Intertech preliminary-draft-public-land-mgmt-task-force-report-tables-beg.-on-p.40

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

Nevada Land Management Task Force (Established Pursuant to Assembly Bill 227 enacted in the 2013 Legislative Session)

January 24, 2013, 1:00 p.m.

Nevada Association of Counties 304 South Minnesota Street

Carson City, NV 89703

AGENDA Some Task Force members may attend via telephone or video from other locations. Items on the agenda may be taken out of order. The Task Force may combine two or more agenda items for consideration. The Task Force may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Call to Order, Roll Call

1. Public Comment. Please Limit Comments to 3 Minutes

2. Approval of Agenda. For Possible Action.

3. Approval of the Minutes of the December 6th, 2013 Meeting of the Nevada Land Management Task Force. For Possible Action. (Attachment)

4. Remarks from Congressman Mark Amodei, Representative from Nevada’s Second

Congressional District.

5. Presentation on State Regulatory Mechanisms in Place for State Owned and Private Land: Leo Drozdoff, Director, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

6. Discussion and Overview of Research Regarding the Cost to Transfer Federal Land to the State of Nevada and as well as Costs of Management (Information to be Included in the Study Being Conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force): Mike Baughman, Intertech Services Corporation. (Attachment)

7. Update and Presentation on the Results of the Questionnaire Prioritizing and Identifying Issues Related to a Transfer of Public Land in Nevada (Information to be Included in the Study Being Conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force): Dagny Stapleton, NACO.

8. Discussion on Issues Related to a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal Government to Nevada Including the Transfer of Multiple Uses and Valid Existing Rights.

9. Discussion on Issues Related to a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal Government to Nevada Including Options for Disposal and Sale of Lands.

10. Discussion on Which Lands to Include in a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal Government to the State of Nevada.

11. Discussion on Timeline of Tasks to Accomplish by the Task Force Prior to Summer 2014, Including a Discussion of Accomplishments to Date, Consensus Needed, and Tasks Outstanding. (Attachment)

12. Discussion on Content and Presenters for the Task Force Update to the Nevada Legislature’s Interim Committee on Public Lands.

13. Discussion on and Approval of Dates and Locations for Future Task Force Meetings. For

Possible Action.

14. Discussion and Possible Approval of Topics for Future Task Force Meetings. For Possible Action.

15. Public Comment - Please Limit Comments to 3 Minutes Adjournment Members of the public who are disabled and require special accommodations or assistance at the meeting are requested to notify NACO in writing at 304 S. Minnesota Street, Carson City, NV 89703, or by calling (775) 883-7863 at least three working days prior to the meeting. Members of the public can request copies of the supporting material for the meeting by contacting Dagny Stapleton at (775) 883-7863. Supporting material will be available at the NACO office and on the NACO website at: www.nvnaco.org This agenda was posted at the following locations: NACO Office 304 S. Minnesota Street, Carson City, NV 89703 Washoe County Admin. Building 1001 E. Ninth Street, Reno, NV 89520 Clark County Admin. Building 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155 POOL/PACT 201 S. Roop Street, Carson City, NV 89701

Item 3 . Backup

Approval of the Minutes of the December 6th, 2013 Meeting of the Nevada Land Management Task Force. For Possible Action. Attachments:

Preliminary Draft Minutes of the December 6th Meeting of the Nevada Land Management Task Force.

Regional Transportation

Commission of Southern

Nevada Administration

Building

600 South Grand Central Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89106

December 6, 2013

1

Nevada Land Management Task Force December 6, 2013

CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF MOTIONS PASSED ................................................................................................................................. 3

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS ASSIGNED .................................................................................................................. 3

CALL TO ORDER ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

ROLL CALL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

OPENING COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

PUBLIC COMMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

APPROVAL OF AGENDA ................................................................................................................................................. 6

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2013 MEETING MINUTES OF THE NEVADA LAND

MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE ........................................................................................................................................ 6

PRESENTATION ON PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CLARK COUNTY INCLUDING

PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER PUBLIC LAND ON WHICH PERMANENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACTILITIES

EXIST................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

PRESENTATION ON THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT (SNPLMA) ................... 7

PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE DEMAND

FOR TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS ................................................................................................... 8

PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE DEMAND FOR

TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS ........................................................................................................... 9

DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF ANY PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFERRED FROM THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NEVADA ...................................................................................................................... 10

INTERTECH/NACO LETTER TO AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS SOLICITING FEEDBACK REGARDING

TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 12

DISCUSSION ON THE OUTLINE AND TIMELINE OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT/STUDY TO BE PRODUCED

BY INTERTECH SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 13

DISCUSSION ON AND APPROVAL OF DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE MEETINGS .... 13

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF TOPICS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE MEETINGS ....................... 14

PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

ADJOURNMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15

ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

Attachment 1 – Meeting Attendance ............................................................................................................................... 16

Attachment 2 – Michele Burkett Public Comment ......................................................................................................... 18

Attachment 3 – Sandra Dyan Public Comment ............................................................................................................... 20

Attachment 4 – David Mahon Public Comment ............................................................................................................. 22

Attachment 5 – Kristin Kosacek Public Comment .......................................................................................................... 23

Attachment 6 – John Marchese Public Comment ........................................................................................................... 25

Attachment 7 – Terri Roberts Public Comment .............................................................................................................. 26

2


Attachment 8 – Mark Squillace Presentation .................................................................................................................. 29

Attachment 9 – Public Lands Management Alternative Options and Decision Hierarchy Tool ...................................... 33

Attachment 10 – Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the Nevada Land

Management Task Force to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands........................................................................ 34

3


SUMMARY OF MOTIONS PASSED

The following table provides a summary of the motions passed during the meeting.

December 6, 2013 Nevada Land Management Task Force

General Topic or

Action Motions Passed

Page of

Meeting

Minutes

Approval of the

Meeting’s Agenda

Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the

agenda for the meeting. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.

6

November 1, 2013

Task Force

Meeting Minutes

Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the

minutes from the November 1, 2013, Task Force meeting. The motion passed

unanimously by a voice vote.

6

Meeting

Adjournment

Chair Dahl accepted a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Laurie Carson

(White Pine County) to adjourn the meeting.

15

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS ASSIGNED

The following action items were assigned during the meeting.

General Topic

or Action Action

Party

Assigned

Action

Page of

Meeting

Minutes

NACO/Intertech

Services, Inc.

Letter to

Stakeholders

NACO asked the Task Force if there were any additional

stakeholders who should receive the letter and questionnaire.

Task Force

Members

12

NACO/Intertech

Services, Inc.

Letter to

Stakeholders

Send the letter and questionnaire to all Task Force members,

which can be posted on their County web sites at their

discretion.

Dagny

Stapleton

12

Topics for

Future Meetings

Topics for future Task Force meetings should be e-mailed to

Dagny Stapleton at the NACO office in Carson City.

Task Force

Members

14

4


Public Comment Speakers

Terri Robertson

Nancy Gentis

Friends of Sloan

CALL TO ORDER

Demar Dahl, Chairman of the Nevada Land Management Task Force and Elko County Commissioner, called the

meeting to order at 10:08 AM by asking Lander County Commissioner Patsy Waits to lead the participants in the Pledge

of Allegiance. Chair Dahl welcomed and thanked everyone for being part of the Task Force’s efforts, and identified

locations1 across the State where people were joining via video conference. Chair Dahl introduced Tony Rampton, Utah’s

Assistant Attorney General.

ROLL CALL

Dagny Stapleton, Deputy Director of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), conducted a roll call of the Task

Force (Attachment 1) to ensure a quorum was present. Attachment 1 also identifies other individuals attending the

meeting.

OPENING COMMENTS

Chair Dahl reminded everyone that Nelson Mandela, a hero to Chair Dahl and great man who taught many people around

the world how to get along and work together, died yesterday. One of the Nelson Mandela’s quotes that Chair Dahl

remembers was “education is one of the most powerful weapons for changing the world.” Chair Dahl believes the Task

Force has become educated as it continues to obtain information concerning the transfer of public lands to the State,

consolidating that information, and passing it along to the legislature.

An individual who did not identify himself mentioned that Vivian Freeman, an Assemblywoman in the Nevada State

Legislature from 1987 through 2001, also recently passed away.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Two speakers (inset to right) provided comment during the meeting’s first

public comment period. Each speaker was limited to three minutes for their

presentation and was encouraged to submit a written statement. In addition,

five public comments were received by e-mail (Attachments 2 through 6),

which were read into the record.

Terri Robertson provided a written statement (Attachment 7). Not included

in her written statement but raised in her verbal presentation was the fact that the Task Force comprises of 17

representatives of which 16 represent rural Nevada with one representing Clark County. Considering the State’s

population of 2,758,931, the single Clark County Task Force member represents 2,000,759 residents while the remaining

members each represent 758,172 residents. She believes the Task Force is representative of how the Legislature works -

where rural counties gather together and work against Clark County, which, she believes, is the “financial engine” running

the State. Ms. Robertson also indicated that Chair Dahl who has supported turning federal lands over to the State must be

very happy serving as Chair of the Task Force.

She believes the only purpose of the transfer of public lands to the State is to allow the State to sell those lands into

private ownership. She expressed how people who move from states with little or no public land to Nevada must feel

when they can walk, ride, and learn to love the public lands in Nevada, which are the State’s greatest treasure that must be

preserved and protected. She isn’t concerned with the hardships experienced by ranchers and others who depend on the

1 NACO office in Carson City, Humboldt County Courthouse in Winnemucca, Elko County Complex, and Mark Squillace, a law

professor from Boulder, Colorado.

5


public lands but cares about being able to drive and walk where she wanted and to continue to live in a State she loves.

She will be grateful to see the end of the ridiculous idea of transferring the federal lands to the State.

Nancy Gentis representing Friends of Sloan Canyon indicated that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a

“multiple use” philosophy for managing the public lands, which allows everyone to use those lands. She believes that

under private ownership only certain people would be able to continue using those lands. She doesn’t believe Nevada has

the resources to manage the land if it were transferred to the State. Having moved to Nevada from Indiana, she has come

to love the deserts of Nevada and would like to keep the public lands available to everyone.

