Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act

Leave a Comment

RACHEL RAKACZKY on 3/28/20 at 9:41 pm

STOP THE FUCKING SPRAWL AND DESTRUCTION OF MORE WILDLIFE HABITAT!!!!!

Cynthia Kimball on 3/23/20 at 8:24 pm

This proposal needs to emphasize what is most important to the citizens and economy of the Truckee Meadows--our environment, quality of life, and access to recreational opportunities. I'm concerned that instead, it leaves room for more sprawl--something that is already occurring at an alarming rate just down the highway from where I live in Spanish Springs.

The 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan should be directing and informing this process. Only specific public lands identified for 'disposal for potential development' should go into the legislation.

All land north of Cold Springs and Spanish Springs should remain public land and be excluded from this process, including the Virginia Mountains, Dogskin Mountain, Bedell Flat, Sand Hills, Petersen Mountain, and the Pah Rah Range to the East.

To be clear, I'm not against all development--I support sustainable development that enhances our quality of life, values our wildlife and wild places near and far, and provides for abundant recreational opportunities. This process has the potential to do all those things.

Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider my comments.

Susan and Phillip Kaiser on 3/9/20 at 10:00 pm

As native Nevadans residing in Washoe County for most of our lives we have witnessed dramatic changes in the Truckee Meadows in the past decade. Our community is almost unrecognizable as it grows at the perimeter leaving an aging core behind. This disregard of community planning for a long term, sustainable future within the boundaries of limited critical resources of land and water will not benefit long term residents of our county. Our workforce lives farther and farther away from their employment. To address issues surrounding transportation, lack of public parks, and homelessness a careful and creative plan must be developed and implemented. We must make wise use of our public lands which DOES NOT include selling them for development. The continued rate of building is not sustainable and will permanently damage our way of life in Washoe County. This is not the path forward. We support the positions described in the statements of the Sierra Club and the Friends of Nevada Wilderness to preserve open spaces for recreation and green space. Rancho San Rafael only exists today because the elected officials forming the Washoe County Commission in the 1970's had the vision to save this land for future generations - you and us - to enjoy. At the time, it was a difficult choice but thankfully the commissioners were courageous. We owe it to the citizens living in Washoe County now and those in the future to carefully and thoughtfully address the planning shortfalls of our inner core in Reno and Sparks to build a community we can be proud to call home. This is the moment when that future must be planned and executed.

Constance K. Howard on 3/5/20 at 4:44 pm

Dear Washoe County Commissioners: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed TMPLMA. I am a thirty-five year resident of Washoe County and deeply committed to the health of this community and preserving its high quality of life. I am frankly disappointed that for the second year in a row you propose the identical concept of a massive disposal boundary that would eliminate 90,000 acres of public land for "economic development" that would result in Phoenix style sprawl. Northern Nevada is special because of its natural resources and this proposal fails to balance conservation, recreation and economic development. I do not support a blanket "disposal boundary" approach that is essentially arbitrary. I support a structured, tiered approach to land disposal as is recommended in the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. If the true purpose of this approach is to generate revenue then the real problem needs to be addressed which is our broken property tax structure. Your plan also fails to consider open space protections for the many important landscapes surrounding the Truckee Meadows that have significant wildlife, scenic, cultural, recreational and ecosystem benefits. These include the Petersen Mountains, Dogskin Mountain, Virginia Mountains and Pah Rah Range. I am also a strong supporter of the wilderness and National Conservation Area proposals being put forward by Friends of Nevada Wilderness and The Wilderness Society. As the Wilderness Society documents in their proposal, northern Washoe County has landscapes with exceptional wilderness values. These lands must be protected as "untrammeled" wilderness for future generations. I attended the February 20th meeting and note that only a handful of developers spoke in favor. Each one waved the flag of "affordable housing" but it is patently absurd to think that low-income households could live on the outskirts of the town without public transportation and access to employment and services.

David von Seggern on 3/5/20 at 4:33 pm

(My paper-copy submission on 2/20/2020 for public comment appears to have been cut off in the uptake to this site and so I am providing the last part here.)

In planning for growth, you must remember those already living here.

• It does not serve us to eliminate open, public lands when growth could be accommodated on already available land.
• It does not serve us to expand the urban boundaries such that recreational lands recede ever further out.
• It does not serve us to cut up open space such that wildlife mobility and recreational travel are severely curtailed.
• It does not serve us to diminish the number of access points to open, recreational lands.

Please make preserving and enhancing outdoor recreational opportunities an objective in moving forward with this bill. This will require downward adjustment of the “disposal boundary”.

Denise Ross on 3/5/20 at 9:29 am

Washoe County and City of Reno are not ready to responsibly manage new areas. BLM does a fine job of managing the Public Lands as they have for years. Our public lands will end up desecrated by development. Stop the Washoe County Lands Bill now.

James Springgate on 3/4/20 at 9:30 pm

I would very much like you to reconsider the sale of the Peterson Range, or any land west of Red Rock Road and north of 395. This is critical overwintering habitat for Mule Deer and is largely impossible to develop. I understand the need for more developable land, but that specific range has far reaching consequences and very little benefit for private development. Best leave it be.

Thomas Fusso on 3/3/20 at 4:44 pm

The plan as currently presented has an abnormally large disposal area, even for 20 years from now. It seems to give away lands that are crucial for wildlife habitat, biodiversity, dark skies, and abundant recreational opportunities for citizens' use and an outdoor recreation-based tourism economy. We should instead develop them for trails, dispersed camping, off-roading, etc. similar to areas north of Truckee along Highway 89, not simply "dispose" of public ownership of them. No public land north of Spanish Springs and Cold Springs should even be considered eligible for sale. Specifically, the Virginia Range, Dogskin Mountain, Bedell Flat, Sand Hills, Petersen Mountain, Pah Rah Range, Warm Springs Mountain, Hungry Ridge, Hungry Mountain and Fred’s Mountain should remain public land.

The future of the Reno-Sparks area is dependent on a small but growing recreational tourism economy as we move away from traditional casino tourism. Access to trails and other outdoor recreation activities is the foundation of our current $12.6-billion outdoor
recreation economy. We need to maintain access to existing open lands, existing trails for hiking/biking/ATV use and developing a plan for a larger regional trail system to attract younger tourists.

I don't understand how this plan interacts or improves the 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan that was adopted by Reno, Sparks and Washoe County governments. That plan was a crafted over years of work with much public participation and support, more participation/support than this plan has. You should use that plan as a template for a more-limited and more-gradual disposal of public lands while maintaining, and guaranteeing, citizens' access to more lands for recreational and tourism usage over a longer period of time. Plus, this plan, while quickly disposing of 150k+ acres of public lands, encourages Sacramento-like urban sprawl while not addressing the availability of water and sewerage services to actually develop this land.

Terra Celeste on 3/2/20 at 12:04 pm

Public lands are important in that they give citizens control, a voice, in management of our Country's land. It's a tenant of being born here, to advocate for public control and use of the Country's public lands or property. This public has governance of itself, while still maintaining a democracy, by having a lawful stake in lands, where whoever manages those lands must consider public input before taking decisive action or making decisions that alter or change use, and ownership, of our Public Lands.

In the small community in Washoe County where I've lived for almost 2 years, and visited for 13, sustained economic development, where population doesn't get much higher than it's been, and those who are here can survive, is a constant conversation. Small shops on Main St operate based on visitors who come to explore this area. Some come to stay in town, other to camp, hike, hunt, explore multi-use areas on bikes; this is an area with many designations for public use by Nevadans, along with national and international visitors.

Stargazing is resplendent, with wider peripheral views on the open playa, and low light pollution, during much of the year.

The history of this area is varied and rich. With tens of thousands of years in geology - mountains eroded by an ancient lake and then (and now) the wind, which carries as a breeze or blows with advisory warnings, but is near constant. There is the highly storied history of people, starting with first nations, then the settlers, those who came along the Emigrant Trail, and the people who settled this town in 1906, all told in the land.

This is where the Washoe County ArTrail completes it's path. This area is characterized by the open views - not impacted by signs of development. Even essential signs (Playa Impassable When Wet), must not impact the view-shed. Open, natural views are part of the quality and character of this area. Public Lands should be kept open to the Public, and valued as natural, wild places.

Mark norris on 3/1/20 at 7:41 am

I support the friends of Nevada wilderness! Thanks to those who went to the meeting And spoke.

Shayna N Hamner on 2/29/20 at 6:21 pm

Any development of land MUST NOT be near or on a flood plain. An example of this is USA Parkway with the Tesla factory as this million sqaure foot building sit on a flood plain from the topside of Pyramid Lake. Climate change is inevitable as this flood plain diminishes. Please stop development before it starts!!!

Heather McEvoy on 2/26/20 at 12:02 pm

I oppose development of more open space lands in our local area. As a lifelong environmentalist and Environmental Science teacher I support protection and conservation of habitats and lands. I hope that local agencies truly consider the environmental impacts of all this rapid development. There are more important things in this world than money. Please keep our remaining open space preserved and focus more on sustainable development!

Kari Gould on 2/26/20 at 10:57 am

I'm opposed to the land bill.

Mary Alice Pisani on 2/26/20 at 10:09 am

My husband and I chose to retire in Reno because of its outdoor recreation opportunities and lack of congestion and we have enjoyed these amenities for 10 years. I have many concerns regarding the proposed public lands legislation in Washoe County and support the Friends of Nevada Wilderness wilderness proposal for northern Washoe County. I have found the process has not had time for adequate public input, and the proposal opens the area to sprawl development which will lead to increased traffic congestion, more greenhouse gas emissions, and fewer convenient open spaces for recreation which will also impact our outdoor recreation economy. The disposal boundary of more than 150,000 acres of public land is too large and would not protect many important areas. The 2019 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan was adopted by both cities and the county with public input and should be used to guide potential development in the Truckee Meadows. I urge you to amend this proposal in order to preserve the quality of life many of us came to Reno to enjoy.

Susan Pitts on 2/26/20 at 8:00 am

The Virginia Range, Dogskin Mountain, Bedell Flat, Sand Hills, Petersen Mountain, Pah Rah Range, Warm Springs Mountain, Hungry Ridge, Hungry Mountain and Fred’s Mountain should remain public land. These lands are important wildlife habitat and provide outdoor recreation activities. I support the Friends of Nevada Wilderness wilderness proposal for Northern Washoe County.

