[Senate Report 111-272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 542
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-272
======================================================================
PATENT AND LAND RECONFIGURATION IN CLARK COUNTY AND LINCOLN COUNTY,
NEVADA
_______
August 5, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 762]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the Act (H.R. 762) to validate final patent number 27-
2005-0081, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the Act do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 762 is to affirm and validate a patent
issued by the Bureau of Land Management for land in Clark and
Lincoln Counties, Nevada, including the associated land
reconfiguration.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-275) authorized the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to convey approximately 29,055 acres of land outside of
Las Vegas, Nevada, to Aerojet-General Corporation in exchange
for approximately 5,000 acres of land owned by Aerojet in the
Florida Everglades. The Act also authorized Aerojet to lease
approximately 13,767 acres of BLM land within the larger tract
that was conveyed to it, but only if the leased lands would
remain largely undeveloped to protect desert tortoise habitat.
In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service asked the BLM to
reconfigure the lands to avoid isolating desert tortoise
populations, fragmenting its habitat, and ultimately
undermining the long-term recovery of the species. In response,
BLM reconfigured the parcels to provide for habitat
connectivity and issued a final patent (Patent No. 27-2005-
0081) to development company Coyote Springs Investment, a
successor-in-interest to Aerojet.
The Western Lands Project and Nevada Outdoor Recreation
Association sued the BLM and Coyote Springs Investment,
claiming the process used to reconfigure the boundary failed to
comply with federal law. The parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit in 2007, with the stipulation that the final patent be
legislatively validated, and to stay the lawsuit pending
further action by Congress. H.R. 762 would enable the
settlement to be implemented by validating the patent issued to
Coyote Springs Investment as a result of the land
reconfiguration to protect desert tortoise habitat.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 762, sponsored by Representatives Heller, Berkley, and
Titus, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 413-0
on July 15, 2009.
The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a hearing
on H.R. 762 on December 17, 2009 (S. Hrg. 111-364). The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources considered the bill
at its business meeting on June 16, 2010, and ordered H.R. 762
favorably reported without amendment at its business meeting on
June 21, 2010.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on June 21, 2010, by a voice vote of a quorum
present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 762.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 affirms and validates Patent No. 27-2005-0081,
issued by the Bureau of Land Management on December 18, 2005,
as having been issued in compliance with applicable Federal
laws, and ratifies the associated land reconfiguration.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 762--An act to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for
other purposes
H.R. 762 would validate a patent issued by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) in 2005. The patent would convey title to
about 7,000 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, to the
Coyote Springs Investment LLC (CSI). Based on information
provided by BLM, CBO estimates that implementing this
legislation would have no effect on the federal budget because
the affected land was already conveyed to the CSI in a
previously authorized land exchange. Because the act would not
affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply. The legislation would confirm that conveyance,
which had been disputed in a lawsuit with environmental
organizations.
H.R. 762 contains no intergovernmetal or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On June 18, 2009, CBO, transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
762, a bill to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and
for other purposes, as ordered by reported by the House
Committee on Natural Resources on June 10, 2009. The two
versions of the legislation are similar, and the CBO cost
estimates are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by Sam Papenfuss, Unit Chief for Income
Security and Education Cost Estimates Unit, Budget Analysis
Division.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out H.R. 762.
The Act is not a regulatory measure in the sense of
imposing Government-established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of H.R. 762, as ordered reported.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
H.R. 762, as ordered reported, does not contain any
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The testimony provided by the Bureau of Land Management at
the December 17, 2009 Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 762 follows:
Statement of Edwin Roberson, Assistant Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 762, a
bill which affirms a land patent and an associated land
reconfiguration completed in 2005. These land transactions
protect habitat for desert tortoise and other Mojave Desert
wildlife species while providing for economic development in
rural south-central Nevada. The BLM supports this bill, which
passed the House of Representatives without amendment on July
15, 2009.
background
The Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988
(NFLEA, P.L. 100-275) authorized the exchange of approximately
29,055 acres (``fee'' lands) of BLM-administered lands in
Coyote Springs Valley, Clark and Lincoln Counties, Nevada, for
approximately 5,000 acres of private land in the Florida
Everglades owned by Aerojet-General Corporation (Aerojet). The
purpose of the land exchange was to protect habitat in Florida
needed for the recovery of wildlife species listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NFLEA also entitled Aerojet
to lease an additional 13,767 acres (``leased'' lands) of BLM-
administered land in Coyote Spring Valley for 99 years, with an
automatic 99-year lease renewal term unless terminated by the
lessee.
Aerojet initially intended to use the fee lands for the
construction of rocket manufacturing facilities. The Federal
leased lands were to remain substantially undeveloped and serve
as a conservation area and buffer for the rocket facilities.
Aerojet never built the manufacturing facilities and the fee
lands changed ownership in 1996 and 1998. In accordance with
the NFLEA, the Secretary of the Interior approved the
assignment of the leased lands from Aerojet to Harrich
Investments LLC, and then from Harrich Investments to Coyote
Springs Investment LLC (CSI), respectively.
CSI proposed to develop a planned community on the original
Aerojet fee lands. Because the proposed development would
affect critical habitat for the desert tortoise, an ESA listed
species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) asked the BLM
in 2001 to consider reconfiguring the boundary of the leased
lands to benefit desert tortoise habitat. Reconfiguration of
the leased lands was undertaken pursuant to the NFLEA.
Under the original configuration, the leased land was an
island surrounded by the fee lands acquired by Aerojet. This
configuration was designed to meet the needs of the planned
Aerojet manufacturing facilities, but it provided limited
habitat conservation benefits. Reconfiguring the lands would
enhance conservation by consolidating the fee lands in a single
parcel adjacent to U.S. Highway 93, and by placing the leased
lands contiguous to protected habitat on BLM-managed public
lands. This configuration would increase habitat connectivity
and provide more effective conservation for desert tortoise and
other Mojave Desert species.
In 2005 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a
corrective patent to CSI for the reconfigured lands in Clark
County. The Western Lands Project and the Nevada Outdoor
Recreation Association (plaintiffs), who claimed that the BLM
should have prepared an analysis of the corrective patent under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal
Land Policy and Management (FLPMA), subsequently brought suit
in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. The action has been
stayed and has not yet been briefed on the merits.
Continuing with its project proposal, CSI then prepared a
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to protect
tortoise habitat and, consistent with the ESA, applied to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) for an ``incidental take'' permit
necessary for project approval. The FWS, with the BLM as a
cooperating agency, assessed the CSI proposal in an
Environmental Impact Statement completed in July 2008. In
October 2008, the FWS issued a Record of Decision authorizing
an incidental take permit to CSI with numerous conservation
stipulations to protect desert tortoise habitat. A key
conservation stipulation is the land reconfiguration authorized
by the BLM's corrective patent.
In November 2008, the plaintiffs stipulated with the BLM to
a stay of the lawsuit for one year pending action by Congress
on legislation affirming the corrective patent.
h.r. 762
H.R. 762 affirms and validates the corrective patent issued
by the BLM in 2005 and its associated land reconfiguration. The
bill enables implementation of the land reconfiguration
stipulated in the Coyote Spring MSHCP, which will protect
critical habitat while allowing economic development in south-
central Nevada. The BLM supports the bill, which passed by the
House of Representatives without amendment on July 15, 2009.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the Act H.R. 762, as
ordered reported.