Chair Dahl introduced and welcomed Nevada Assemblyman Paul Aizley, who is a member of the Nevada Interim

Legislative Public Lands Committee. To date, Task Force meetings have provided a good opportunity to hear all sides

concerning the issue concerning the transfer lands from the federal government to the State. The Task Force has been and

continues to be conscientious of involving and allowing all stakeholders to participate in the process.

Chair Dahl indicated that a presentation at a previous Task Force meeting from Mike Baughman of Intertech Services,

Inc., addressed a proposal to broaden the scope of two 1990s studies addressing the possible transfer of public lands.

Based on a recommendation from the Task Force, NACO has entered into a contract with Intertech Services, Inc. to

update and broaden the 1994 study, which has shown the State of Nevada can afford to manage its public lands. When

asked by Chair Dahl, Dagny Stapleton indicated Intertech Services, Inc.’s draft report is expected in the spring, 2014 with

the final report ready for submission to the Public Lands Committee during the summer. Chair Dahl requested the draft

report be received as soon as possible to allow anyone wishing to present additional information or a position which

refutes the findings and facts in the study have sufficient time to do so prior to the submission of the final report to the

Public Lands Committee. Chair Dahl invited those who have information or a position which can refute the information

presented at Task Force meetings to submit such information to the Task Force as soon as possible.

Terri Robertson, a member of the audience, asked how Intertech Services, Inc. was chosen to complete the study that

shows Nevada has the money to manage the public lands. Chair Dahl explained that the Task Force had been made aware

of a study completed in the 1990s addressing the economics of the transfer of public lands, which was one task given to

the Task Force by the State Legislature. Subsequently, the Task Force received the presentation addressing the 1990’s

study after which the Task Force determined the study needed to be updated and broadened to be included in their effort.

Chair Dahl indicated that he brought the study up at this meeting to ensure everyone was aware of and had opportunity to

review the 1994 – 1996 study, which is available on the NACO website (www.nvnaco.org). Chair Dahl also indicated the

updated report will be made available to everyone. Chair Dahl invited everyone to review the updated report, once it is

available, and, if they disagree with its findings, to challenge the report. At that point, Terri Robertson threatened to leave

the meeting at which time Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) welcomed everyone and indicated he was glad

that everyone had opportunity to meet Ms. Robertson, who, he believes, has been instrumental in completing many good

things in Clark County. Commissioner Collins made an offer to have his office as well as Marci Henson from Clark

County obtain the background information referenced by Chair Dahl. Ms. Robertson indicated that she was more

interested in understanding the process by which Intertech Services, Inc. was given tax dollars to complete this study.

Commissioner Collins indicated his office could obtain that information. Commissioner Collins indicated that selection

of Intertech Services, Inc. to complete the updated study was completed subjectively. Ms. Robertson asked if she could

be allowed to ask Mr. Baughman’s party affiliation. Chair Dahl reminded everyone that one of the first principles agreed

upon by the Task Force is that they would not tolerate rude behavior to which Ms. Robertson indicated she was not being

rude but a concerned citizen asking viable questions. Chair Dahl reminded Ms. Robertson that she had and will have

opportunity to participate in the public comment sessions during the meeting.

http://www.nvnaco.org/

6


APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOTION: Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the agenda for the meeting.

The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2013 MEETING MINUTES OF THE

NEVADA LAND MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE

MOTION: Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the minutes from the

November 1, 2013, Task Force meeting. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.

PRESENTATION ON PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CLARK COUNTY

INCLUDING PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER PUBLIC LAND ON WHICH PERMANENT LOCAL

GOVERNMENT FACTILITIES EXIST

Scott Higginson, representing the FourSquare Group, is a consultant to the Clark County Regional

Flood Control and was also speaking on behalf of other entities in Clark County.

The purpose of Mr. Higginson’s presentation, which is available on the NACO website, was to give

the Task Force an understanding of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) process, which is

used significantly in Clark County to allow local government entities access to federal lands to build

permanent facilities. Mr. Higginson recommended an alternative approach that he hopes will be

included in the Task Force’s recommendation to the Legislative Public Lands Committee that

federal legislation be recommended that allows the fee title ownership of the federal lands where permanent public

facilities have been constructed through the R&PP Act or granted through Right-of-Way applications be turned over to the

entity who built those permanent structures.

Questions

Following his presentation, Mr. Higginson addressed questions from the Task Force.

1. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) asked how many Counties have access to these assets. Commissioner

Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) indicated Esmeralda County has access to the R&PP program and has rights-of-

way for utilities, water treatment plant, etc. She indicated Clark County is fortunate to get R&PP leases as they tend

not to be issued to rural counties. Mr. Higginson indicated that the BLM has been supportive of R&PP leases, which

are site specific, but have expressed concern with using such leases for linear Rights-of-Way that go across large

expanses of land.

An unidentified person indicated some have expressed concern that entities get the use of federal land for a small or

no fee as compared to if the State had ownership of the land, the State or County could develop a fee. In response,

Mr. Higginson indicated that if the State were to obtain ownership of the federal lands, it would probably hear the

same local government request that they shouldn’t be charged a fee as the project(s) are for a public benefit and these

are public lands. Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) indicated the federal government does charge a fee even to

other government entities.

2. Commissioner Paul Mathews (Lincoln County) asked if there is a mechanism for obtaining patent to the land

containing more permanent structures. Mr. Higginson indicated the entity who has an R&PP lease on the land has

“first right to buy” the land but most local governments don’t have the financial resources to meet the appraised value

of that property. Commissioner Mathews clarified his question by asking if the entity would be required to complete

Scott Higginson

7


FLPMA Management Purposes

Promote multiple use and sustained

yield;

Protect the scientific, scenic, historical,

ecological environment, air and

atmosphere, water resources, and

archaeological values;

Preserve the lands in their natural

condition to provide food and habitat

for fish, wildlife, and domestic animals;

and,

Provide for outdoor recreation and

human occupancy and use.

the appraisal/sale process rather than just receive a patent transfer. Mr. Higginson indicated the appraisal/sale

process would be required.

Commissioner Virgil Arellano (Lyon County) informed Chair Dahl he would be leaving the video conference at

approximately 12:30 PM but would like some time prior to leaving to speak on some issues.

3. Commissioner Vaughn Hartung (Washoe County) indicated Washoe County does not have any permanent

facilities under R&PP lease.

4. Mike Stremler (Pershing County) indicated that the Task Force has been asked to approach this effort as if the land

will be transferred to the State and to assess the implications of such a transfer. He asked if Mr. Higginson foresaw

any downfalls for Clark County if the lands were managed by the State. Mr. Higginson believes Clark County would

have some of the same issues as they currently have with BLM which is why he is recommending the title for the land

on which permanent public facilities are built revert to the local government entity. Mr. Stremler recommended to

Chair Dahl that a list of such recommendations should be maintained.

5. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) explained that the appropriate steps would be for the Task Force to

recommend the State Legislature pass legislation addressing the suggestion made by Mr. Higginson while also

encouraging Congress to pass federal legislation turning the land on which permanent public facilities exist over to

the local entities who own that those facilities. Mr. Higginson stated that such an action would require federal

legislation; not State legislation. The Task Force would develop a recommendation requesting the State Legislature’s

support for federal legislation to accomplish the transfer of ownership of lands containing permanent public facilities

to the entity owning those facilities.

PRESENTATION ON THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

(SNPLMA)

Karla Norris, Assistant District Manager for the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

(SNPLMA) located in the BLM’s Southern Nevada District Office in Las Vegas, summarized the

history surrounding disposal of public lands managed by the BLM and provided an overview of

the SNPLMA legislation and program. Her presentation is available on the NACO website.

Highlights of the presentation addressed various pieces

of legislation in place prior to 1976, which required the

disposal of public lands to facilitate settlement of the

western United States. With passage of the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Congress declared public lands should be

retained in federal ownership, unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal

would serve the national interest. FLPMA also declared that the public lands

would be managed for several purposes (inset to right).

SNPLMA was enacted in 1998 to provide for the orderly disposal of certain

federal lands in Clark County and to expand the sale proceeds and other

revenues for purposes identified in the Act. Over 15 years of implementation,

sale of public lands in Clark County have generated over $3.3 billion which has

Karla Norris

8


Legal Questions to be Answered

1. What was the intent of the State’s

enabling act that the federal

government would, within a

reasonable period of time, dispose of

the public lands?

2. If the response to Question 1 is “Yes”,

may the United States Congress get

out from underneath the contract using

the property clause of the United State

Constitution?

3. If the responses to Questions 1 and 2

is “Yes”, what is the State’s remedy

because the United States government

is not disposing of the public lands?

been used to approve over 1,200 projects in 8 major categories2 over 14 Rounds.

During the presentation, Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) indicated that one of the issues within Clark

County is the emphasis placed by BLM on trails versus other more useful park amenities. Commissioner Collins

emphasized there are parks in Clark County that have other needs and it is easier to get trails or sidewalks approved than

other park amenities. He suggested that if there is another amendment to SNPLMA, he would like to see that issue

addressed. In response, Ms. Norris indicated that many types of park amenities are eligible for SNPLMA funding. BLM

considers the projects as submitted by the local government entity. There isn’t a need to change the legislation but to

ensure other park amenities are included in the local government’s request. She encouraged the Commissioner to attend a

SNPLMA Executive Committee meeting where projects are discussed and ranked for SNPLMA funding. The current

priority within the Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas category, where most park projects are funded, is “serving underserved

communities” which include most of the smaller remote communities in southern Nevada.

Questions

Following her presentation, Ms. Norris addressed questions from the Task Force.

1. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) highlighted that there have been some extremely nice facilitates

constructed using SNPLMA funding including the Clark County Shooting Complex for $63 million. He expressed a

concern that when there were huge amounts of money available, many projects were too fluffy and not as practical as

they could have been.

PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE

DEMAND FOR TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS

Chair Dahl explained that since people have been talking about the transfer of public lands to the State, there has been an

issue as to the constitutionality of the proposal. Some take the position that it is not constitutional while overs firmly

believe it is. To address this issue, the Task Force asked two speakers to present arguments as the constitutionality issue.

Tony Rampton, Utah’s Assistant Attorney General, addressed why he

believes the transfer of public lands is constitutional.

Mr. Rampton indicated there are three basic questions

which must be answered to address the constitutionality

issue (inset to right.)