Janna Caughron on 2/25/20 at 7:29 pm

The City of Reno and Washoe County need to put a stop to the rampant and clearly developer driven sprawl that is occuring. More and more homes, commercial and industrial developments are being approved that have profound negative effects on the Loyalton- Truckee Meadows Deer herd migration routes and over-wintering areas of habitat. Why are homes being allowed on ridge lines? Why are enormous cut and fill projects being allowed on local mountain sides? We need to create more green space and not allow any further development up Sunflower or Peavine mountains.

In light of the extreme hostility the current federal administration has towards federal public lands, I strongly encourage our local leaders to not be party to any "deals" to buy or convert current federal public lands to state, county or city owned lands. We need federal tax dollars to be used to protect federal lands. Unfortunately under the current proposed budget no funds will be forthcoming. We do not need to burden city, county or state treasuries with the financial burden of managing public lands. We also do not need to privatize public lands. The public lands are a treasure and need to be maintained into perpetuity for the health of the planet, wildlife, and people.

Carol Stranford Dillon on 2/25/20 at 10:13 am

I oppose any effort to annex public lands for private development. We need to take a serious look at the unfettered growth in our community. Where will public services come from? What about water? Where does our open public land fall? All of these contribute to the quality of life in the Truckee Meadows. The desert is actually a fragile ecosystem and paving it over would lead to loss of habitat for fauna and flora. Please protect our lands and our way of life. Thank you.

Lisa Bright on 2/25/20 at 5:27 am

What happens when we are in a drought? Who is paying for schools and teachers? What about the quality of life for current residents? This is getting out of control! Slow down; people will move here and move right back out when they realize there are no doctors or quality schools in Reno/Sparks.

Janet Phillips on 2/24/20 at 7:49 pm

The Tahoe-Pyramid Trail recently completed its project from Reno to Tahoe, and now is looking at extending the trail from Sparks east to Wadsworth. Our first section of interest is from Sparks to Mustang, possibly on the north side of I-80.

I would appreciate help in understanding both the status of those lands and whether our chances of getting a trail easement will be better or worse after the lands bill, and also the funding opportunities to build it.
Thank you.
Janet Phillips, President
Tahoe-Pyramid Trail
775-825-9868
janet@tahoepyramidtrail.org

Walter Nystrom on 2/24/20 at 11:42 am

Dear sirs, I oppose the land exchange because we need open spaces closer to where we live not hours away. The current growth is out of control and local government cannot keep up and developers are not expected to add any services when building new housing. The open space intended for exchange is open already and does not need protection in my opinion.

Brad Lutts on 2/24/20 at 9:55 am

Our public lands are a vital natural resource and they must be preserved and protected. Do not support or advance the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act! Once our public lands are gone, they are gone for good. There is no going back.

This bill opens the door for the transfer of tens of thousands of acres of public land to private ownership for the purposes of development and profit.

Development in the rural areas will have a negative impact on essential services such as law enforcement, fire protection and prevention, and emergency medical services. These essential services are already inadequately funded, staffed and equipped for our current populace.

Critical infrastructure is also inadequate for our current circumstances, much less for additional rural development. We have already outgrown future planned transportation improvements. Potable water, wastewater treatment, pollution, education, ecology, flood control, livestock grazing, recreation, wildlife habitat preservation, heritage, loss of public access, lifestyle and many other concerns are exacerbated by further development and sprawl in the rural areas.

This bill and the type of development it promotes will not provide affordable housing and will have negative economic and environmental impacts.

Do not support or advance the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act! Once our public lands are gone, they are gone for good. There is no going back.

Christine Anderson on 2/24/20 at 9:24 am

I am very concerned about the proposed Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act. I, and many others, live here because of the natural beauty of our valley and surrounding areas. In addition, our area already has many challenges such as limited water supply and worsening air quality, all exacerbated by climate change causing extreme heat events, declining snowpack, drought, and wildfires. Auctioning off or transferring public lands for more development will only increase the negative impacts of these factors. Development should conform to the tiered development rankings in the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, with development focused on the core areas, and with very little disposal of current public lands. Specifically, Petersen Mountain, Bedell Flat, Dogskin Mountain, the Virginia Mountains and the Pah Rahs all need to be designated as open space in this bill and removed from the development boundary. Thank you for reconsidering this bill.

Nicole SJ Mortimer on 2/22/20 at 6:05 pm

I am opposed to the landsbill. We moved to Reno for a smaller city size and with the growth we are loosing that. It's getting so big we can't afford housing and wouldn't want them anyway because everything being built looks the same, is on such small parcels and is destroying the wonderful views and wildlife/flora.

Doug Cardwell on 2/22/20 at 12:50 pm

I am opposed to the proposed lands bill. I believe this will result in more uncontrolled urban sprawl and be harmful to all humans and wildlife currently living in our area. I believe the 2019 Truckee Meadows Master Plan should be adhered to.

KC on 2/22/20 at 9:03 am

I strongly oppose this bill.

In my opinion, the main driving force in our current housing shortage/affordability crisis is large corporations (Tesla, Google, Apple, ect.) moving into our area, NOT Washoe County, and receiving huge tax breaks requiring them to pay little to no taxes towards infrastructure. Yes they bring jobs, cool. But they aren't compensating workers with higher enough wages to be able to afford the huge surge in local housing prices that they have created.

Large companies move in, skyrocket housing prices, don't pay taxes towards infrastructure and development, and then we have to sacrifice OUR public lands to accommodate their influx? NO!!

As a born and raised local Nevadan, this would be an extremely reckless and foolish decision. I do not want see this happen, one bit. Please do not try to turn Reno into the next Las Vegas. We're fine just the way we are right now.

janis foltz on 2/22/20 at 6:08 am

I don’t support this bill.
We do not have enough water resources to support the additional proposed development above what has already been developed. We don’t have the means to support or fund infrastructure without additional taxation to resident taxpayers.
Most importantly, these are public lands and should be saved to sustain open space/ wilderness and/or use by our citizens and for future generations.
The unique character of the Truckee Meadows is being despoiled by foreign interests. Where and how are the actual statistics taken from that this area needs so much more housing development?
I realize that mining interests may be involved in certain areas opened through sale of public lands for needed minerals but no large scale open pit or coal firing should be allowed. Keep oil drilling or fracking interests out.
Solar/wind energy is the only development needed for Nevada and to enable a sustainable future with our climate warming statistics.
Janus Foltz

Judi Kolada on 2/21/20 at 5:54 pm

Even though I moved here from New Hampshire 5 years ago, I still have limited knowledge to comment on the impact of this bill on wilderness and conservation land outside of Reno.

I am, however, opposed to this bill for all the reasons stated by previous writers that relate to land that would be available for more urban development in the Reno area. I do not trust the current city and county councilors/commissioners, or the city and county planning commissions to responsibly manage any additional property until they demonstrate better decisions regarding current development. They are not holding developers to current master and zoning plans, allowing building that is too dense with inadequate resources and infrastructure in place, on land that is not suitable, e.g. in flood plains, with limited access in case of emergency, and the list goes on. Many have such strong ties to the developers that they are blind, with little foresight, to see the long term consequences of their poor decisions. Further Reno development is in desperate need of better planning decisions before taking control over any more sensitive land.

Elizabeth Hull on 2/21/20 at 5:24 pm

For too long, Nevada's treasured open spaces have been threatened by development. The fragile ecosystem has been considered to be wasted land by those who ask us to rush into fast paced growth and development. The truth is, we need the open land which is home to many forms of animals, and vegetation. We need to protect our water resources, and our clean air and move slowly to develop, as prescribed in previous policies, because in the end, we cannot take that development back.

Molly Rose Lewis on 2/21/20 at 4:54 pm

Hi there, I wasn't able to attend the meeting yesterday (February 20) due to illness, but I wanted to make sure my input as a Renoite was heard. One of the reasons I love living here in Northern Nevada is that we have beautiful, natural, public lands surrounding us, but that the cities are actually rather compact -- or rather, they were intended to be. We need to be filling in the space within the McCarran loop, not expanding farther out. I want to be able to live in a sustainable, walkable community -- and that may mean having higher buildings, yes. I do not want to see us become another Las Vegas that has expanded well beyond its means of supporting its citizens. Please consider water availability and sustainable density. Thank you!

Kelly Middleton on 2/21/20 at 1:00 pm

I recently moved to Sparks from Los Angeles, CA, after a 21+ year career with two of the largest mosquito and vector control districts in the nation. I am deeply concerned that the unintended consequences of rapid growth and inadequate considerations for the long term sustainability of this region will be repeated here as well. I can assure you, there are SIGNIFICANT, PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS that are very real and have not yet been addressed.
Besides the obvious over population, traffic, smog, water, wildfire, and crime issues, Los Angeles is currently facing a public health nightmare with no resolution in sight. Urban sprawl for hundreds of contiguous miles has created a sea of impermeable surfaces that are prohibiting natural infiltration and increasing local temperature regimes due to the ‘heat island’ effect. To prevent flooding and manage daily ‘urban drool’, concrete and corrugated pipe and TMDL mitigation structures run beneath their communities. These underground networks and utility infrastructure provide ideal, year-round climate-controlled habitat for native and new invasive mosquito species. Los Angeles County leads the nation nearly every year in West Nile virus (WNV) cases, averaging 100+ cases of life-threatening neuroinvasive disease annually. Statistics show that for every 1 known case, an additional 50-70 go unreported, translating to 5,000-7,000 WNV cases EVERY YEAR... and this is WITH one of the strongest networks of vector control districts in the nation working diligently to suppress these risks. In recent years, invasive Aedes species mosquitoes have arrived and spread throughout urbanized California and are now in Las Vegas. Aedes mosquitoes transmit dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever viruses and are among the most dangerous on the planet. Serious disease outbreaks are not a question of if, but when.
Let’s not repeat mistakes. Invest now only in CONSCIENTIOUS, SUSTAINABLE growth NEAR the industry it is meant to support.

Anne Macquarie on 2/21/20 at 9:22 am

My comments are about the disposal boundary. I think the disposal boundary is flawed, both in the excessive amount of land inside the disposal boundary and in the whole concept of a disposal boundary.
The large disposal boundary will encourage "more of the same" urban sprawl, at a time when we need - and there is a demand for - close-in development, served by a robust transit system, that is is more environmentally sustainable, generating fewer greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and not gobbling up open space.
I ask that the excessively large disposal boundary not be a part of the bill. Instead, I ask the county and cities use their recently completed regional plan to evaluate future land use and needs, then carry out a much more fine-grained and focused identification and evaluation of land appropriate for those uses.

