[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.



                                