Mr. Rampton indicated that fundamentally enabling

legislation for all of the western public land States’ are

identical. In addressing Question 1, Mr. Rampton indicated the Supreme Court

found in 1980 that the State’s enabling acts equaite to contracts between the

Federal government and the State within which each party entering into the

contact is entitled to be benefit of their bargain. When defining the “bargain”

struck in the enabling legislation, Mr. Rampton reveiwed two clauses of

Nevada’s enabling act, which, if read together, can be interrupted two different

ways. One as mandating the federal government to dispose of the public lands

or, secondly, as the federal government having discretion to dispose of the

2 Parks, Trails and Natural Areas; Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Projects;

Hazardous Fuels Reduction & Wildfire Prevention; Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project; Environmentally Sensitive Land

Acquisitions; Capital Improvements; and Conservation Initiatives.

Tony Rampton

9


public lands. To answer the ambiguity raised by these interpretations, one must look at the historical context in which the

contract (enabling language) was developed. Mr. Rampton provided a summary of the historical context at the time of the

Nevada and Utah enabling legistation. Mr. Rampton believes that disposal of the federal lands was clearly intended by

both the United States government and the State at the time of the enabling legislation.

To answer the second question, it is important to review the body of property clause case law over the past 200 years,

which Mr. Rampton indicated has been interpreted very broadly. He reviewed various property clauses cases including

Kleppe versus New Mexico (1976). None of the property clause case law has addressed the question if the property

clause can trump a State’s enabling act. There are two recent Supreme Court cases which deal with enabling acts,3 which

may provide some direction to the question of if the property clause trumps a State’s enabling legislation.

In summary, Mr. Rampton indicated there is a “good faith” argument that could be made as to the constitutionality of the

transfer of public lands to the State. It would be a tough case to make as there is precedence going against the argument

but it is a case he would be willing to make in a court of law. Currently, the United States Supreme Court looks fondly on

States’ rights and, he believes, there is a possibility if that the property clause question were presented to this Supreme

Court, it could rule in the State’s favor. Mr. Rampton also indicated that winning the property clause question does not

settle the matter. The last (third) question which must be answered is “what is the State’s remedy?” Identifying the

remedy is another tough question which would need to be addressed.

In closing, Mr. Rampton stressed that the issues shouldn’t be resolved based on emotion or ideology but on pragmatism

and the law. He believes Nevada is approaching the issue appropriately by being careful and taking things one step at a

time. He commends the State for its approach to an important question having a major effect on things such as revenues,

education, and jobs.

PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE

DEMAND FOR TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS

Mark Squillace, a Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, provided a verbal presentation and

submitted a written statement (Attachment 8) addressing why he believes the transfer of public lands is

unconstitutional.

In summary, Mr. Squillace addressed two important sections of Nevada’s enabling legislation – Sections

4 and 10 – as well as pertinent property clause case law.4 Mr. Squillace closed his presentation by

suggesting other alternative avenues such as land exchange or working with Congress to change the

General Mining Act to increase the State’s control over certain public lands that it believes would benefit

from closer State management.

Following Mr. Squillace’s presentation, Mr. Rampton was provided opportunity to make any additional arguments. In

response, Mr. Rampton indicated the “forever” disclaimer language appearing in Nevada’s enabling act also appears in

every single enabling act in the country going back to the original thirteen colonies. In order for the federal government

to obtain a marketable title so it can disposal of the public land, it first needs the States to cede the lands to the federal

government and disclaim title to the public lands. Without such a disclaimer, the federal government could not do what it

agreed to do in the enabling legislation. Mr. Rampton also indicated the Section 10 language of the Nevada enabling act -

“which shall be sold” – can be read one of two ways, which makes it an ambiguous clause. He doesn’t understand Mr.

Squillace’s argument that Section 10 is not an ambiguous clause. Mr. Rampton indicated he doesn’t have concerns with

the characterization of the body of property clause law decided by the U. S. Supreme Court as presented by Mr. Squillace.

3 Andrus v. the State of Utah (1980) and Hawaii v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009).

4 United States v. Gratiot (1840); United States v. San Francisco (1940); Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976); Pollard v. Hagan (1845).

Mark Squillace

10


Mr. Rampton doesn’t place stock in the Pollard v. Hagan case (1845) that was an “equal footing” case. It is important to

recognize that none of the property clause cases dealt with enabling acts and he doesn’t believe Mr. Squillace’s suggested

alternative avenues would be viable.

Following Mr. Rampton’s response, Mr. Squillace was given opportunity to make additional arguments. Mr. Squillace

indicated he and Mr. Rampton will have to “agree to disagree” in relation to the language in Section 10 of the enabling

legislation and that there is no credible argument that the State’s enabling legislation trumps federal law.

Questions

Following these presentations, Mr. Rampton and Mr. Squillace addressed questions from the Task Force.

1. Mike Stremler (Pershing County) indicated that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of New Mexico

in a 1978 water law decision which found the State owned the water. His question to Mr. Rampton was if water is

considered a property issue and, secondly, would the definition of the U. S. Supreme Court that “lands with rights and

claims attached are not public lands” put a “cloud” on the title of the land based on different laws passed by Congress

such as the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 where a grazing preference was adjudicated.

Mr. Rampton responded by stating that comparing water and land is like comparing “apples” and “oranges.” You

cannot use western water law concepts for land. It is generally agreed across the west that the water initially belongs

to the States’ subject to certain reserved water rights held by Federal and tribal governments. In response to his

second question addressing the U. S. Supreme Court’s definition of “land with rights and claims are not public lands,”

Mr. Rampton indicated that he was not familiar with the definition but it was pretty well agreed that BLM land is

public land even though it is subject to grazing rights, rights-of-way, etc. Mr. Rampton does not believe an argument

could be made that it is not public land.

2. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) indicated that one key aspects left out of the discussion was denial of

access to public land. The example provided was the closure of roads preventing access to ranch properties which

have existed on public lands for generations. Mr. Rampton responded by indicating he is the leading attorney for the

Utah Attorney General’s office concerning 26 law suits brought against the federal government to protect rights-of-

way under Revised Statute 2477 for over 12,000 roads, which is an issue similar to the example given.

DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF ANY PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFERRED

FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NEVADA

Mr. Mike Baughman from Intertech Services, Inc. provided an overview of a decision hierarchy tool (Attachment 9) that

might be useful to frame what Task Force members view as a management structure for the transfer of public lands. Mr.

Baughman described how the decision hierarchy tool should be used. Under Option 1, there are four choices: A1 – Full

Title, A2 – Partial Title, A3 – Land Use Control, and A4 – Contract Management. Once one choice is selected, the person

would consider the choices outlined in Option B and continue in that manner until Option Q is reached. It was suggested

Task Force members complete an exercise of working through the various options outlined in the hierarchy tool. At the

end of the process, the person would have a concept of their vision of how the transfer of public lands would look and the

management might work.

Mr. Baughman suggested having each member of the Task Force complete their analysis using the decision hierarchy tool

and send the results to NACO within the next 30 days. The inputs could be reviewed to determine commonalities of

approach and where there are significant differences. Additional time would need to be spent resolving the differences.

11


At the Task Force’s November 1st meeting, presentations were given by the Sierra Club, Nevada Conservation League,

and the Farm Bureau. From those presentations and other discussions, Chair Dahl believes the Task Force members are

not that far apart on many of the issues. One concern expressed at several meetings including comments made today

addresses the loss of access to the public lands. Chair Dahl indicated the Task Force is pretty much in agreement that

access to public lands transferred to the State should be continue as well as the multiple uses that occur on those lands.

Uses occurring on the lands prior to the transfer should be allowed after the transfer of the lands to the State has been

completed.

Another statement heard during the meetings is the public lands belong to everyone in the United States; not just to

Nevadans. Chair Dahl indicated that if they continue to be public lands after transfer to the State, everyone in the United

States will still be able to come to Nevada to hunt and fish, and use these lands.

In a conversation with a friend in the Sierra Club, Chair Dahl was told that they (the Sierra Club) doesn’t trust the State

and that they have more faith in the federal government to protect things such as access, Rights-of-Way, etc.

Commissioner Paul Mathews (Lincoln County) asked how the transfer of public land from the federal government to

the State solves the frustrations felt by those who currently work with the BLM. Pressures felt by BLM from outside

entities such as Western Watersheds, Sierra Club, various laws (Threatened/Endangered Species Act, etc.,) court cases,

etc., forces BLM to do what they do. He believes that after the transfer of public lands, we might be in the same position

but with a different agency (the State). As an example, he addressed a spring in Lincoln County where many local

citizens are asking the County to assume management responsibility for the spring so citizens have more access and more

local input into its management. From Commissioner Mathew’s perspective, the County shouldn’t take responsibility for

the spring because of the small endangered fish in the spring and the other federal agencies involved in management of

that fish. He asked the question “Have we solved the real problem with the transfer of land from one agency to another or

do we bring all that baggage with us?” In response, Chair Dahl indicated two things would change with the transfer of

public lands to the State (1) how sage grouse would be managed and (2) ability to sit down and discuss issues with

someone face-to-face within the State versus having to travel to Washington. Commissioner Mathews agreed with Chair

Dahl concerning the concept of management control closer to the ground is better but suggested we should recognize the

constraints that BLM is required to work under and try to cure some of those problems as well.

Commissioner Boland (Esmeralda County) followed up on the concern expressed by Commissioner Mathews stating

that it is her personal feeling that we could be moving from one disaster to another; however, she felt Commission

Mathew’s concern is one the Task Force should discuss more thoroughly. She believes that as the Task Force discusses

additional management issues, Commissioner Mathew’s concern will also be more thoroughly addressed.

Commissioner Jerri Tipton (Mineral County) stated there are many individuals who don’t trust the State but would like

to discuss what would need to be changed at the State level to guarantee access, multiple use, etc. to the transferred lands

under State management. She suggested that at each meeting there be discussion on specific portions of State law and

how those portions should be amended to resolve issues. Chair Dahl responded that as the Task Force works through

proposals received from Intertech Services, Inc., there will be opportunity to do what Commissioner Tipton suggested.

Commissioner Laurie Carson (White Pine County) indicated she is interested in discussing how individual counties

will be able to participate in identifying the administration and management of the property that the counties wish to have

acquired.

Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) indicated most of the federal grazing permits in Clark County have been

sold to Clark County. During his years in the State legislature, Commissioner Collins found that many rural northern

Nevada Senators would support some silly socialist ideas saying that it will never get to my county only to find that in 10

to 20 years it might. He believes term limits have taken away much of the ‘long term’ thinking concerning a course of

12


Stakeholders Receiving Questionnaire Letter

Nevada State Lands

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

Nevada Department of Minerals

Nevada Department of Taxation

Nevada State Budget Office

Nevada Division of Forestry

Nevada State Office of Energy

Nevada Division of Wildlife

Nevada State Parks

Nevada Department of Transportation

Nevada Department of Education

Grazing Board

Southwest Gas

NV Energy

Newmont

Nevada Geothermal Association

Nevada Conservation League

Barrick Gold

Union Pacific Railroad

Sierra Club

Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife

Nevada Mining Association

Nevada Powersport

Regional economic development authorities

Sheriffs and Chief’s Association

Nevada Assessors Association

Nevada Farm Bureau

Nevada Cattleman’s Association

Nevada Land Resources

Governor’s Office of Economic Development

action. Long-term legislators looked out for the next generation and now, with term limits, people are more focused on

what can they can do to get re-elected so they may get elected for something else. He indicated these statements were

made partially facetiously but also with some sincerity. As Clark County contains the majority of the legislators in the

State, one might go to Carson City to pass legislation but it will be coming to Clark County. He has seen BLM close

different things for lack of funding but there are 28 to 78 species such as the Moapa Dace, Bear Poppies, hybrid guppies,

etc. where Clark County and Washoe County can’t handle them all so he stated “God Bless the rest of them.” He believes

many State Governors are more actively involved in the agricultural component of their government because that is where

they derive a majority of revenue income. He believes this belief is not appreciated in the State of Nevada. If the Task

Force goes along with recommendations to the Legislature which go back to Washington, D. C. for a bill to be passed, it

must include some guidelines on the limitations and abilities of the State as well as incorporating the multiple use

standards for State/County management. He would like to see rural counties manage their land and have the abilities to

succeed. Another aspect he would like to see incorporated into the final report is that if a person wants to save the wild

horses then they need to compensate the ranchers just as the sheep farmers are compensated for damages caused by

coyotes. He doesn’t believe the State will close down as much land as the federal government just because they don’t

have the money to take care of it.

INTERTECH/NACO LETTER TO AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS SOLICITING FEEDBACK

REGARDING TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ISSUES

Dagny Stapleton discussed efforts currently underway to obtain key

feedback from agencies and key stakeholders. During preparation of

the 1994 Eureka County report, a scoping letter and questionnaire was

sent to stakeholders across the state. Responses received were used to

develop the final 1994 report. Using a similar approach, NACO is

working with Intertech Services, Inc. to update the 1994 questionnaire.

Recently, a letter with the questionnaire was sent via e-mail to

stakeholders (see inset to right). NACO asked the Task Force if there

were any additional stakeholders who should receive the letter and

questionnaire. A suggestion was made to put the letter and

questionnaire on NACO’s website.

An unidentified person asked if NACO would like to have the counties

complete the questionnaire. Dagny responded that it would not be

necessary as the questionnaire is being sent by the Task Force, which

has County representation. However, the counties are welcome to

complete the questionnaire if they would like.

Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) suggested the letter and

questionnaire be posted on the Esmeralda County’s website or

distributed via e-mail in order to obtain input from citizens. Dagny

indicated she would send the letter and questionnaire to all Task Force

members, which can be posted at their discretion.

13


DISCUSSION ON THE OUTLINE AND TIMELINE OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT/STUDY TO BE

PRODUCED BY INTERTECH SERVICES

Mr. Baughman from Intertech Services, Inc. presented a summary of the 2-page preliminary draft document (Attachment

10) entitled Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the Nevada Land Management

Task Force to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands, which contains an outline for the Task Force’s Report to the

Legislative Public Lands Committee. One of the tasks in the contract was to produce this outline and, ultimately,

Intertech Services, Inc. will be working with NACO staff to prepare the report which will be submitted by the Task Force.

The outline is structured on (1) reports already submitted by the Public Lands Committee to the full legislature over the

past three or four sessions, which should facilitate efforts of the Public Lands Committee and (2) sections III, IV, and V in

the draft outline address the three areas the Task Force was specifically tasked to address by Assembly Bill 227.

DISCUSSION ON AND APPROVAL OF DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE

MEETINGS

Chair Dahl indicated the Task Force has dealt with a multitude of problems while using the video conferencing

technology. When the Task Force first began meeting, it agreed the meetings would be held around the State to facilitate

people’s participation. In hindsight, it appears people can get to the meetings through video conferencing only if the

video conferencing works. It is important that the Task Force meet where the video conference technology works. Jeff

Fontaine, Executive Director of NACO, indicated having the meeting where the technology can be managed onsite is

important for a successful broadcast. If the meetings were held in Carson City, he believes, the quality and reliability of

the video will be greater for people to participate via video from remote locations. Chair Dahl indicated that moving the

meeting locations around the State has worked against the Task Force, which would be better served to have the next

meeting in Carson City rather than Fallon.

It was noted that the staff in Las Vegas had worked hard to ensure a good video experience by testing every connection

and working with the NACO staff in Carson City but, for some unknown reason, the Las Vegas location was dropped

from the video broadcast for a few seconds every four to five minutes. It appears Las Vegas was the only location where

that issue occurred. The meeting in Reno worked well as it was streamed live over the Internet but there were issues

encountered when meeting in Winnemucca.

Chair Dahl indicated the next meeting is currently scheduled for January 10, 2014; however, there has been a request from

Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) that Task Force meetings be held in conjunction with the NACO Board of

Director’s meeting, which is currently scheduled for January 24, 2014, in Carson City. Commissioner Collins suggested

the NACO Board of Director’s meeting could be started at 8:30 AM or 9 AM with three or four hours dedicated to the

meeting, which could be followed by a three- or four-hour Task Force meeting. If both meetings were held in the same

day, it would be worth the trip from Las Vegas to Carson City. Jeff Fontaine indicated the NACO staff could work with

Chair Dahl and the incoming NACO President to structure agendas for both meetings. Commissioner Laurie Carson

(White Pine County) indicated she has to go through many of the same travel requirements as others attending the

meetings and combining the meetings as suggested would make it easier for her. Commissioner Carl Erquiaga

(Churchill County) indicated the video conferencing was working fine for him except when the Las Vegas connection

was dropped. Commissioner Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) indicated she was in agreement with Commissioner

Carson in terms of the travel but would like to ensure that the two meetings were not rushed in order to be completed in

one day.

DECISION: Unless there is significant objection from those who could not attend the meeting today, Chair Dahl

indicated the next Task Force meeting will be held in Carson City on January 24, 2014, commencing in the afternoon

following the NACO Board of Director’s meeting, which will occur that morning.

14


Public Comment Speakers

Terri Robertson

Nancy Gentis

Friends of Sloan

Ed Uehling

Bevan Lister

NVFBF

Jeff Fontaine indicated the NACO Board of Directors has not yet established their 2014 meeting dates, which typically

occur on a Friday. It was agreed the date for the February 2014 Task Force meeting will be set after the NACO Board of

Director’s establish their meeting schedule and will sent to all members via e-mail.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF TOPICS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE MEETINGS

Due to the lateness of the hour, it was agreed topics for future Task Force meetings should be e-mailed to Dagny

Stapleton at the NACO office in Carson City. An unidentified individual suggested tracking so that as we are developing

the process, we keep track of what legislation fits, what we want to do now State-wide, and what legislation amendments

would need to be proposed.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Terri Robertson suggested the Task Force use telephone conferencing instead

of video conferencing as the voices are clearer. She inquired as to why she

listening to the Attorney General’s office from Utah who continues to give out

their prophecy of having the State control public lands. Why isn’t she

listening to the Attorney General from the State of Nevada giving a proper

legal decision? She also would like to know who requested the 1994 study by

Intertech Services, Inc. In the 45 years she has been active in Nevada politics,

the State of Utah and their sagebrush rebellion and Nevada’s sagebrush

rebellion is about getting State control over land. She believes it comes down

to the Republican Party who has made this a flagship issue. If the State of

Utah could have legally done it, it would have been done already. She

believes the Task Force is dragging its feet and the transfer of public lands will not happen.

Nancy Gentis asked if any Native American tribes were contacted in the mailing of the letter and questionnaire. She

indicated she had worked on a committee with Commissioner Tom Collins when the State decided couldn’t afford to take

care of the state parks (Tule Springs and Roseanne Parks) in the northern part of the city so they gave the parks to the city.

It makes her wonder if they couldn’t afford to take care of the parks how are they going to be able to take care of this

other stuff. She also stated that BLM develops policies and makes regulations and asked who is going to develop those

policies and regulations once the State takes over those lands. How long will that take? Who is in charge of hiring the

people to do that? Why create a whole new system when one is already in place? It just becomes daunting.

Ed Uehling from Las Vegas, Nevada, indicated it cannot get any more basic in a federal system than having control over

the lands in this state. It makes absolutely no sense to him when the Union and the States have recognized this since the

very founding of this country. States must have control over the land in order to generate taxes and economic activity to

support itself. This fight has been going on since the founding of the country. All of the States have the problem where

the federal government wants to come in and control the land. When the government continues to control 80 percent of

the land, it takes away the economic opportunities for the State. If they want to control the land, then let them pay to help

finance the State. Otherwise you have a centralized system, not a federal system. This isn’t the only case of the federal

government doing harmful things to our State, cities, and economy. The federal government won’t grant visas to

foreigners to come here to gamble in our casinos. They won’t allow airplanes land here and then take off to other cities.

Regulations by the federal government harm Nevada’ economy so we have to do something to deal with the federal

government. He suggests we go to a more basic right which is expressed in the Declaration of Independence as our

obligation and authority to establish our own government and secede from the Nation. This is the direction the world is

going – to get rid of the states that want to go to war with each other and the more prospers states are the city states such

as Hong Kong and Singapore where people have control over their own destinies, which is the purpose of the Declaration

15


of Independence. If we can’t get the federal government to understand the basic concept of property and its relationship

to this State under a federal system, then we ought to go to a more basic right.