NonacPerry on 2/21/20 at 8:50 am

This process is rushed, with very little public engagement. We need a more careful, thorough and inclusive public process.
The disposal boundary includes more than 150,000 acres of YOUR federally managed public lands, which could become available for auction or transfer for development purposes. This will open the larger Truckee Meadows to sprawl development.
Climate impacts, like extreme heat events, declining snow pack, drought, wildfires and worsening air pollution, are exacerbated by higher greenhouse gas emissions. More people, more buildings, and more cars will bring more greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts need to be addressed in this process, not ignored.
Sprawling development means sprawling infrastructure and strained services like police and fire. It's unfair that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for these costs.
Development should conform to the tiered development rankings in the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, with development focused on the core areas. A MUCH smaller disposal boundary is sufficient.
Outdoor recreation is what makes life in the Truckee Meadows wonderful. Developing our open spaces destroys the foundation of our outdoor recreation economy.
Petersen Mountain, Bedell Flat, Dogskin Mountain, the Virginia Mountains and the Pah Rahs all need to be designated as open space in this bill and be removed from the development boundary.
There's been no discussion of planning for traffic, increased congestion, water availability, sewer or other infrastructure needs in the county.

Christiane Dow Freer-Parsons on 2/21/20 at 7:21 am

As a former Nevada resident I whole heartedly suuport any and all efforts to maintain Nevada's wilderness areas especially in Washoe County. Living in Nevada means enjoying incredible outdoor recreation-hiking, biking, fishing, skiing and snow sports. The ability to get outdoors and simply be away from the hustle of urban areas is vital to living a balanced life. Additionally allowing wildlife to co-exist with human beings is also extremely important. The existential value of wilderness areas is under valued but there is great value in keeping wilderness areas wild. Economic pressures to develop land is omnipresent. What is not discussed is the intrinsic value of undeveloped lands. I argue that the preservation of wilderness areas contributes to a quality of life desired by a majority of people and that Nevada's wilderness contributes to the state's tourism (which in itself boosts the state's revenues). I am going to return to Nevada to live again and I want to enjoy the natural beauty of wilderness areas not only for myself but for my children and future generations to come. Protect the Silver State's amazing wilderness areas!

John Corathers on 2/21/20 at 7:13 am

We do not want public lands sold to developers! The current sprawl in Reno and North Valleys is sufficient. And our public lands are an invaluable resource to those of us who already live here. Public land means it belongs to we the people! It is not yours to dispose of!

Melissa Hodan on 2/21/20 at 6:53 am

I moved here a year ago and immediately joined hiking groups - the several groups I have joined since moving here all love the land, the gorgeous views of undeveloped lands, the free range cattle, the wildlife, the vegetation, and all that keeping the area contained can bring! Please consider our opinions when voting on this measure! We need containment, NOT additional development!

Paul Howard on 2/20/20 at 10:00 pm

As many others have stated, we moved here to be close to wilderness because we love and appreciate it. Tell the realtors and developers to move along to another town and leave ours alone. If we continue to build and expand as proposed we continue to lose the reason most of us came to this area for in the first place. For our sake and the sake of future generations vote with your heart instead of the dollars you see coming into your pocket from developers.

Helena Coughlin on 2/20/20 at 9:59 pm

On Tuesday, February 18th I attended the Public Lands Meeting and found it to be very difficult to get information regarding the various maps that were placed around the room. I feel that the suggested disposal for development boundaries will only increase urban sprawl to an extent that makes no sense in our desert environment. I'm a native Nevadan and understand and have witnessed firsthand drought, wildfires, and air pollution in our area, and I fear that these will all become more prevalent with the kind of development that is being proposed. It's pretty obvious that infrastructure has not been adequately dealt with for the current developments surrounding the Truckee Meadows. Roads are jammed at peak hours, schools are overcrowded, and how can the current fire and police stations handle this burden? With the building we currently are experiencing our highways are unsafe! Before any more developments are built, the issue of infrastructure and financing should come first. I should not have my taxes raised for developers big profits. I'm also concerned about the effects of this on outdoor recreation which will be impacted. I've already seen this first-hand as more garbage is littered in the desert, off-road vehicles are creating an enormous amount of erosion on existing dirt roads and vegetation is destroyed when people do not stay on the roads, fire rings or bonfire remains are left all over the landscape, and the increased problems with people shooting and leaving their trash, and in some cases, starting wildfires or threatening hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians. The Petersen, Dog Skin, and Virginia Mountain, and Pah Rah Ranges should be removed from the development boundary. These are unique, beautiful, and awe inspiring places that should be designated as open space. I have personally hiked and led many outings in all of these areas for over thirty years. We are so fortunate to have these mostly unspoiled areas so close to home.

Kathryn Howard on 2/20/20 at 9:55 pm

As a local biologist (working for the state in education) I vehemently oppose this proposal. Encroachment of yet more development into an already fragile ecosystem that has been slowly failing due to an increase in human density should not be allowed. (See Sage Grouse studies). We need to remember that everything is in a delicate balance with other living things around it. If we continue to progress in a direction to destroy ecosystems it WILL one day come back to destroy us. I vote a resounding, 'NO' on this proposal in an effort to say wildlife and vegetation for our and future generations.

Rebekah Stetson on 2/20/20 at 8:49 pm

I oppose the Truckee Meadows Lands Bill on the basis that we have not been given ample public process, we have not had the liberty of seeing bill language, and the land grab is not what is best or Nevadans. If we are to make any improvements of the health of our people and be any match for a rapidly warming environment, we will need to creating housing in the current urban areas, infill, while increasing the use and availability of public transit. I live here because of the wide open spaces and I recognize that some development is necessary. Let's be smart about it and not create the same shortsighted mistakes in Washoe County that we have done in the past. This bill deserves more public and stakeholder input and more time so that we can all agree on a healthy amount of growth. More compromise would be much appreciated as well as more transparency.

Kay House on 2/20/20 at 8:41 pm

I do not support any bill that would allow our land to be sold for any reason but absolutely never to a developer. It's our land not yours to sell.

David VonSeggern on 2/20/20 at 8:22 pm

Comments on the draft Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act
David von Seggern, resident of Reno, NV (vonseg1@sbcglobal.net)
Public Input Meeting, 4-7 PM, 2/20/2020

I thank the Washoe County Commissioners and staff for giving us the opportunity to comment on an improved draft of a federal bill. This process started imperfectly in 2018 but has matured since. The direction of movement seems better, but much more needs to be done.

I wish to talk about the value of recreation for a healthy community and the opportunities this bill could offer. In a world of stressful jobs, noise, and constant stimulus, we seek quiet recreation in undeveloped spaces more and more. Outdoor recreation is a growing market and is a $16B/year industry in Nevada according to the Outdoor Industry Association.

I am a frequent outings leader for the local Sierra Club group, and we get literally thousands of participants per year while other organizations are also seeing robust participation. I am speaking about non-motorized recreation here. I can’t emphasize more the importance of having nearby open spaces on public land in addition to the many city and county parks provided to us. Currently, there are many trails in these open areas, but a coherent plan for trail development and trail connections will enhance our outdoor experiences as well as better protect natural resources.

Mike Kazmierski of EDAWN has recognized the importance of outdoor recreation, and specifically trails, in the package of attractors that our community can offer to people and businesses not yet here. He has supported an initiative to map current trails and plan for more trails around the Truckee Meadows. We fully support that effort and see the TMPLMA as a means to guarantee that sufficient open space is available to realize a great trail network. We urge Washoe County to work with the Truckee Meadows Trails alliance in identifying lands not to be disposed or lands that may make sense to come under co

Carol A. Cooke on 2/20/20 at 7:50 pm

I just listened to three hours of public testimony on this bill. The only people to support this bill were the realtors and the builders Association people, the usual suspects when there's land to be given away. The ranchers, miners, outdoor enthusiasts, hunters, environmentalists, landowners, former federal land employees, tribal leaders, citizens from adjoining California counties and towns, and a variety of concerned citizens all opposed the bill, albeit for different reasons. It is clear that this bill has little public support. Moreover, the comments revealed a strong distrust of the local governments involved in this process. Those speaking said that the process allowed only last minute window-dressing public input, lacked specific details, and was an inside job between officials and developers. I am a third generation native Nevadan. As long as I can remember, developers have had their way with Reno and Washoe County. Please don't allow this bill to progress and further without significant work, including meaningful input from stakeholders and the public, and a requirement that NEPA requirements are imposed not only at the point of any eventual sale of public lands but imposed on how the land is actually used.

Kyle Richter on 2/20/20 at 7:48 pm

Save our land

Kristene Biglieri on 2/20/20 at 7:12 pm

There should be NO further development without major improvements to our infrastructure.
Our quality of life is a slippery slope that is getting worse by the day.

Peg Slosa on 2/20/20 at 7:01 pm

L. Low on 2/20/20 at 6:27 pm

As a resident of this beautiful area, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the TMPLMA.

First of all, the preservation of ALL acres currently designated as WSA's and NCA's should be a priority. These areas should NOT be reduced or fragmented. They should remain intact and as large as needed to enable endangered plants and wildlife such as the Greater Sage Grouse to survive. It is important that we share our habitat with them, as it is their habitat also.

Granite Banjo, Wall Canyon, Poodle Mtn, Massacre Rim, Bittner Triangle, Petersen Mountain, Bedell Flat, Dogskin Mountain, the Pah Rahs and all other such areas mentioned in the bill should have their status upgraded or, at the least, retain their status. I support further protection of the Sheldon Wildlife Refuge by extending the boundary through the contiguous WSA.

I agree with other people who have commented that one NCA be created that encompasses all these valuable landscapes rather than disjointed parcels that may be too small to support viable populations of endangered plants and animals.

Now is the time to put these valuable open spaces with significant wildlife and recreational value aside for our enjoyment and the enjoyment of future generations.

We CANNOT grow more land! Once land is built upon, industrialized or altered/degraded/exploited, we've lost it forever.

All this land preservation can be done with careful long term planning for population growth, containment of sprawl, and maximization of infill.

People need nature. Nature does not need people.

Tom Distad on 2/20/20 at 6:12 pm

I am not against development. But I think a lot of moneyed interests exert way too much influence on those entrusted to make decisions about our public lands and open country, and what is good for the community as opposed to what is good for business interests.
Very little thought seems to go into transportation issues, fossil fuel use, water access, and negative effects of sprawl. Think longterm, think climate, think people!

