Letter: Bryan's plan leaves too many vagaries

Sen. Richard Bryan, in his press release of March 22, repeats his standard mantra that "all existing uses (of the Black Rock area) would be allowed to continue under a new management plan called for under the Act." He further states that "Congress does not intend the establishment of the NCA to lead to the creation of protective perimeters, etc." It also purports that it is his intention to recommend specific amounts of wilderness as the bill moves through the legislative process.

He further relies on a "current Mason Dixon poll" which found "75% statewide support" (300+ in Las Vegas; 300+ in Reno-Sparks) of his efforts to create this NCA. No one locally has ever heard of this Washington, D.C. group but the poll was commissioned by the Sierra Club, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, the Wilderness Society and American Lands. In view of this, the results must be highly suspect.

And he further declares that two of Nevada's largest daily newspapers endorse his plan. He does not mention that boards of county commissioners of Washoe, Douglas, Pershing and Humboldt counties, the supervisors of Carson City and the Nevada Association of Counties have all officially opposed the plan, as have many private interests including ranching, mining, day "explorers," certain seniors and individuals who depend on access by vehicular means. The rest of his press release is the usual high blown rhetoric and political pap concerning "celebrating our western heritage."

His proposed bill (S-2273) however does describe the essence of his "plan." There are several new paragraphs (added to the original first draft); there is also a repetitive use of the word "generally" or "in general," especially when referenced to nonexistent maps depicting the extent and boundaries of the proposed conservation area. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to act "as soon as practicable and to submit to Congress a map and legal description of the conservation area." It also directs (in general) the secretary to maintain(?) "adequate access for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the area."

What is "adequate" and who determines it? These are all really "weasel words" which mean practically nothing, or practically everything, depending upon the political wind patterns and the preset attitude of the reader.

The bill, under Section 5 management, permits motorized vehicles only on roads or trails as part of the management plan to be developed by the secretary. This plan, really to be developed by a staff bureaucracy, could (and likely will) totally exclude long standing existing practices such as driving (on an existing trail) to a distant spring or establishing deer camps in certain desirable locations. The bill does call for "full pubic participation" but not necessarily public acceptance, in whole or in part.

One aspect of the proposed bill not discussed as yet is Sec. 8 Water Rights. This section "reserves a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes for which this conservation area is established." What does this mean - or imply? This language is very vague, comprehensive and open ended.

And lastly, there are 11 areas designated wilderness as components of the "Nat'l Wilderness Preservation System" which are to be included in the act. None of these are specifically defined (just "certain lands in...") and referenced only as "generally depicted on maps" (which maps also do not now exist.) And finally, the bill "authorizes sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act be appropriated." What a great blank check!

Apparently this concern for the preservation of this historic trail only concerns a portion of it. There is nothing concerning its route from the turnoff from the Humboldt River (near Imlay) to Rabbithole Springs nor anything of the Upper High Rock (canyon) to Massacre Lakes, the trail westerly to Surprise Valley and the accent over Fandango Pass to Goose Lake.

If Senator Bryan is so anxious to leave a "heritage" when he departs office this year, perhaps he should look for something near Las Vegas; after all, that is his home turf and that is where two thirds of present Nevadans live and (presumably) recreate. How much of this is outdoors is uncertain but is likely many times more than those who will find their way to Gerlach.

RAYMOND M. SMITH

Minden