Bevan Lister from Pioche, Nevada, appreciated the opportunity to watch the Task Force work today. He believes the

Task Force has a monumental task and a great opportunity for the people in the State of Nevada. In his life he has always

tried to look for principles. This great Nation was founded under a principle of freedom where an agency would make a

choice and then accept responsibility for our choices. The Constitution creates a union of sovereign States. In principal,

he believes it impossible for a State to be sovereign if 80 percent of its land is owned by a foreign government. It is

imperfect for a State to be able to choose its own destiny and take responsibility for that decision. He suggested that if the

Task Force members wanted to have day of fun they should sit in the Federal Court house where they address petty crimes

and misdemeanor cases. Hundreds of Nevada citizens are being dragged in front of a Federal magistrate and given the

ultimatum to either pay the large fine or have their driver’s license revoked for drive under the influence or driving 10

mile per hour over the speed limit in a national recreation area. All of those crimes are being charged against our citizens

who are paying extremely high fines under the threat of being required to go into court and subject to a $100,000 fine and

possibility 6 months in jail. There is a tremendous disparity in this justice being done to the people of this state. He

encouraged the Task Force to look at those jurisdictional issues as the affect us in all of the Task Force’s deliberations.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Dahl accepted a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Laurie Carson (White Pine County) to adjourn

the meeting, which occurred at 2:13 PM.

ACRONYMS

The following acronyms were used during the meeting and listed in alphabetical order.

Acronym Meaning

BLM ......................................................................................................................................... Bureau of Land Management

FLPMA ....................................................................................................Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

NACO...................................................................................................................................Nevada Association of Counties

R&PP .................................................................................................................... Recreation and Public Purposes Act

SNPLMA ................................................................................................... Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

16


ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Meeting Attendance

Summit Participant by Governmental Entity

TASK FORCE

Participant Name Position Government Entity Present Not Present

Bob Crowell Mayor Carson City X

Carl Erquiaga Commissioner Churchill County X

Tom Collins Commissioner Clark County X

Doug Johnson Commissioner Douglas County X

Demar Dahl Commissioner & Task Force

Chairman

Elko County X

Nancy Boland Commissioner & Vice Chairman Esmeralda County X

JJ Goicoechea Commissioner Eureka County X

Dan Cassinelli Commissioner Humboldt County X

Patsy Waits Commissioner Lander County X

Paul Mathews5 Commissioner Lincoln County X

Virgil Arellano Commissioner Lyon County X

Jerrie Tipton Commissioner Mineral County X

Lorinda Wichman Commissioner Nye County X

Mike Stremler Pershing County X

Bill Sjovangen Commissioner Storey County X

Vaughn Hartung Commissioner Washoe County X

Laurie Carson Commissioner White Pine County X

SPEAKERS

Name Position Organization or Entity

Scott Higginson Owner FourSquare Group

Karla Norris Assistant District Manager, SNPLMA Bureau of Land Management

Tony Rampton Assistant Attorney General State of Utah

Mark Squillace Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School

Mike Baughman President Intertech Services, Inc.

OTHER PARTICIPANTS


Jeff Fontaine Executive Director Nevada Association of Counties

Dagny Stapleton Deputy Director Nevada Association of Counties

Mike Holbert Owner Silver State Meeting Minutes

Paul Aizley Assemblyman, District 41 Legislative Interim Public Lands Committee

Steve Walker

Sean Whaley Reporter Las Vegas Review Journal

Terri Frolli Capital City Coordinator U. S. Forest Service

Barb Stremler

Marci Henson Assistant Director Department of Comprehensive Planning,

Clark County


Bruno Bowles Management Analyst Southern Nevada Water Authority

Christopher Preciado Organizer PLAN

Ed Uehling

5 Commissioner Mathews was a proxy for Commissioner Kevin Phillips.

17


OTHER PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED)

Tim Smith District Manager Bureau of Land Management

Southern Nevada District Office

Janice Ridondo Community Liaison Clark County Commission

Bevan Lister Vice President NVFBF

Jackie Ihausen Treasurer Friends of Sloan Canyon

Nancy Gentis Friends of Sloan Canyon

Marcia Bollea NCL

Sarah Short PLAN

Terri Robertson

Steve Parrish Engineering Director Clark County Regional Flood Control

District

Gayle Marrs-Smith Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office Bureau of Land Management


Vanessa Hice Assistant Field Manager, Las Vegas Field

Office

Bureau of Land Management


Kirsten Cannon Public Affairs Specialist Bureau of Land Management


18


Attachment 2 – Michele Burkett Public Comment

19


20


Attachment 3 – Sandra Dyan Public Comment

21


22


Attachment 4 – David Mahon Public Comment

23


Attachment 5 – Kristin Kosacek Public Comment

24


25


Attachment 6 – John Marchese Public Comment

26


Attachment 7 – Terri Roberts Public Comment

27


28


29


Attachment 8 – Mark Squillace Presentation

30


31


32


33


Attachment 9 – Public Lands Management Alternative Options and Decision Hierarchy Tool

A.1 Full Title

B.1 All Lands

C.1 All Lands Managed In Trust

D.1 Educational Institution/County Government Beneficiaries

E.1 Managed for Long-term Profit Maximization

F.1 State/County Management

G.1 Management Subject to State Environmental Regulations

H.1 Democratic Policy/Decision Making

I.1 Independent Commission or Board

J.1 Decentralized Administration

K.1 User Fees/Rent

L.1.1 Grazing

M.1 Permanent Fund

N.1 Sole Source/Fixed Fee

O.1 Long-Term Permit Tenure

P.1 Transferable

Q.1 Use Required

Q.2 Extended Non-use Allowed

P.2 Non-Transferable

O.2 Short-Term Permit Tenure

N.2 Automatic Competitive Bid

N.3 Appeal Induced Competitive Bid

M.2 General Fund

M.3 Land Management Agency Operating Fund

M.4 Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT)

M.5 Combination

L.1.2 Mining Claims

L.1.3 Oil & Gas Leases

L.1.4 Recreation Access

L.1.5 Site Leases

L.1.6 Easements

K.2 Royalties

L.2.1 Mineral Production

L.2.2 Oil and Gas Production

L.2.3 Renewable Energy Prod (geothermal, hydro, solar, wind)

K.3 Sales

L.3.1 Forest Products

L.3.2 Industrial Minerals

L.3.3 Landscape Materials

L.3.4 Land Sales

K.4 General Fund

J.2 Centralized Administration

I.2 Cabinet Level Dept.

I.3 Division Level

H.2 Autocratic Policy/Decision Making

G.2 Management Exempt from State and County Environmental Regulations

G.3 Management Subject to County Environmental Regulations

G.4 Management Subject to State/County Environmental Regulations

F.2 County Management F.3 State Management

E.2 Managed for Net Benefit Maximization

E.3 Managed for Sustainable Yield

E.4 Managed for Long-term Profit Maximization Subject to Sustainable Yields

D.2 County Government Beneficiaries

D.3 Educational Institution and/or State General Fund Beneficiaries

C.2 Some Lands Managed In Trust

C.3 All Lands Managed Outside of Trust

B.2 To Select Lands

A.2 Partial Title

A.3 Land Use Control

A.4 Contract Management

34


Attachment 10 – Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the

Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands

I. Summary of Nevada Land Management Task Force Recommendations to Legislative Committee on Public Lands

II. Introduction

A. Enabling Legislation, AB 227

B. Task Force Members, Staff and Consultants

C. Task Force Meetings

III. Identification of Public Lands to be Transferred to the State of Nevada

A. Bureau of Land Management 1. Identification of Lands

2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands

B. U.S. Forest Service

1. Identification of Lands 2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands

C. Other Federally Administered Land

1. Identification of Lands

2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands

IV. Administration, Management and Use of Transferred Lands

A. Alternatives for Administration of Transferred Lands

1. Existing State Agency 2. New State Agency

B. Alternatives for Management of Transferred Lands

1. State Management

2. Local Government Management

3. Shared State and Local Government Management

4. Non-Governmental Organization Management

C. Alternatives Uses of Transferred Lands

1. Revenue Generating Activities 2. Non-Revenue Generating Activities

V. Economic Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada

A. Land Transfer Costs B. Revenue Sources for State Administration and Maintenance of Transferred Lands

C. Existing State and Local Revenue Derived from Federally Administered Lands to be Transferred

D. Estimated Amount and Recommended Disposition of Net Revenues Derived by State of Nevada from Transferred Lands

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Lands to be Transferred

B. Administration and Management of Transferred Lands

C. Uses of Transferred Lands D. Disposition of Net Revenues Generated from Transferred Lands

F. Action by the Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands

VII. Appendices Appendix A – AB 227

Appendix B – Nevada Land Management Task Force Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Appendix C – Summary of Presentations to and Testimony before the Nevada Land Management Task

Appendix D – Summary of Other State Public Land Transfer Initiatives Appendix E – Evaluation of an Expanded State Land Base in Nevada: Identification of Issues and Comparative Economic Analysis

(ISC/RCI Report)

Item 6 . Backup

Discussion and Overview of Research Regarding the Cost to Transfer Federal Land to the State of Nevada and as well as Costs of Management (Information to be Included in the Study Being Conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force): Mike Baughman, Intertech Services Corporation Attachments:

Intertech Services Corporation, Preliminary Draft Public Land Management Task Force Report Tables