Patricia Flores on 2/20/20 at 5:22 pm

I agree with Sierra Club. No more building on public lands in
Washoe County. Keep Reno area beautiful and great place to live, please.

Tom Wicker on 2/20/20 at 5:16 pm

I strongly oppose the Truckee Meadows Land Management Act because it does not conform to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. Development should be focused on the areas in the Regional Plan rather than increasing sprawl. The Petersen Range, the Dogskin range, Virginia Mountains, and the Pah Rah range should all remain open space, removed from the development boundary in the Management Act. I also strongly object to the attempt to quickly force through the Management Act, minimizing input from the public. There has been no discussion of the impact of the proposed development on traffic congestion and infrastructure. The climate in this area will become hotter and drier over the coming decades, further limiting our water supply. We should be planning for this rather than completely ignoring it and assuming we will always have the amount of water we currently do. The addition long commutes from these outlying areas will significantly add to emissions, worsening air quality in the Truckee Meadows and northern valleys, and further exacerbate climate change. The Truckee Meadows Land Management Act is poorly considered. We should adhere to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

Casey Meaden on 2/20/20 at 4:19 pm

I am against the Lands Bill. Keep Washoe wild land wild. I care very much about our public lands and want them protected. No more Urban sprawl!! Thank you.

Patrick Bruce on 2/20/20 at 4:07 pm

I own a home in Washoe County. An important part of living here is the availability of public lands for recreation. Nevada is the last of the Wild West, and I cherish the ability to; fish, hunt, hike, camp, work, and test my driving skills on the thousands of miles of roads and trails across the state. Many things have changed since I moved to Nevada, more change will happen. I’m concerned about the County’s proposal, with regard to the economic development portion. The County must consider the following: considering economic development, all efforts should be made to maximize the benefit to residents of the County. This should include infrastructure, open space and water resources. Of grave concern is the preservation of public lands. The WSA’s on the current maps have been set aside for decades and managed as Wilderness waiting for a process like this to resolve their status. The WSA status of these areas preserved them from threats of development, pipelines and mining. This insured that activities like ranching, hunting, fishing, and backcountry exploration can continue without having to deal with threats such as traffic, extraction scars and polluted water sources. It is imperative that these areas be given Wilderness designation or protection afforded with the designation of an NCA. These protections are essential in preserving wildlife habitat and connectivity. They are islands of hope in a world facing threats from climate change. The proposal by FNW is a sensible approach to resolve the WSA’s. It results in a reduction of the lands in WSA status by over 200,000 acres, while still offering Wilderness protection for crucial areas and will help local economies in Gerlach and Cedarville benefit from the $ spent by hunters, anglers, four and two wheel explorers and visitors brought in by these wild landscapes. It will also insure that ranchers who rely on the use of public lands are still protected by the Federal Grazing Guidelines in the Taylor Grazing Act.

James Bellegante on 2/20/20 at 3:41 pm

I am against this measure. This will not help the housing in the Reno/Sparks area. It will only put more money in the developers pockets. The housing market needs to be addressed, affordable housing for our work force. Access to our public lands need to be protected over money for the developers.

Susan Bellegante on 2/20/20 at 3:31 pm

This land bill Is not good for our community. It will take away that which makes our area so wonderful to live in. Urban sprawl affects our police, fire, schools, really everything in a negative way. All it accomplishes is putting big money in the deve!opers pockets.

Robin Keith on 2/20/20 at 3:27 pm

I am opposed to this proposal. I believe Washoe County has grown too fast, far outstripping the infrastucture and setting the community up for a significant reduction in the quality of life we enjoy here. The pro-growth argument made by EDAWN is that we need this level of growth to generate the taxes needed for infrastructure. If that logic is accurate, and given the dramatic housing growth experienced in the recent past, we should have plenty of money in the public coffers. We don't! So that theory does not hold water in my opinion. One way to limit growth is to preserve all public land as public. Sell none of it for development.

Susan Juetten on 2/20/20 at 3:08 pm

My biggest concern among several is the lack of detail about the "Lands eligible for sale or exchange would be those lands held by Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service identified in the disposal boundary and without any mapped federal constraint." Nothing is said about the terms under which the land without federal constraints and not reserved for public entities will be protected. Without NEPA processes once the land is sold, will local regulations be enough to insure public process, examination/protection of natural and cultural resources, etc.?

Where do your documents address how permanent or permeable the disposal boundaries will be? I know the boundary moves farther out into the county sometimes in Clark County. How are zoning designations going to change?

Please please schedule more public meetings! This is an enormously consequential proposal and two meetings simply are not enough. I have been sick this week, so have not been able to attend. And what about people outside of Washoe County who are interested in public lands.

Will you be posting answers to questions raised by citizens? I would like to know the answers to my questions.

In good faith, Susan Juetten

Don Petersen on 2/20/20 at 2:36 pm

I understand that local officials need to plan for growth. However, I am very concerned that the proposed expansion areas have not been fully investigated to confirm they can support the anticipated growth. In particular, I’m very concerned that more distant areas like the Petersen Mtn area cannot support the proposed growth.

Frank Schenk on 2/20/20 at 1:53 pm

I am against the lands bill because it will lead to higher taxes, less services . such as fire and police, mental health services.
I don't believe growth will pay for itself.
If this passes there will be more homeless ,more overcrowded schools etc.
If there is any city council at the meeting or County commissioners in the room then you need to stand up and vote against this lands bill at the meeting tonight. If city council members and county commisioneers don't wish to speak then it is yes vote for this lands bill and there should be a petition to remove the city and county officials out of office and not get voted in the next election.
One example is stonegate in cold springs. The city council voted for stonegate with the exception of councilwoman briekhus who fought tooth and nail against the project. This 5000 home subdivision passed with no services that the developer not having to pay for police or fire also giving land for a high school that is in a flood zone and is trying to take our water rights.
You think the city council or county is really gonna make the developers pay impact fees, I think not, maybe for there re-election though.
Frank Schenk. Cold Springs

earl piercy on 2/20/20 at 1:42 pm

Development sprawl is ruining our area. I am in favor of containing development to existing urban areas . I enjoy the out-of-doors and wildlife. It's what makes the area attractive to live in.

Steve Davis on 2/20/20 at 1:36 pm

The cities of Reno and Sparks, as well as the State of Nevada, should stop encouraging population growth by offering billion$ in welfare for billionaires, tax giveaways to multi-billion dollars corporations who don't need them, at the expense of homeowners who have to pay higher taxes to make up for the shortfall. Population growth only creates more gridlock traffic, more crime, more water shortages, more crowded schools, and higher taxes on current residents to pay for all the new infrastructure. A handful of greedy developers are the only ones who benefit from growth, and most of their profits are sent out of state; and when the next economic crash comes, they'll leave town and take their money and jobs with them. Don't turn Reno into Las Vegas! Focus more on the QUALITY OF LIFE for current residents instead of increasing the QUANTITY OF LIVES in the Truckee Meadows. By careful zoning, and making developers pay for all new infrastructure (including roads, sewers, schools, fire stations, etc), and stopping corporate giveaways, population growth can be limited, resulting in a better lifestyle for all residents.

Donald A. Molde on 2/20/20 at 1:28 pm

I support the Sierra Club's position as well as that of Friends of Nevada Wilderness.

Catherine Schmidt on 2/20/20 at 1:17 pm

The TMPLMA draft as proposed by Washoe County, Reno, and Sparks has not been developed in a transparent and thoughtful way. We, the citizens of Washoe County, want input on the "enhanced quality of life" as stated as part of the goals of this draft. Enhanced quality of life takes into account SPRAWL, air pollution, access to safe mass transit, good schools, clean water, affordable housing, social services, and open space. This draft addresses none of these, and should be paused for much more thoughtful long range planning for our area. The newly adopted Regional Plan should be the lens through which all future development is viewed, taking into account traffic and infrastructure, natural resource plans, open space, and climate change effects. We have a responsibility to the next generation of Washoe County residents to slow this process down and be thoughtful. Right now, this draft does nothing but exacerbate our existing growing pains.

Yvonne Williams on 2/20/20 at 1:10 pm

Woah there! Washoe county is experiencing a HUGE amount of growth already and we by NO means have the infrastructure to handle it. The traffic is reminding me of Sacramento, and waiting through 2 lights to get across a familiar road is becoming common. The number of people speeding and running through red lights as also increased exponentially as have pedestrian deaths - children as well as senior citizens. Our schools can’t keep up with the growth and teachers are extremely over burdened (and becoming difficult to hire). Police officers and emergency responders are few and far between anymore and similarly overburdened. Here in the South Meadows there are too many residences that all filter into too few roads. When current construction is complete commuting traffic will be even more congested than it is now!!! God forbid, if there is a community emergency we are all doomed!

Have you noticed that we are about 55% average precipitation this year? Another drought is inevitable in the future. Air quality, water, waste disposal, energy resources...have you, as city planners, developed a plan to meet these needs BEFORE they become over burdened?

City growth needs to be done with careful consideration and great planning. Builders must not have the ability to sue or threaten to sue in order to get what they want. In addition, the soul of our city must remain intact: easy access to the great outdoors and outdoor recreation is a primary attraction for tourism now. Our trails and beautiful Lake Tahoe are becoming so crowded (did you see the traffic on the Mt Rose highway during sledding season? Did you see the ambulance and emergency services there too?)

Let us not be in so big a hurry to profit from growth that we lose sight of intelligent design. Builders need to pay their fair share to help with the infrastructure they impact, they should provide large areas of green space if they cram houses so close together your windows look directly into your neighbors!

Adam Duffenbach on 2/20/20 at 1:06 pm

I am appalled at the possibility of such beautiful locations, currently federally opened, in which I have cultivated my love for Western Nevada by exploring and recreating within. Should these local treasures: dog skin, Petersen, and the Virginia mountains be released from Federal ownership, it will forever change our beautiful landscape. It will forever stain our way and of life here, and it will forever leave an imprint of population expansion at the cost of diminishing open land that is currently available to all. I can’t imagine living here without these special places in my life. I don’t understand why these areas are not designated as protected. I will remain a steward to our public lands and a steadfast proponent of access to open land.

