April. County commissions in Lyon, Mineral and Esmeralda counties have approved resolutions opposing wilderness designations within their jurisdictions. Wallin characterizes opposition as premature, unnecessary and “fear-based.” He said critics have misrepresented the level of government control on activities such as grazing and mining that can occur within a wilderness. The amount and location of wilderness will likely change as discussions evolve, Wallin said. “We’re in the initial stages of developing this proposal. That is something that seems to have been lost in the noise,” Wallin said. “It’s been definitely misrepresented as something that’s being forced on people.” Suspicion intensifies Critics say the opposite, insisting they want to put a stop now to rushed changes they fear could profoundly impact their communities. “Basically the commission has said we don’t want wilderness, we don’t need wilderness. We’ll just see if that sticks,” said Jerrie Tipton, a Mineral County commissioner. Tipton said she and others are worried coming changes could impact mining, outdoor recreation and military training important to the economy. “This has just started to snowball,” said Lyon County Commissioner Phyllis Hunewill. She characterized the latest proposal as a “slap in the face” with regard to previous efforts to agree on the designation of a much smaller amount of land as wilderness. Critics have gotten the attention of politicians at the state level. In a March letter to Reid, four state legislators noted opposition to new wilderness in the area is overwhelming and that the economies of rural communities and the state as a whole could be at risk. “With this we urge you, our congressional representative, to either have the proposal scaled backed or eliminated,” read the letter signed by state Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, and Republican Assembly members Tom Grady of Yerington, Ed Goedhart of Amargosa Valley and James Settelmeyer of Gardnerville. A rancher who has held grazing permits near wilderness areas, Settelmeyer said he has significant concerns about problems with new ones, including the ability to successfully fight wildfires. “I have some familiarity with wilderness areas and I haven’t seen them as beneficial as they could be,” Settelmeyer said. The issue also has the attention of Gov. Jim Gibbons, a former congressman who supported the public lands bill affecting Lincoln County that was passed in 2004. In a March 12 letter to Reid, Ensign and Rep. Dean Heller, Gibbons expressed concern public lands legislation would be pushed forward in the three counties despite local opposition. He noted in the letter that the White Pine County land bill was passed despite a late decision by that county’s board of commissioners to withdraw its support. “I will continue to voice my opposition to any federal legislation that is not a result of local coordination, cooperation and support,” Gibbons wrote. “I respectfully request you do not move forward with legislation until such time as Mineral and Lyon counties chose to support the effort.” Lawmakers react Mounting controversy has both Ensign and Heller adopting a hands-off approach to the preliminary wilderness proposal. “I reject what the Nevada Wilderness Project has put before us,” said Heller, a freshman Republican congressman from Carson City. Heller, who recently met with concerned residents in Lyon and Mineral counties concerning the issue, said he will not back any lands bill that lacks local support. Ensign agrees, adding that the manner in which the latest proposal was released by environmental groups is to blame for the current controversy. “Unfortunately they did it in a way that caused a severe backlash,” Ensign said. “We are not going to force a lands bill down the throats of any county.” Setting the wilderness issue aside, Ensign said a public lands bill could produce important benefits for affected counties, including the potential sale of some public lands to stimulate the economy and transfer of non-forested land from the U.S. Forest Service to the Bureau of Land Management. “There’s just a lot of things like that to improve the quality of life that we would not be able to do” without a lands bill, the two-term Republican senator said. But “if they don’t want a lands bill, we won’t do a lands bill,” Ensign said. Reid agreed. “We’ll get them on board or we won’t do it,” Reid said. “Sen. Ensign and I have other places to look. There are 17 counties and we’ve only dealt with three of them.” The level of passion surrounding the wilderness proposal isn’t surprising, Reid said. He’s seen it in Nevada before since first entering Congress in 1982. “It’s like people for or against guns,” Reid said. “It’s the same emotion. People are avid — they’re for wilderness or against it.” |
||
|
|
||