Intertech Services Corporation

January15, 2014

Preliminary Draft Public Land Management Task Force Report Tables

Table 2. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment, Output: Arizona ARIZONA FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Revenues $382,385,591 $247,043,134 $155,429,218 $190,308,434 $213,218,799.00 Expenses $18,088,700 $14,281,700 $23,880,660 $13,455,900 $14,336,300 Net Revenue $364,296,891 $232,761,434 $131,548,558 $176,852,534 $198,882,499 Total Acres Managed 9,260,253 9,259,268 9,258,071 9,252,495 9,302,255 Revenue/Acre $41.00 $26.00 $16.78 $19.11 $21.38 Expense/Acre $1.95 $1.54 $2.58 $1.45 $1.54 Net Revenue/Acre $39.00 $25.00 $14.00 $19.00 $21.38 Total FTEs 173 175 154 151 124 Acres/FTE 53527 52910 60117 61274 75018 Revenue/FTE $2,210,321 $1,411,675 $1,009,280 $1,260,320 $1,719,506 Expense/FTE $104,558 $81,609 $155,069 $89,111 $115,615 Net Revenue/FTE $2,105,762 $1,330,065 $854,211 $1,171,208 $1,603,891 Grazing Revenue $2,417,763 $2,559,337 $2,403,080 $2,390,769 $2,458,350 No. Grazing Leases 1247 1246 1247 1239 1224 Total Grazing Acres 8405942 8405371 8408033 8368575 8378985 Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 Price per AUM $2.29 $2.23 $2.28 $2.30 $2.41 Agriculture Lease Revenue $4,201,575 $4,458,855 $4,944,449 $4,362,612 $4,470,978 No. of Agriculture Leases 387 379 367 354 347 Agriculture Acres Leased 170487 166152 163186 156575 157174 Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $24.00 $26.00 $30.00 $27.00 $28.00 Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $1,006,274 $1,149,669 $399,937 $457,623 $1,614,618 No. of Oil & Gas Leases 519 513 320 204 291 Oil & Gas Acres Leased 1004792 992880 571637 330833 508567 Oil & Gas Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $1.00 $1.15 $0.70 $1.38 $3.17 Mineral Lease Revenue $719,000 $766,507 $2,800,008 $1,528,934 $1,770,197 No. of Mineral Leases 492 514 475 1091 873 Mineral Acres Leased 179273 195773 191360 526017 406384 Mineral Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $4.00 $3.00 $14.00 $2.00 $4.00 Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue $3,859,592 $2,562,652 $26,539,675 $39,756,402 $21,783,656 Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue/Acre Leased $3.26 $2.16 $33.46 $46.39 $23.80 Acres Sold 1994.32 1381.72 918.36 5598.94 9600.44

Land Sale Revenue $125,997,000 $71,752,000 $19,151,000 $104,371,586 $119,886,949 Land Sale Revenue/Acre Sold $63,177 $51,929 $20,853 $18,641 $12,487

Table 2A. Distribution of Revenues by Beneficiary: Arizona FY 2012

Trust Acres Total Receipts ($) BENEFICIARIES Common Schools (K—12)‡

8,088,270.54 272,560,356.05

Normal Schools Grant 174,797.56 309,776.02 Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

124,943.87 367,276.93

Military Institutes Grant 80,168.11 61,108.41 School of Mines Grant 123,254.09 555,363.13 University Land Code 137,906.42 1,874,540.22 University of Arizona (Act of 2/18/1881) 51,881.13 1,749,257.72 School for the Deaf & Blind 82,559.65 399,040.46 SUBTOTAL Education 8,863,781.36 277,876,718.94 Legislative, Executive & Judicial Buildings 64,257.10 726,847.71 State Hospital Grant 71,248.39 851,716.17 Miners' Hospital Grant† 95,383.13 5,391,036.87 State Charitable, Penal, and Reformatory 77,228.58 6,634,465.60 Penitentiary Grant 76,110.72 1,475,846.60 † Miners’ Hospital and Miners’ Hospital 1929 combined ‡ Including County Bonds

Table 3. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: Idaho

IDAHO FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Revenues $75,490,986 $63,472,207 $48,276,287 $67,526,091 $65,757,944 Expenses $20,161,083 $21,019,253 $22,685,271 $23,854,935 $23,354,297 Net Revenue $55,329,903 $42,452,954 $25,591,016 $43,671,156 $42,403,647 Total Acres 2459750 2446335 2449255 2448425 2448010 Revenue/Acre $30.00 $25.00 $19.00 $27.00 $26.00 Expense/Acre $8.00 $8.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 Net Revenue/Acre $22.00 $17.00 $10.00 $17.00 $17.00 Total FTEs 264 264 264 259 260 Acres/FTE 9317 9266 9277 9453 9415 Revenue/FTE $285,950 $240,425 $182,864 $260,718 $252,915 Expense/FTE $76,367 $79,618 $85,929 $92,103 $89,824 Net Revenue/FTE $209,582 $160,806 $96,935 $168,614 $163,090 Grazing Revenue $1,570,109 $1,524,003 1532652 $1,878,863 $1,439,217 Grazing Leases 1222 1207 1201 1175 1165 Total Grazing Acres 1778280 1783813 1786774 1773249 1777758 Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $0.88 $0.85 $0.85 $1.05 $0.81 Price per AUM

$5.12 $5.13 $5.25

Ag Land Lease Revenue $280,005 $270,371 $329,298 $277,790 $399,696 No. of Agriculture Leases 77 75 73 71 67 Agriculture Acres Leased 20264 19699 18998 18329 18350 Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $13.81 $13.72 $17.33 $15.15 $21.78 Residential and Comm. Land Lease Revenue $6,778,982 $6,554,179 $7,091,512 $6,899,615 $9,078,044 No. of Residential and Comm. Land Leases 747 695 683 672 684 Acres of Residential and Comm. Lease 16993 17116 16435 16450 16696 Revenue/Residential and Comm. Acre $398.92 $382.94 $431.48 $419.42 $543.72 Timber and Forest Products Revenue $61,765,964 $50,425,822 $36,303,906 $54,106,083 $50,760,589 Acres of Forest Managed 971613 971678 977429 977005 977529 Revenue/Acre of Forest Managed $63.57 $51.89 $37.14 $55.37 $51.92 Mineral, Oil and Gas Revenue $4,661,921 $4,302,151 $2,814,511 $3,668,655 $3,379,678 No. of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 425 444 425 465 462 Acres of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases

123234 114562 116809 102500

Revenue/Acre of Mineral, Oil and Gas Acre $34.91 $24.56 $31.40 $32.97

Table 3A. Distribution of Revenues by Beneficiary: Idaho FY 2012

Beneficiaries Total Receipts ($) Agricultural College 1,646,080 Capitol Permanent (351,963) Charitable Inst. 4,572,497 Normal School 627,308 Penitentiary Inc. 2,350,053 Public Schools 24,570,082 School of Science 2,470,613 State Hospital South 3,524,851 University of Idaho 2,985,127

Table 4. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: New Mexico

NEW MEXICO FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Revenue $546,194,908 $526,534,538 $420,276,400 $499,211,175 $652,347,910 Expense $13,236,000 $13,184,100 $12,975,900 $12,948,500 $13,172,000 Net Revenue $532,958,908 $513,350,438 $407,300,500 $486,262,675 $639,175,910 Total Surface Acres 8900000 8900000 8900000 8900000 9009302 Total Subsurface Acres 13400000 13400000 13400000 13400000 12700000 Revenue/Surface Acre $61.37 $59.16 $47.22 $56.09 $72.40 Expense/Surface Acre $1.48 $1.48 $1.45 $1.45 $1.46 Net Revenue/Surface Acre $59.88 $57.67 $45.76 $54.63 $70.94 Revenue/Subsurface Acre $40.76 $39.29 $31.36 $37.25 $51.36 Expense/Subsurface Acre $0.98 $0.98 $0.96 $0.96 $1.03 Net Revenue/Subsurface Acre $39.77 $33.30 $30.39 36.28 $50.32 Total FTEs 155 155 153 151 151 Surface Acres/FTE 57419 57419 58170 58940 59664 Revenue/FTE $3,523,838 $3,396,997 $2,746,904 $3,306,034 $4,320,184 Expense/FTE $85,393 $85,058 $84,809 $85,751 $84,105 Net Revenue/FTE $3,438,444 $3,311,938 $2,662,094 $3,220,282 $4,232,953 Grazing and Cropland Lease Revenue $7,082,751 $7,427,344 $5,216,784 $5,918,144 $5,429,688 No. of Grazing and Cropland Leases 3570 n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Grazing and Cropland Lease Acres 8780559 8934831 n/a n/a n/a Grazing and Cropland Revenue/Leased Acre $0.81 $0.83 n/a n/a n/a Price per AUM n/a $4.07 $2.71 n/a n/a Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $509,813,115 $407,328,404 $389,953,359 $467,663,089 $620,278,957 No. of Oil and Gas Leases 9500 n/a n/a 9600 9600 Acres of Oil and Gas Leases 2917068 n/a n/a n/a n/a Oil and Gas Revenue/Leased Acre $174.77 n/a n/a n/a n/a Mineral Revenue $6,992,516 $17,682,615 $11,104,227 $12,159,202 $14,546,914 No. of Mineral Leases 170 n/a n/a 165 173 Acres of Mineral Leases 134144 n/a n/a n/a n/a Mineral Revenue/Leased Acre $52.13 n/a n/a n/a n/a Acres Sold 2221 23 5 n/a n/a Land Sale Revenue $5,703,844 $1,486,000 399766 n/a n/a Land Sale Revenue/Acre Sold $2,568 $64,608 $79,953 n/a n/a Commercial Land Lease Revenue $10,202,036 $6,659,785 $4,695,741 $4,194,000 $6,981,637

Table 4. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: New Mexico

NEW MEXICO FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 No. of Commercial Land Leases 975 782 663 781 n/a Acres of Commercial Land Leased n/a 403,622 104790 377976 n/a Commercial Land Lease Revenue/Leased Acre n/a $16.50 $54.35 $11.10 n/a

Table 4A. Distribution of Net Revenues by Beneficiary: New Mexico FY 2012

Beneficiaries Total Receipts ($) Common Schools 544,244,931 University of New Mexico 9,482,298 Saline Lands 81,470 New Mexico State University 2,955,919 Western New Mexico University 263,391 NM Highlands University 263,223 Northern New Mexico School 206,686 Eastern New Mexico University 630,158 NM Institute of Mining and Technology 1,558,074 NM Military Institute 23,094,438 Children, Youth and Families Dept. 73,496 Miner’s Hospital 7,401,699 Behavioral Health Institute 2,986,671 State Penitentiary 11,416,378 School for the Deaf 11,635,495 School for the Visually Impaired 11,613,393 Charitable, Penal and Reform 5,193,081 Water Reservoirs 7,278,813 Rio Grande Improvements 1,557,121 Public Buildings 6,495,934 Carrie Tingley Hospital 23,669