Dr. William Miller on 2/20/20 at 12:57 pm

The climate crisis has already hit Reno square in the jaw. We are virtually tied with Las Vegas for the greatest temperature increase in America, rising nearly 6 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970. (https://statesatrisk.org/nevada/all). Our watersheds are at increasing risk, both from dwindling future snowpacks and increased evaporation. In light of these irrefutable facts, any plans to increase sprawl in the Truckee Meadows are beyond misguided, they are reckless bordering on criminally insane. We need to drastically reduce the burning of carbon, minimize energy and water waste, and sensibly address other negative environmental impacts, not increase them. To sustain life, Reno needs to grow in alignment with factual reality not ephemeral, short-term financial windfalls. That means more population density in the core; smaller, more energy efficient construction (all-electric, pre-wired for solar panels and EVs), right-of-ways for light rail and other design considerations to abate the existential crisis already crashing down around us everywhere we turn. Hence, that does NOT mean increasing urban sprawl, destroying the natural gifts that sustain life and exacerbating the climate crisis, just to enrich developers. Leave the Truckee Meadows alone and focus on a growth strategies that allow a quality of life that can be passed on to future generations.

Nora Richter on 2/20/20 at 12:57 pm

I support the designation of Wilderness in Northern Washoe County. Access to public lands is very important to me as a Nevadan and Wilderness is a unique and valuable aspect of public lands that deserves permanent protection. I helped write the proposal for the Massacre Rim Dark Sky Sanctuary in Northwestern Nevada, and experienced firsthand the exceptionally dark skies, the irreplaceable ecosystems and wildlife, and I value the unique natural and cultural history distinctive to that area. If Massacre Rim WSA loses its protection in any way, the dark sky sanctuary will be unequivocally revoked. While this is a compelling case for the Massacre Rim Dark Sky Sanctuary itself, the other WSA’s and temporarily protected lands in Northern Nevada are equally as dark, remote, spectacular and significant. They also deserve the benefits of permanent protection. Protection does not mean lost access, and it does not mean that these lands will no longer be ‘multiple use’; protection of these lands as Wilderness or National Conservation Areas means that we as a community have foresight, vision, and a desire to bring these lands as they are now into the future for forthcoming generations to enjoy and benefit from. I would like to see permanent protection of the Massacre Rim WSA, Granite Banjo area, Wall Canyon WSA, Sheldon Contiguous, Fox Range, and Buffalo Hills/Poodle Mountain/Twin Peaks/Dry Valley Rim/Burro Mountain WSAs.

Zena Lamp on 2/20/20 at 12:25 pm

I am very concerned about the proposal to designate public lands as available for development. When my husband and I moved to the Truckee Meadows in 1995 I felt I was living in desolation. I have since learned to love and value the great quality of life in our area. Further development threatens 1) our air quality, 2) our water supply and the survival of native plants and animals. We cannot replace, for any amount of money, what we risk in quality of life and natural resources as the result of more development.

pierre mousset-jones on 2/20/20 at 12:19 pm

• This process is rushed, with very little public engagement. We need a more careful, thorough and inclusive public process.
• The disposal boundary includes more than 150,000 acres of YOUR federally managed public lands, which could become available for auction or transfer for development purposes. This will open the larger Truckee Meadows to sprawl development.
• Climate impacts, like extreme heat events, declining snow pack, drought, wildfires and worsening air pollution, are exacerbated by higher greenhouse gas emissions. More people, more buildings, and more cars will bring more greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts need to be addressed in this process, not ignored.
• Sprawling development means sprawling infrastructure and strained services like police and fire. It's unfair that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for these costs.
• Development should conform to the tiered development rankings in the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, with development focused on the core areas. A MUCH smaller disposal boundary is sufficient.
• Outdoor recreation is what makes life in the Truckee Meadows wonderful. Developing our open spaces destroys the foundation of our outdoor recreation economy.
• Petersen Mountain, Bedell Flat, Dogskin Mountain, the Virginia Mountains and the Pah Rahs all need to be designated as open space in this bill and be removed from the development boundary.
• There's been no discussion of planning for traffic, increased congestion, water availability, sewer or other infrastructure needs in the county.

Caron Tayloe on 2/20/20 at 12:19 pm

Having lived in Washoe Co. most of my life I have observed very poor planning for the sake of increasing local and State revenues at the expense of the quality of our lives and the decimation of wildlife. Examples include the Damonte Ranch area where there continues to be multiple assaults on the bird populations as well as massive home irrigation run off into the streets; the exploitation of the Mount Rose Scenic corridor by developers and vendors; the gutless refusal to challenge developers on water usage; and the devastating toll on wildlife created by the mining industry.
Now we are tasked with the potential for more thoughtless development which will harm the Wilderness areas that so many Nevadans fought for. This plan is a checkerboard of ridiculous proposals that will do nothing for wildlife or for the quality of life for Nevadans.

Ramoncito Castillo on 2/20/20 at 12:18 pm

Keep public land public for the use of We The People and not for powerful chosen few.

David Vail on 2/20/20 at 12:17 pm

By opening up all this land for development, how is urban sprawl being considered in this? I thought there was a plan in place to combat urban sprawl, how does this figure into that?

on 2/20/20 at 12:14 pm

Dear Board Members:
The area is growing at a rapid pace. Sprawling development means sprawling infrastructure and strained services like police and fire. It's unfair that we as taxpayers should have to foot the bill for these costs.
Development should conform to the tiered development rankings in the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, with development focused on the core areas.
Please slow down and consider long term factors for all new development.
Outdoor recreation is what makes life in the Truckee Meadows wonderful. Developing our open spaces will destroy the foundation of our outdoor recreation economy and that’s what makes this area so attractive.

Please plan any development with long term sustainability and open space needs in mind. We don’t want to become another crowded California community.

S. Harris on 2/20/20 at 12:14 pm

This is really about selling off land for development. This raises questions of where is the water going to come from to support those developments and who will actually pay for the infrastructure to service those areas, because too often it isn't the developer?

Climate impacts, like extreme heat events, declining snow pack, drought, wildfires and worsening air pollution, are exacerbated by higher greenhouse gas emissions. More people, more buildings, and more cars will bring more greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts need to be addressed in this process, not ignored.

There's been no discussion of planning for traffic, increased congestion, water availability, sewer or other infrastructure needs in the county.

This process is rushed, with very little public engagement. We need a more careful, thorough and inclusive public process.

So, no on the proposed Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act because the Truckee Meadows open spaces, wildlife, outdoor recreation and quality of life are too precious to lose.

Chris Cutshaw on 2/20/20 at 12:03 pm

jill jerram on 2/20/20 at 11:59 am

how much space do they need for new houses and bs,there building right down at the end of our street and they did not at all consider the wildlife and where the coyotes would go or the trillions of mice well let me tell you the mice came to every house on our block so of course, the coyotes followed we can't let our dogs or cats out for fear of them getting eaten cant poison the mice for fear of cats and dogs eating poisoned mice so how many new houses do we really need so when the economy crashes we can use those empty houses for what...all while the owners that want to build with no concern about the people that already live there and all the crap we have to deal with just so they can die rich.oh have to go now there's a mouse in my bedroom. If they're going to build they need to plan on what to do about the wildlife first and foremost...thank you for reading

Paige Galeoto on 2/20/20 at 11:56 am

I implore you to prioritize open space and recreational opportunities for all citizens over development on a rushed time frame. Please take the necessary time to address all impacts before enabling development and sprawl in our beautiful wilderness.

Carl Dennis Jantz on 2/20/20 at 11:54 am

We need as many professionally managed open areas as possible for all of us to enjoy including the folks moving to Reno in the future to work in our factories. Many people have moved to Reno because of Nevada's open areas. I am a disabled Army combat wounded veteran (Vietnam) that understands the value of these open areas above those of congested housing tracts.

Lori Conner on 2/20/20 at 11:52 am

Our public land is being managed just fine by BLM
Getting the county involved will simply promote sticky fingers and politics as usual. The citizens of washoe county should not have to suffer at the hands of greedy developers

Shirley K Furnari on 2/20/20 at 11:48 am

Public spaces are just that public! Stop pushing out wildlife natural to the area.

Alan Ice on 2/20/20 at 11:44 am

I am against this plan. It is nothing but a colossal give a way of public lands allowing the city to grab land and sell it to developers. It has no previsions requiring public lands to be maintained as they are if they are acquired by the city or to require public access be maintained. Small ranchers will be put out of business when they lose land to graze their cattle on, sportsmen will lose public lands to hunt and fish and the public will lose recreational use of the land. The only entities that will benefit from this will be the city of Reno and developers. This plan is nothing but a plan for wholesale urban sprawl. As a resident of Washoe County, I can not, and do not, support this plan.

Shirley K Furnari on 2/20/20 at 11:44 am

There's been overgrowth in the area and no thought of availability of water or quality of life in the Reno,Sparks area with crime, traffic, overpricing and overcrowding for area. Area turning into bay area for taxes, cost of living not in step for average middle class wages, pushing out longtime residents, tearing down rebuilding everything to meet bay area standards. Stop the over growth and think about current residents instead!

Linda Brown on 2/20/20 at 11:39 am

I oppose development of our PUBLIC SPACES.

Zoe Bray on 2/20/20 at 11:35 am

This proposal for legislation on our public lands requires a much more thorough and inclusive public process. I believe urban development should be focused on central urban areas, not on sprawl into public lands. Petersen Mountain, Bedell Flat, Dogskin Mountain, the Virginia Mountains and the Pah Rahs all need to be retained as open - PUBLIC - space in this bill and be removed from the development boundary. We all now know that climate shifts, like extreme heat events, declining snow pack, drought, wildfires and worsening air pollution, are exacerbated by higher greenhouse gas emissions. More people, more buildings, and more cars will bring more greenhouse gas emissions. It is indispensable that these environmental impacts be seriously addressed before any plan for further urban development.

William Sickmiller on 2/20/20 at 11:30 am

I watched Santa Clara County in San Jose explode in the 60's through 90's. The bay area is a mess and I would like to avoid the same thing in this very special place. Uncontrolled growth at the expense of our quality of life is not a trade off we should make. We live in a very fragile environment in the Great Basin Area. Please do not destroy it in the name of expeditious growth.

Olivia Sembach on 2/20/20 at 10:33 am

I fully support the protection of all public lands in Nevada. The protection of our public lands, ensures the proper management and respect these lands deserve.

Russ Earle on 2/20/20 at 7:53 am

I am very concerned that, if adopted, this bill would allow the municipal entities to sell off the public lands to developers. This would reduce access to open space and cause even more sprawl as developers get cheap land to develop. The secondary concern is loss of access for ranchers to graze their livestock as BLM land would be closed to them as it is sold or transfered to the County and cities. I am opposed to this bill!!!!!!

Carol Felix on 2/20/20 at 6:55 am

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the Public Lands Management Act. I am a opposed to this act and feel like in the long run, it will result in our rural areas being over built. I am saddened and appalled by what is already slated to happen to our beautiful open areas. Thanks for listening.

Andrew on 2/19/20 at 9:15 pm

I don't agree with any of this. Very money hungry decision making typical though. Developers come in put in more homes more overpopulation more congestion all while ruining the sanctity of the county. The county that use to have BLM land access just about anywhere you went in a short time while still living close to town. BLM land access that made reno/sparks a great place to get away from the rat race. The growth won't help our schools either because people will come from California to retire and not enroll any kids in our schools reducing their funding. Per pupil funding is a key metric to adequately fund schools. Where does it end? You take 2% of the county's federal lands now and 10% later? It doesn't end. It will continue to be more and more. Bay area 2.0

It disgusts me

Lucrecia Belancio on 2/19/20 at 9:07 pm

I attended yesterday presentation via maps with the 2020 proposal.
I have a few concerns about the disposal lands. I have lived here for more than 45 years,and I have experienced the growth until now.
I don't think that selling public lands to private who will build homes,make money and leave without building the new highway, roads,school etc. is such great idea for our county,and cities in it.
I have lived thru many drought years
One lasted 7 years,and we didn't have half of the population that we have now.
We live in a desert region.Unlimited building can not be sustained! Also nobody is building so called affordable houses,and renting units.I have tried to buy a house recently.Traffic is getting horrendous, and the Spagetti Bowl project is so many years away. Look how long it took to build hwy 580,,or 395 south to Carson City as an example.
There is a limit at how many people this country can really sustain.
Now commenting about the different areas concerning wilderness, NCA, and other changes I believe and agree with the commens and proposal share to you by the Friends of Nevada Wilderness organization which.I have been a member and volunteer to keep our great state better for us and the animals who share this land.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
Also I am a old resident who loves to hike,snowshoe in our hills and mountains like the Virginia Mountains,Dogskins,Pah Rah Range,,CarsonRange,Virginia Range and so much more.
I love and respect our public lands!
I came from Utah in 1970,and never left.
Love this place.Let's keep it great as I found it for us and our next generations.
I also have enjoyed hiking all over our county,from the south to the north .
People over money.

Linda Gillaspy on 2/19/20 at 8:25 pm

Gentlemen:
Could Washoe County please solve our current problems before opening the door to the possibility of 90,000 federal acres being developed?
1. The largest problem facing our citizens is global warming. Reno’s “Better Buildings” program should be implemented before any new construction begins. Climate mitigation should be implemented now, not later.
2. The Transportation sector is the largest emitter of green house gases. The rural areas, as the North Valleys, should plan on expanding its Rapid transit system, improve 395 north and consider a monorail system; yet, there are no proposed transportation or road improvements.
3. Water has always been scarce, what plans are in place to support new developments?
4. Fire protection is now an extreme problem and should be addressed immediately.
Our open rural areas are one of our greatest tourism attractions. Urban sprawl will ruin what tourists enjoy about Nevada.
Yes, Washoe County needs sensible development but not a give away to builders and developers and not in this type of flashing neon sign that says, “Open for Business” Let’s do it right and fix the current problems before moving forward.
Thank you,
Linda Gillaspy
Reno, NV
A Reno resident for 48 years

Jeff Haliczer on 2/19/20 at 7:07 pm

In a recent 'social media' platform I learned about the upcoming hearing on the development of the Truckee Meadows and surrounding areas.

I heard that currently Washoe County, Reno and Sparks have 90,000 housing units approved. This is housing for 225,00 new residents!! This is without the lands bill!!

I am concerned about over-development , irresponsible development, sprawl, traffic, lack of schools, drought, etc., I am against this rapid growth and sprawl that is hurting the local area, seems like every block is a new development and out in the south Reno, Geiger Grade area the wonderful country setting I bough and live in is getting pushed with more and more people and housing, the latest has yet to fully open and the traffic on Geiger Grade has increased significantly and with the round about at Veterans Parkway it is nearly impossible to navigate at the busier times, and difficult to navigate on the slower times.

We need to slow down and allow for the expansion to move at a slower rate to find out the true impacts of the changes. We need to kill this sprawl and keep Truckee Meadows a desirable place to live, work and play.

Tim Lawnicki on 2/19/20 at 6:07 pm

As a frequent visitor to Nevada, including federally-designated Wilderness and Wilderness-quality areas, I would like to submit the following suggestions for the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act:

Sheldon Contiguous WSA:
Because it is contiguous to proposed wilderness in the Refuge, it makes sense to also designate this Wilderness Study Area as Wilderness. Due to the high value of the Greater Sage-ground habitat, I support an extension of the Wilderness boundary to the west.

Massacre Rim and Bittner Triangle:
I support the expanded boundary as proposed by tribal nations to protect ancestral lands and the cultural resources there, as well as preserving the Dark Sky Sanctuary status of Massacre Rim.

Granite Banjo:
Since proceeds from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act have been used to acquire many private holdings, Granite Banjo should qualify as a WSA, and Wilderness boundary adjustments should be made to preserve scenic values and protect more of the SNPLMA acquisitions.

Wall Canyon WSA:
Due to the unfortunate creep of unauthorized roads over the years, I believe this area including Wall Canyon and Hays Range be designated a National Conservation Area at minimum, and ideally as Wilderness.

Buffalo Hills/Poodle Mountain/Twin Peaks/Dry Valley Rim/Burro Mountain WSAs:
Rather than moving forward with a series of disjointed NCAs, I support one large National Conservation Area that would tie all of these valuable landscapes together with Wilderness designation at the heart of the Poodle Mountain area.

Thank you for your careful consideration,
Tim Lawnicki

Christophe Duchateau on 2/19/20 at 6:03 pm

I disagree with the proposal on 4 main points:
- first, I support the proposal submitted by Friends of Nevada Wilderness (FNW) regarding the various natural sites worthy of protection, and therefore I disagree with the parts where the current lands bill draft significantly differs from the FNW's proposal (NB: FNW has worked on the ground for years with all local stakeholders to develop their proposal as the best compromise between the local inhabitants/landowners/ranchers interests and the environmental protection needs)
- second, in the Gerlach area, I disagree with the south/east Proposed Economic Development Boundary (but I am fine with the boundary that is actually around Gerlach proper), mainly because it encompasses a large part of the playa, but also because even the parts that are not playa are mostly very good wildlife habitat
- third, I believe the Disposal Boundary in the northwest Reno area goes too far northwest (referring to your map, the purple area to the west, the aqua/light-blue area, and the hashed "Infrastructure Open Space" area to the north should not be included in the Reno Disposal Boundary)
- fourth, in the eastern part of the Reno-Sparks Disposal Boundary, I would exclude the mountainous parts between the purple area (on your map) and I-80, as well as the zone around the orange "ACEC" as they are both quite critical for wildlife and not suitable for development.

Richard Lampson’s on 2/19/20 at 5:35 pm

Please consider saving special wilderness areas. Once that land is removed from a designated wilderness area it’s lost forever. Save it now
Future government’s will always be able to make adjustments

Julie Campbell on 2/19/20 at 2:56 pm

Please take in to consideration Historic Site preservation and easement access. Examples would be pioneer trails (Beckwourth, Truckee), development of a historic NASA Rockadyne field laboratory site and a State Park North of Sparks. State park would take in Incandescent Rocks, Moon rocks and parts of Winnemucca Ranch road. Also, a wild horse preserve could be considered. These have been successful in other states.
Funding for development and maintenance for museums, hiking trails, historical sites, markers, info kiosks and protection entities could come from education funds as well.
Washoe county has many recreational and educational opportunities to enhance the quality of life for all ages. We know from the success of “Burning Man” that there is appeal on a world wide basis for what our county has to offer. Let’s go forward in a reasonable and open minded consideration for everyone. “Use your power over the people to give back to the people”.
Sincerely, submitted

Kurt Kuznicki on 2/19/20 at 2:05 pm

I am a 25 year resident of Washoe County, this my home. During this time I have seen a lot of changes some good, and some bad. However the wild places of northern Washoe have in large part remained in good shape, with excellent wildlife habitat and high primitive recreation values because of the protections afforded to them as Wilderness Study Areas.

I would request the Nevada Congressional Delegation work with the U.S. Congress to designate the Massacre Rim WSA, Granite Banjo Citizen Proposed Area, Twin Peaks WSA, Dry Valley Rim WSA, Burro Mountain WSA, Poodle Mountain WSA, Buffalo Hills WSA, all of the the WSA’s of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge as Wilderness and Bitner Ranch as a Special Management Area.

The Wall Canyon WSA contains some amazing pre-historic cultural resources and includes critical and irreplaceable habitat for greater sage grouse. Additionally, the Home Camp private inholding was purchased for public use with SNPLMA funding and needs to be protected for the American People. Unfortunately because of poor management, roads have been created in Wall Canyon and now there are increased management concerns. Therefore I believe National Conservation Area designation would be less restrictive and would still protect the important conservation values of the area.

I request that any land designation considerations and or the release of the Pole Creek WSA and the Fox Range be discussed with the Pyramid Lake Tribe and that their wishes be respected.

Bill Kleppe on 2/19/20 at 12:18 pm

I appreciate the NV Congressional delegation taking the lead and encourage a thorough process that reflects the long term nature of these decisions. I believe we are obligated to demand a fair trade in return for public land disposal and that significant conservation designations are required for the legislation to be successful. Although I support setting aside special public lands for protection, I see a continued need to manage our wildlife and habitat resources with immediate impact projects. Nevada's wildlife is threatened by wildfire, invasive weeds, unmanaged free-roaming horse and burrow populations and degraded water sources. I am wary of Wilderness designations because of the associated difficulties in actively managing these very specific lands for the benefit of wildlife, a hands off approach is often not the best for wildlife. I support designations such as National Conservation Area (NCA) that address the threat of development, maintain primitive access, but not limit the ability of resource agencies to implement on the ground projects.
I strongly believe in removing the Sand Hills, Virginia Range, Pah Rah Range, Peterson Mountains, Dogskin Mountains, and Bedell Flats from the disposal area. These areas contain important wildlife habitat and recreational areas. These areas could be considered within the conservation portion of the Act. I generally oppose the large acreage of public lands that are currently within the disposal boundary and have significant wildlife value. Lastly, many Nevada communities are land-locked by public lands and need additional space for community benefit. To the greatest extent possible, I support infill projects, park enhancements, trails and funds for preserving open space.
Thank you.