Table 5. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: Utah

UTAH FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Revenues $151,127,806 $138,258,000 $115,281,400 $121,730,413 $129,341,802 Operating Expenditures $9,119,310 $9,537,848 $8,586,066 $9,005,048 $9,626,919 Capital Expenditures $10,134,997 $13,603,453 $12,287,299 $1,845,689 $2,594,791 Total Expenditures $19,254,307 $23,141,301 $20,873,365 $10,850,735 $12,221,710 Net Revenue $131,873,499 $115,116,699 $94,408,035 $110,879,678 $117,120,092 Total Acres 3411514 3407235 3404635 3402250 3402250 Revenue/Acre $44.29 $40.57 $33.86 $35.77 $38.01 Operating Expense/Acre $2.67 $2.79 $2.52 $2.64 $2.82 Net Revenue/Acre $38.65 $33.78 $27.72 $32.59 $34.42 Total FTEs 66 68 74 72 71 Acres/FTE 51689 50106 46008 47253 47919 Revenue/FTE $2,289,815 $2,033,205 $1,557,856 $1,690,700 $1,821,715 Operating Expense/FTE $138,171 $140,262 $116,027 $125,070 $135,590 Net Revenue/FTE $1,998,083 $1,692,892 $1,275,784 $1,539,995 $1,649,578 Surface Management Revenues $10,134,011 $9,367,000 $7,466,700 $8,757,392 $8,641,248 Grazing Revenue

Grazing Leases Total Grazing Acres Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed AUMs of Actual Use AUMs/Acre Price per AUM Land Development Revenue $25,027,069 $4,427,000 $3,900,900 $3,912,295 $4,459,300

Timber Sales Revenue Timber Sold (MBF) Revenue/MBF Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $76,570,137 $75,412,000 $56,269,400 $60,909,236 $59,129,505

Oil & Gas Royalties & Pnlty No. of Oil & Gas Leases Oil & Gas Acres Leased Oil & Gas Revenues/Acre Leased Oil & Gas Royalties/Acre Leased Coal and Other Mineral Revenue $81,908,639 $20,965,000 $21,116,200 $18,619,526 $16,784,842

Other Mineral Royalties Investment Revenue $41,797,898 $32,546,300 $26,528,200 $29,528,681 $40,303,434

Land Sale Revenue $24,104,025 $3,301,582 $3,059,599 $3,145,089 $3,537,238 Acres of Land Sold 6835 6573 1153 n/a n/a

Table 5A. Distribution of Revenues by Beneficiary: Utah FY 2012

Beneficiaries Total Receipts ($) Public Schools (K-12) 29,263,119 Miners’ Hospital 1,700,000 University of Utah 1,356,385 Reservoirs 425,415 School for the Blind 263,391 School for the Deaf 74,314 State Hospital 476,199 Utah State University 312,058 Normal Schools 320,868 School of Mines 352,878 Youth Development Center 213,606 Public Buildings 5,702 Behavioral Health Institute 2,986,671 State Penitentiary 11,416,378 School for the Deaf 11,635,495 School for the Visually Impaired 11,613,393 Charitable, Penal and Reform 5,193,081 Water Reservoirs 7,278,813 Rio Grande Improvements 1,557,121 Public Buildings 6,495,934 Carrie Tingley Hospital 23,669 Total (Maintenance and Permanent Funds) 658,456,335

Table 7. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - Arizona

Observed High

Observed Low

5-Year Average

ARIZONA Revenues $382,385,591 $155,429,218 $237,677,035

Expenses $23,880,660 $13,455,900 $16,808,652 Net Revenue $364,296,891 $131,548,558 $220,868,383 Total Acres Managed 9,302,255 9,252,495 $9,266,468 Revenue/Acre $41.00 $16.78 $24.85 Expense/Acre $2.58 $1.45 $1.81 Net Revenue/Acre $39.00 $14.00 $23.68 Total FTEs 175 124 155 Acres/FTE 74616 52910 60569 Revenue/FTE $2,185,060 $1,253,461 $1,522,220 Expense/FTE $155,069 $81,609 $109,192 Net Revenue/FTE $2,210,321 $854,211 $1,413,027 Grazing Revenue $2,559,337 $2,390,769 $2,445,860 No. Grazing Leases 1247 1224 1241 Total Grazing Acres 8408033 8368575 8393381 Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 Price per AUM $2.41 $2.23 $2.30 Agriculture Lease Revenue $4,944,449 $4,201,575 $4,487,694 No. of Agriculture Leases 387 347 366.8 Agriculture Acres Leased 170487 156575 162715 Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $30.00 $24.00 $27.00 Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $1,614,618 $399,937 $925,624 No. of Oil & Gas Leases 519 204 369 Oil & Gas Acres Leased 1004792 330833 681742 Oil & Gas Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $3.17 $0.70 $1.48 Mineral Lease Revenue $2,800,008 $719,000 $1,516,929 No. of Mineral Leases 1091 475 689 Mineral Acres Leased 526017 179273 299761 Mineral Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $14.00 $2.00 $5.40 Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue $39,756,402 $2,562,652 $18,900,395 Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue/Acre Leased $46.39 $2.16 $21.81 Acres Sold 9600.44 918.36 3898.76 Land Sale Revenue $125,997,000 $19,151,000 $88,231,707 Land Sale Revenue/Acre Sold $63,177 $12,487 $33,417

Table 8. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - Idaho

Observed High

Observed Low 5 Year Avg

IDAHO Revenues $75,490,986 $48,276,287 $64,104,703

Expenses $23,854,935 $20,161,083 $22,214,968 Net Revenue $55,329,903 $25,591,016 $41,889,735 Total Acres 2446335 2449255 2450355 Revenue/Acre $30.00 $19.00 $25.40 Expense/Acre $9.00 $6.00 $8.60 Net Revenue/Acre $22.00 $10.00 $16.60 Total FTEs 264 259 262 Acres/FTE 9453 9266 9345.6 Revenue/FTE $285,950 $182,864 $244,574 Expense/FTE $92,103 $76,367 $84,768 Net Revenue/FTE $209,582 $96,935 $159,805 Grazing Revenue $1,878,863 $1,439,217 $1,588,969 Grazing Leases 1222 1165 1194 Total Grazing Acres 1786774 1773249 1779975 Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $1.05 $0.81 $0.89 Price per AUM $5.25 $5.12 $5.17 Ag Land Lease Revenue $399,696.00 $270,371.00 $311,432 No. of Agriculture Leases 77 67 72.6 Agriculture Acres Leased 20264 18329 19128 Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $21.78 $13.72 $16 Residential and Comm. Land Lease Revenue $9,078,044 $6,554,179 $7,280,466 No. of Residential and Comm. Land Leases 747 672 696 Acres of Residential and Comm. Lease 17116 16435 16738 Revenue/Residential and Comm. Acre $543.72 $382.94 $435.30 Timber and Forest Products Revenue $61,765,964 $36,303,906 $50,672,473 Acres of Forest Managed 977529 971613 975051 Revenue/Acre of Forest Managed $63.57 $37.14 $52 Mineral, Oil and Gas Revenue $4,661,921 $2,814,511 $3,765,383 No. of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 465 425 444 Acres of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 123234 102500 114276 Revenue/Acre of Mineral, Oil and Gas Acre $34.91 $24.56 $30.96

Table 9. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - New Mexico

NEW MEXICO Observed High

Observed Low

5-Year Average

Revenue $652,347,910 $420,276,400 $528,912,986 Expense $13,236,000 $12,948,500 $13,103,300 Net Revenue $639,111,910 $407,300,500 $515,809,686 Total Surface Acres 9009302 8900000 8921860 Total Subsurface Acres 13400000 12700000 13260000 Revenue/Surface Acre $72.40 $47.22 $59.25 Expense/Surface Acre $1.48 $1.45 $1.46 Net Revenue/Surface Acre $72.26 $45.76 $57.78 Revenue/Subsurface Acre $31.36 $51.36 $40.00 Expense/Subsurface Acre $1.03 $0.96 $0.98 Net Revenue/Subsurface Acre $51.26 $30.39 $38.01 Total FTEs 155 151 153 Surface Acres/FTE 59664 57419 58322 Revenue/FTE $4,320,184 $2,746,904 $3,458,791 Expense/FTE $85,751 $85,393 $85,023 Net Revenue/FTE $4,311,461 $2,662,094 $3,373,142 Grazing and Cropland Lease Revenue $7,427,344 $5,216,784 $6,214,942 No. of Grazing and Cropland Leases

Total Grazing and Cropland Lease Acres Grazing and Cropland Revenue/Leased Acre Price per AUM Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $620,278,957 $389,953,359 $479,007,385

No. of Oil and Gas Leases Acres of Oil and Gas Leases Oil and Gas Revenue/Leased Acre Mineral Revenue $17,682,615 $6,992,516 $12,497,095

No. of Mineral Leases Acres of Mineral Leases Mineral Revenue/Leased Acre Acres Sold Land Sale Revenue Land Sale Revenue/Acre Sold Commercial Land Lease Revenue $10,202,036 $4,194,000 $6,546,640

No. of Commercial Land Leases Acres of Commercial Land Leased Commercial Land Lease Revenue/Leased Acre

Table 10. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - Utah

UTAH Observed High

Observed Low

5-Year Average

Revenues $151,127,806 $115,281,400 $131,147,884 Operating Expenditures $9,626,919 $8,586,066 $9,175,038 Capital Expenditures $13,603,453 $1,845,689 $8,093,246 Total Expenditures $23,141,301 $10,850,735 $17,268,284 Net Revenue $131,873,499 $94,408,035 $113,879,601 Total Acres 3411514 3402250 3405577 Revenue/Acre $44.29 $33.86 $38.50 Operating Expense/Acre $2.82 $2.52 $2.69 Net Revenue/Acre $38.65 $27.72 $33.43 Total FTEs 74 66 70 Acres/FTE 51689 46008 48595 Revenue/FTE $2,289,815 $1,557,856 $1,878,658 Operating Expense/FTE $140,262 $116,027 $131,024 Net Revenue/FTE $1,998,083 $1,275,784 $1,631,266 Surface Management Revenues $10,134,011 $7,466,700 $8,873,270 Grazing Revenue

Grazing Leases Total Grazing Acres Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed AUMs of Actual Use AUMs/Acre Price per AUM Land Development Revenue $25,027,069 $3,900,900 $8,345,313

Timber Sales Revenue Timber Sold (MBF) Revenue/MBF Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $76,570,137 $56,269,400 $65,658,056

Oil & Gas Royalties & Pnlty No. of Oil & Gas Leases Oil & Gas Acres Leased Oil & Gas Revenues/Acre Leased Oil & Gas Royalties/Acre Leased Coal and Other Mineral Revenue $81,908,639 $16,784,842 $31,878,841

Other Mineral Royalties Investment Revenue $41,797,898 $26,528,200 $34,140,903

Land Sale Revenue $24,104,025 $3,059,599 $7,429,507 Acres of Land Sold

Table 11. Five Year Average Revenues, Expenditures and Employment In Selected States