Marcelle Marlow on 2/19/20 at 12:14 pm

I am a resident of Washoe County and live in Lemmon VAlley. . I am opposed to the 2020 Land Bill . We can take no more changes in our area until you correct the problems we currently have. I vote NO

Barbara Sanders on 2/19/20 at 8:11 am

I’m not hearing enough caution to keep large enough wildness areas that support our precious wildlife. It appears that there is nibbling off of areas that developers might want. Please do not recommend land to be developed just because you can. I am planning to be more informed as this proceeds. I want more community input.

Julie Brown on 2/19/20 at 6:50 am

I strongly opposed this bill.

Richard E Strauss on 2/19/20 at 4:53 am

I'm aware that in order to build affordable housing that the locals cities need more affordable land. I also realize that the developers want to make as much profit as possible. My main concern is the lack of planning for the streets, utilities, and the access to business's including ample parking. It seems to me that rather than plan for the near future that everything built should satisfy the needs of the public for decades into the future and allow for future growth. To build a road that will be over utilized in 10 years rather than build a road that will fulfill the public's needs for 30 years costs less in the long run and will satisfy the public needs in the long run.

Bob Tregilus on 2/18/20 at 10:31 pm

I am opposed to the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act until such time I can review simple to understand before-and-after maps of the lands to be transferred from federal ownership to the local jurisdictions. All I see on the maps are outlines with number but no corresponding descriptions of what exactly those numbered areas are or what is proposed to be done with them. The WSA maps are equally vague. I need to see before and after side by side comparisons. On the Parcel Transfer page, what does "North Virginia Expansion," "Affordable Housing," and "Parks/Open Space" mean exactly?

The resolutions tell me nothing as well. We all know the area is growing. Everyone knows we need more housing. But all I see on the LandsBill website are vague references to growth problems, some lands to be acquired from the federal government, and no details.

I stand opposed.

//Bob Tregilus

Patrick Taylor on 2/18/20 at 9:30 pm

I support establishing more protected wild places in Washoe County. I grew up in Northern Nevada and have a personal connection to the landscape. But more broadly speaking, as gambling and other traditional economic drivers stall in Nevada, access to wilderness, preserved landscapes, and responsible recreation will be a boon to Northern Nevada.
Tribal concerns should be thoroughly considered and respected as well as a balance that helps local, private landowners.

April M. on 2/18/20 at 9:29 pm

Keep Nevada wild! No to exploitation of public lands.

Sue Jones on 2/18/20 at 7:44 pm

NO

Phil Fell on 2/18/20 at 12:00 pm

Currently there are many hundreds of miles multi-use trails and connectors all throughout the public lands of Washoe County. Consideration and planning must be made to ensure future travel paths for all types of outdoor recreation along these trails and connectors. As we develop regionally we must plan for connection to our open spaces. I don't feel enough study has been done to proper plan for the future multi-use travel needs of our community and outdoor recreationalist, between established communities, and future communities to our open spaces that will be reserved for all user groups to enjoy.

Danny Cleous on 2/18/20 at 11:44 am

This is a bad plan I vote NO

Lori Beach on 2/18/20 at 10:49 am

The need for this land grab from the Federal Government not needed by the fact that over 74,000 homes have been approved, but are not yet built in the area. This is roughly sufficient for 40 years of anticipated growth. Therefore, the housing shortage is not due to a lack of availability of property for development.
Reading the “Resolution of Support” for Washoe County and City of Reno I find it hard to see where this will be upheld by those involved.
“Stewardship of our community” – Washoe County ignored hundreds of residents pleas for help with rising water levels in Swan Lake, Sliver Lake and White Lake until major damage to homes and roads happened then and only then did Washoe County act and 3 years later, the problems caused are still not fixed.
“Be responsive and proactive to pending economic impacts” – As stated above Washoe County and the City of Reno and NOT responsive and proactive
“Support economic development now and into the future” – Both Washoe County and City of Reno already state they do not have the funding to provide and protect current residents how will this change in the future, developer fees cover less than 25% of the road improvement costs according to RTC

Marcial Reiley on 2/18/20 at 9:31 am

As a community and a county, the most generous thing we can do is to preserve wild habitats for future generations. Younger generations are reconnecting with nature, the outdoors and the environment. It would be a selfish act to forever take away their opportunities for dispersed recreation and potential for solitude. The growing awareness is coexistence with nature and our planet, not condemnation. People need and are looking for more access to nature. As humane and decent people we must include migration corridors, connectivity and breeding grounds for native wildlife. Conservation is the most considerate thing we can do now for the future. Washoe County will grow and will need to expand urban areas. Let's not loose the very essence of what makes this area unique, keeps established residence around and draws in new residents and outdoor enthusiasts. Set aside connected wild areas, protect heritage sites, and have access for low impact recreational opportunities in places like the Fox Range, Dry Rim and Twin Peaks, the Buffalo Hills-Poodle Mountain complex, Granite-Banjo and Macy. These are places I visit as often as my schedule permits. They remind me of the awe, beauty and magnificence of Washoe County and reconnect me to myself and the world as a whole.

Laura Fritchen on 2/18/20 at 9:24 am

I am opposed to this. I have seen to much irresponsible building in the North Valley's and dont have ounce of confidence that our land around us would remain open but rather would be used for the developers for warehouses and or homes. Our flooding issues would worsen as well as our already over crowded freeway system. Please keep our precious hills in the North Valley's public!!!!

Jean McIver on 2/18/20 at 9:07 am

The "Lands Bill" is a bad idea. Washoe Co. has already shown that they cannot finish what they started out here in Lemmon Valley, and has left this small area under water and in ruins... they are greedy and won't stop trying to develop every piece of land for their " Housing Projects" and this will just lead to more flooding and devastation to even more residents! This Bill needs to be thrown in the garbage!

Marvin Neal on 2/18/20 at 5:28 am

I think meetings regarding this matter should be open to the public, and allow for public comment. Moreover, I believe that land owners in areas where land is included to be transferred from federal ownership to state and/or local ownership should be included at the table and given a voice (vote) in the decision making process. Thus far, this does not appear to be the case.

Gayle Killen on 2/18/20 at 1:59 am

Public health and safety must be prioritized, despite the drive for developer revenues.

Peg Sloss on 2/17/20 at 7:45 pm

George Still on 2/17/20 at 7:08 pm

Local governments being Washoe County and City of Reno have proven to be incompetent in the area of growth and proper infrastructure. Lemmon Valley is a prime example and so is the 395 freeway. I as a local resident of 42 years do not approve in any way, the Lands Bill.

Marcial Reiley on 2/17/20 at 6:34 pm

William Campbell on 2/17/20 at 5:58 pm

By trying to land grab, you are destroying our way of life in our rural areas. I am a 5th generation native Nevadan and our family established roots before this was even a state. Your just after tax money and trying to turn this wonderful state into California!!!

Malgorzata Picinska on 2/17/20 at 5:51 pm

I cannot attend the meeting but I would like to express my concerns regarding the selling off our public lands to developers!!
Reno became very attractive town to live for families and for people to visit. it is not because of the casinos or The beauty of the town. Downtown is still very not attractive. What attracts the crowds, it’s the outdoors and open space surrounding the town. We don’t want to loose it!! Times has changed and people want to live more active live, enjoying our beautiful area!! Don’t sell it to developers who don’t even care about providing outdoor area for recreation, parks, playgrounds or dog parks. It is becoming here very crowded and dusty with houses in top of each other. It’s becoming awful!!! People will start leaving the town in the future. Please let Reno to be an outdoor paradise!! It’s becoming more and more popular this way of living.

Elaine Carrick on 2/17/20 at 3:20 pm

I am opposed to selling off federal lands which are used by the public for recreation and by our wildlife for their continued survival. Too much land is being sold off to developers. Water is an issue for more development. Our sparse wetlands are being destroyed and our underground acquirers are being depleted. Wildlife is affected by loss of their habitat. Stop the selling off of our public lands.
Elaine Carrick. Reno NV

Matthew Harris on 2/17/20 at 2:49 pm

Stopping by to voice my support of the lands bill. Please keep Nevada competitive.

Curt Dunn on 2/17/20 at 2:16 pm

I do not support this bill. Leave the rural and undeveloped areas alone.

Heron Kuhn on 2/17/20 at 1:54 pm

I do not support this land bill. We bought land adjacent to BLM land for a reason. We do not want it restricted or developed.

Larry E Chesney on 2/17/20 at 1:35 pm

This Lands Bill is not good for the general public of Washoe County. The bill will only satisfy the needs of special interest groups and will remove land access to thousands of acres of current public lands. It will remove the ability of the aged and handicapped from accessing land with motorized vehicles in the Wilderness study areas. Prohibit grazing and mining contracts from being let. The greed of Reno,Sparks and Washoe County never stops and the public suffers. This is a Land Grab and the congressional representatives that are willing to sponsor this bill are in for their political gain.
This is in fact a political driven land grab of the first order. Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks have enough developable land to build into the middle of the century.

Tracy Hall on 2/17/20 at 1:26 pm

I am against this, so I am saying NO for the record. All the issues we are dealing with now need to be addressed and fixed first.

Loni Lindemuth on 2/17/20 at 10:59 am

This proposal needs to be rejected. It is bad for the community and the residents living here. It is nothing more than a veiled attempt to garner more land for more unneeded development.

Dr. Gloria G. Horning on 2/17/20 at 9:59 am

When is Nevada going to understand the more you harden a surface the m ore flooding it will have thus impacting people, wildlife and the very environment we all love to enjoy. Stop the land grab. Please!

James Demestihas on 2/17/20 at 9:40 am

There just isnt enough infrasture to support even current population levels....Doctors water roads/hwys and retail necessary to exist like grocery stores pharmacy gas stations food establishments....etc etc etc....stop the expansion and building until the Builders pay for the necessary infrastructure and the city gets it done. Then build accordingly and include low income housing and affordable housing as automatic with any future development plans.