Arizona Idaho New Mexico Utah

Revenues $237,677,035 $64,104,703 $528,912,986 $131,147,884 Expenses $16,808,652 $22,214,968 $13,103,300 $9,175,038 Net Revenue $220,868,383 $41,889,735 $518,180,646 $113,879,601 Total Acres Managed 9266468 2450355 8921860 3405577 Revenue/Acre $24.85 $25.40 $59.25 $38.50 Expense/Acre $1.81 $8.60 $1.46 $2.69 Net Revenue/Acre $23.68 $16.60 $58.04 $33.43 Total FTEs 155 262 153 70 Acres/FTE 60569 9346 58322 48595 Revenue/FTE $1,522,220 $244,574 $3,458,791 $1,878,658 Operating Expense/FTE $109,192 $84,768 $85,023 $131,024 Net Revenue/FTE $1,413,027 $159,805 $3,388,844 $1,631,266

Table 12. Multi-State Observed High, Observed Low and Average

Observed High Observed Low Average Revenues $652,347,910 $48,276,287 $232,990,919 Expenses $23,880,660 $8,586,066 $15,180,057 Net Revenue $639,111,910 $25,591,016 $215,681,060 Total Acres Managed 9,302,255 2449255 5840055 Revenue/Acre $72.40 $16.78 $36.79 Expense/Acre $9.00 $1.45 $3.73 Net Revenue/Acre $72.26 $10.00 $32.55 Total FTEs 264 66 160 Acres/FTE 74616 9266 43718 Revenue/FTE $4,320,184 $182,864 $1,753,205 Expense/FTE $155,069 $76,367 $102,394 Net Revenue/FTE $4,311,461 $96,935 $1,620,023

Table 13. Estimated Revenue, Expense, FTEs for Expanded State Land Area in Nevada Using Other State Models

Arizona Idaho New Mexico Utah

Four State Avg.

Observed 5-Year Avg. Revenue per Acre $24.85 $25.40 $59.25 $38.50 $36.79 Observed 5-Year Avg. Expense per Acre $1.81 $8.60 $1.46 $2.69 $3.73 Observed 5-Year Avg. Net Revenue per Acre $23.68 $16.60 $57.78 $33.43 $32.55 Observed 5-Year Average Acres per FTE 60569 9346 58322 48595 43718 Observed 5-Year Average Total FTEs 155 262 153 70 160

Assumed Acreage Managed by Nevada 47783458 47783458 47783458 47783458 47783458 Estimated Total Revenue $1,187,610,065 $1,213,699,833 $2,831,074,320 $1,839,663,133 $1,757,953,420 Estimated Total Expense $86,583,626 $410,937,739 $69,954,983 $128,441,935 $178,232,298 Estimated Net Revenue $1,101,026,439 $802,762,094 $2,761,119,337 $1,711,221,198 $1,579,721,122 Estimated Total FTEs 788 5112 819 983 1093

Assumed Acreage Managed by Nevada 10000000 10000000 10000000 10000000 10000000 Estimated Total Revenue $248,540,000 $254,000,000 $592,480,000 $385,000,000 $367,900,000 Estimated Total Expense $18,120,000 $86,000,000 $14,640,000 $26,880,000 $37,300,000 Estimated Net Revenue $230,420,000 $168,000,000 $577,840,000 $358,120,000 $330,600,000 Estimated Total FTEs 165 1070 171 205 228

Table 19A. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment, Output: BLM

NATIONWIDE - BLM FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Surface Mgt. Revenue $433,820,000 $471,693,000 $568,270,000 $609,004,000 $586,768,000 Subsurface Mgt. Revenue $5,486,000,000 $3,685,000,000 $3,826,000,000 $4,100,000,000 $4,400,000,000 Revenue (surface and subsurface) $5,919,820,000 $4,156,693,000 $4,394,270,000 $4,709,004,000 $4,986,768,000 Expense (surface and subsurface mgt.) $2,244,740,000 $1,774,848,000 $2,393,139,000 $2,282,391,000 $2,375,351,000 Total Net Revenue (surface and subsurface mgt.) $3,675,080,000 $2,411,845,000 $2,001,131,000 $2,426,613,000 $2,611,417,000 Surface Acres Managed 253300000 249700000 247900000 245000000 247300000 Surface and Subsurface Acres Managed 699700000 699700000 699700000 699700000 699700000 Revenue/Acre (surface and subsurface mgt.) $8.46 $5.94 $6.28 $6.73 $7.12 Expense/Acre (surface and subsurface mgt.) $3.21 $2.49 $3.42 $3.26 $3.39 Total Net Revenue Per Surface and Subsurface Acre $5.25 $3.45 $2.86 $3.47 $3.73 Total FTEs 10584 11763 11846 10635 10489 Surface and Subsurface Acres/FTE 66109 59483 59066 65792 66707 Total Revenue (surface and subsurface)/FTE $559,317 $353,370 $370,949 $442,783 $475,428 Total Expense (surface and subsurface)/FTE $212,088 $150,883 $202,020 $214,611 $226,461 Total Net Revenue (surface and subsurface)/FTE $347,229 $205,036 $168,928 $228,172 $248,967

Table 19B. BLM NV, DOI ONRR and PILT Revenue Distribution to Nevada State and Local Governments

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

BLM NV Revenue Dist. to NV State/Local Govt. $5,447,044 $2,136,862 $2,560,635 $1,465,948 $1,725,963 DOI ONRR Revenue Dist. to NV State/Local Govt. $17,622,148 $28,744,481 $17,059,292 $9,794,788 $11,785,382 PILT Payment to Nevada $22,610,017 $23,269,350 $22,753,204 $22,942,298 $23,917,845 Total BLM NV/ONRR/PILT Revenue Dist. To NV State/Local Govt. $45,679,209 $54,150,693 $42,373,131 $34,203,034 $37,429,190 Total Acres Managed by BLM in Nevada 47808114 47806738 47805923 47794096 47783458 Total Revenue Dist.to NV State/Local Govt./Acre Managed $0.96 $1.13 $0.87 $0.72 $0.78

Item 11 . Backup

Discussion on Timeline of Tasks to Accomplish by the Task Force Prior to Summer 2014, Including a Discussion of Accomplishments to Date, Consensus Needed, and Tasks Outstanding. Attachments:

1) An excerpt from AB 227 - the highlighted portion is what the bill mandated be included in the study that the Task Force will produce;

2) Summary/draft table of contents, from Intertech Services, Inc., of what will be included in the study being conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force.

– 3 –

-

2. A vacancy on the Task Force must be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. 3. The Task Force shall hold its first meeting on or before July 1, 2013. At the first meeting, the Task Force shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members. 4. While engaged in the business of the Task Force, each member of the Task Force is entitled to receive such per diem allowance and travel expenses as provided by the board of county commissioners that appointed the member. Each board of county commissioners shall pay the per diem allowance and travel expenses required by this subsection to the member that is appointed by that board of county commissioners. 5. The board of county commissioners of each county, in conjunction with the Nevada Association of Counties, shall provide such administrative support to the Task Force as is necessary to carry out the duties of the Task Force. 6. The Task Force shall conduct a study to address the transfer of public lands in Nevada from the Federal Government to the State of Nevada in contemplation of Congress turning over the management and control of those public lands to the State of Nevada on or before June 30, 2015. The study must include, without limitation: (a) An identification of the public lands to be transferred and the interests, rights and uses associated with those lands; (b) The development of a proposed plan for the administration, management and use of the public lands, including, without limitation, the designation of wilderness or other conservation areas or the sale, lease or other disposition of those lands; and (c) An economic analysis concerning the transfer of the public lands, including, without limitation: (1) The identification of the costs directly incident to the transfer of title of those lands; (2) The identification of sources of revenue to pay for the administration and maintenance of those lands by the State of Nevada; (3) A determination of the amount of any revenue that is currently received by the State of Nevada or a political subdivision of this State in connection with those lands, including, without limitation, any payments made in lieu of taxes and mineral leases; and (4) The identification of any potential revenue to be received from those lands by the State of Nevada after the transfer of the lands and recommendations for the distribution of those revenues.

Dagny

Highlight

Dagny

Highlight

Dagny

Highlight

Dagny

Highlight

Dagny

Highlight

i

Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Legislative Committee on

Public Lands I. Summary of Nevada Land Management Task Force Recommendations to

Legislative Committee on Public Lands II. Introduction A. Enabling Legislation, AB 227

B. Task Force Members, Staff and Consultants C. Task Force Meetings

III. Identification of Public Lands to be Transferred to the State of Nevada A. Bureau of Land Management 1. Identification of Lands 2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands B. U.S. Forest Service 1. Identification of Lands 2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands C. Other Federally Administered Land

1. Identification of Lands 2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands IV. Administration, Management and Use of Transferred Lands A. Alternatives for Administration of Transferred Lands 1. Existing State Agency 2. New State Agency B. Alternatives for Management of Transferred Lands 1. State Management 2. Local Government Management 3. Shared State and Local Government Management 4. Non-Governmental Organization Management C. Alternative Uses of Transferred Lands 1. Revenue Generating Activities 2. Non-Revenue Generating Activities V. Economic Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada A. Land Transfer Costs B. Revenue Sources for State Administration and Maintenance of Transferred Lands

C. Existing State and Local Revenue Derived from Federally Administered Lands to be Transferred

D. Estimated Amount and Recommended Distribution of Net Revenues Derived by State of Nevada from Transferred Lands

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations A. Lands to be Transferred

ii

B. Administration and Management of Transferred Lands C. Uses of Transferred Lands D. Disposition of Net Revenues Generated from Transferred Lands F. Action by the Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands VII. Appendices Appendix A – AB 227 Appendix B – Nevada Land Management Task Force Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Appendix C – Summary of Presentations to and Testimony before the Nevada Land Management Task

Appendix D – Summary of Other State Public Land Transfer Initiatives Appendix E – Evaluation of an Expanded State Land Base in Nevada: Identification of

Issues and Comparative Economic Analysis (ISC/RCI Report)

Intertech preliminary-draft-public-land-mgmt-task-force-report-tables-beg.-on-p.40

Documents

Transcript of Intertech preliminary-draft-public-land-mgmt-task-force-report-tables-beg.-on-p.40