Kathryn Godwin on 2/17/20 at 9:39 am

This land grab of the area annotated by you in the Lemmon Valley should not be allowed and I highly object to it. This new construction, etc. Is likely to cause more flooding of homes and businesses in the area. If you do not address and remedy the current problems, it will only compound the flooding problems. If you allow this to go through, it will be a tragedy of your own making for the sake of revenue to the detriment of the residents living there.

Susan Dornan on 2/17/20 at 9:14 am

For 35 years, I have been able to walk across the street from my house and reach an informal trailhead that has existed for decades. From this parcel owned by the Forest Service, I can choose among at least eight different dirt roads to go up or down or across the foothills below Peavine Peak. Before Parcel 082-840-02 is put up for sale (if that is to be its fate), I am hoping that some easement for public trails around or through it can be placed on the property. I hope that easements for trails will be considered for all properties in this proposed sale of public lands. Trails and-or fire access road easements should be put in place where the need is obvious and not fought over later. This review should be written into the rules for this planned sale. While we make can room for new neighbors, let's not destroy the recreational value of nearby public lands for whole neighborhoods by cutting off access. And let's not cut off easy access for firefighters to reach public lands either.

Gregory Gilbert on 2/17/20 at 9:02 am

This "land bill" has the stench of corruption. It's certainly not in the best of anyone other than the developers and politicians who will authorize those developments. The local governing boards and agencies cannot properly manage the growth they have created to date. i.e. Lemmon Valley flooding and all of Washoe County growth. Having been born and raised here in Washoe County and a former law enforcement officer, I have watched the many changes over the years. Reno, Washoe County has essentially become California, complete with its political policies, overcrowding, water issues, homelessness, crime, drugs etc. Officer involved shootings, homicides all weekly occurrences now. It didn't used to be like that and only promises to get worse. I do not believe those persons on the governing boards and agencies have the moral foundation to properly manage and oversee a "land bill", which was created specifically for the purpose of taking land from one group, and giving it those who will make millions of dollars.

Elizabeth Coffey Curle on 2/17/20 at 8:19 am

All around our Washoe County community we are seeing the expansion of urban and suburban sprawl limiting and in cases, eliminating the availability of open lands for public use. Washoe County recognize that these lands are used by persons living here in Washoe County and they need to remain managed locally. Our open lands are a part of our northern NV past, today, and future. If we allow these lands to be transferred or sold to other agencies, we will loose what is uniquely northern Nevada.
Please do not move forward with the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act as it is currently proposed.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Coffey Curle

Susan Maroc on 2/17/20 at 8:19 am

As a local resident I urge you to ensure protection of the large landscapes, water resources, and wildlife corridors that make up the current Wilderness Study Areas in Washoe County as a part of the Truckee Meadows Public Land Management

Elsie L Jump on 2/17/20 at 7:09 am

Please leave Washoe County and Nevada public lands open and free. Do not give in to greed and developers. They will turn us in to another overgrown and over populated California. Please don't do that to us.

David M. Walls on 2/17/20 at 6:17 am

This proposal is flawed, Just one example: The money will stay in Washoe County. 85% will go to the state so how can it be stated the money will stay in the county? Something needs to be done but this proposal is NOT the answer. It will just create more problems.

Harriet Festing on 2/17/20 at 1:51 am

I oppose this bill. I am concerned that it facilitates additional development on land in areas prone to flooding. The county has failed to protect residents from flooding - many in Lemmon Valley have lost their homes, savings and way of life as a result. The residents sued the county stating that the county knew additional development would lead to flooding, yet they did nothing about it. They won their case. The county has shown themselves to be poor and incompetent landowners. More destruction of natural land = more flooding and more misery.

Deborah Stevenson on 2/16/20 at 6:21 pm

I do not support the sale or transfer of public lands for development. Keep public lands public for hiking, biking, and other forms of non-mororized recreation. We need open space and wilderness for physical and mental health. Beauty is a necessity for all, not a luxury for the rich. Don't ruin our quality of life! Act responsibly and wisely!

Mary J Smith on 2/16/20 at 2:19 pm

I am against any bill that looks to take away open lands from the public for ANY reason. To be specific, I am against the Lands Bill 2020. Once lost, open lands cannot be regained. I am also against private developers profiting from these public lands and promoting urban sprawl. Open public lands should stay public. It does not appear that there are any provisions to guarantee that the public is not being short-shifted--giving up lands for nothing but private development in exchange. Already, much of the development in Reno is not affordable to many who make their home here. With this bill, those people also lose the ability to access public lands. Please reconsider this bill and vote no. If 'infill' is desired, work on already available properties within downtown Reno and Sparks to make affordable housing and green spaces. This plan looks like a rotted core (Reno-Sparks) with ever-expanding waves of urban sprawl into public lands. Shore up the core instead and leave public lands alone.

Kim Richardson on 2/16/20 at 2:07 pm

As a Lemmon valley resident, I am opposed to the lands bill because I don’t think it protects current residents against flooding and development. There has not been enough remediation from the damage that the floods caused to trust that further development will be done conscientiously to protect our community.

Emilie Pecka on 2/16/20 at 12:57 pm

I believe that as much of washer county that can be left rural, should be. If we need to increase housing we should build up multi family housing in the city center not sprawl into the beautiful nature. Part of Northern Nevada’s appeal is its natural beauty and open spaces, overbuilding will ruin that forever. Many of these actions taken will be irreparable

Denise Ross on 2/16/20 at 12:33 pm

NO NO NO! Washoe County and City of Reno can't even take care of the issues of local government. They are corrupt, they are legally bribed, they allow developers to go the back door after projects being denied (Prado Ranch, behind closed door meetings with council member Bonnie Weber, continuances for one year granted by staff, corruption, greed) Look at the flooding situation in Lemmon Valley. They all turn their heads away from the devastation. They are not capable of taking care of what they are responsible for now.

Donna Roth on 2/16/20 at 10:01 am

John D. Boone on 2/15/20 at 8:43 am

I am an adamant defender of public lands. Certainly there are some public lands that it might make sense to "dispose" of in exchange for additional wilderness, BUT I am against a wholesale disposal of all public lands within the so-called disposal boundary. Some of these public lands have real biological and multiple-use value and contribute substantially to the quality of life of the citizens living in the great Reno-Sparks area. To convert all of these lands to developed lands would significantly reduce the quality of the greater Reno-Sparks area. I request that more work be done on this bill to make clearer that retention of some public lands within the disposal boundary is an important goal, and to set reasonable criteria for identifying the public open space that should be retained for all time, vs. the lower-value public lands that can be "exchanged" for conservation resources and wilderness elsewhere.

Thank you.

Mel Belding on 2/14/20 at 10:03 pm

I would like to express my absolute opposition designating any more of Nevada to Wilderness and my support for withdrawal of all WSA areas. Wilderness is a flawed policy and no lands should be designated as such. These areas deprive wildlife managers of doing their job to manage wildlife by putting undue restraints on their given tasks.
We have watched these areas of this State literally go up in smoke because of the Wilderness designation. We need to look no further than the High Rocks to verify this. This fire was not fought because of the designation and is now a wasteland of cheat grass, devoid of the once bountiful abundance of diverse native plants and brushes that wildlife needs not only for browse and grazing but thermal cover also. The original proposal was opposed by every county in Nevada with Clark County abstaining, it was passed anyway.
The BLM and USFS employ thousands of Rangers that are tasked with protecting these environments and need to be given the tools and support to do so. I’ve seen a great amount of these Rangers attending the Burning Man events but that’s the extent of my sightings. Those that abuse Public Lands should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Driving existing roads should not be considered abuse. The vast majority of the existing roads serve for vital reasons and all should be left open.
Responsible grazing by livestock not only makes sense but is a very valuable asset, costs the taxpayer nothing, that should be allowed now and in the future. The lessees are the Original Stewards of Public Lands. Wildlife has benefited extensively from their endeavors and so have countless residents. Reservoirs that these allotment owners developed on their private and public properties have given many people an opportunity that they wouldn’t have had without them. The spring developments that they have done do the same.
I urge you to approve no more Wilderness and abolish the WSAs. Sincerely, Mel Belding

Phil Fell on 2/14/20 at 12:55 pm

Please work with the various OHV user groups and racing organizations that will be effected by this bill. As a State OHV Commissioner and the Land Use Rep for MRANN (Motorcycle Racing of Northern Nevada), I don't feel that you have gotten accurate feedback on many of the OHV riding areas in Washoe County.

Kimberly on 2/13/20 at 9:51 pm

Keep public land, public! Stop making Washoe county, California! Quit building! Roads are filled with traffic! Crime is going up! Flooding is occurring! Stop this insanity! Now you want to take OUR public lands away. STOP! This isn’t good for Norther Nevada. Public land is what makes this state amazing. Its nonsense and out of control Washoe County!

Holly Lenz on 2/13/20 at 6:34 pm

Public lands need to stay public. Much of the property in the dispersal area of the lands bill is property close to the cities, which is currently used for recreational purposes by those living in the cities. Selling this land to developers or other private parties is unacceptable.

Leona Galau on 2/13/20 at 3:41 pm

Malinda Barrett on 2/13/20 at 2:49 pm

Please review the area adjunct to Red Rock Road, this is not infill it does not meet what you are trying to achieve. This is a land grab by developers with the blessing of our bought and paid for county commissioners to destroy the North Valleys more than the have. This is not SMART GROWTH!

R Crump on 2/12/20 at 4:44 pm

I see that "Benefits" are addressed. Shouldn't there be a "Detriment" section as well? There is nothing that is of 100% benefit to everyone. Who or what entities might be potentially detrimentally affected by this act? What is the cost to this and where is the money coming from? How is this different than what existed previously?

Steve Bridgman on 2/11/20 at 8:56 am

Just because there is land, does not mean build on it! You and the city planners have overbuilt the Reno, Sparks area already. Traffic is at an all-time high with congestion, freeways are not maintained. More crime is coming in and bring drugs and violence with it! You don't take care of what we have here already and it appears to be a greedy epidemic! Stop building and ruining this beautiful land!!! Small businesses will suffer also because no one wants to have to drive in traffic for an hour to get somewhere!

k on 2/11/20 at 7:01 am

Keep the wild areas around current subdivisions in Sparks. Building the land completely destroys what makes this community great. Walking on paved trails surrounded by BLM land every morning makes the quality of my life and others much improved over big city living where buildings are on every available parcel of green space except for parks.