89–010 

Calendar No. 542 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–272 

PATENT AND LAND RECONFIGURATION IN CLARK 

COUNTY AND LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA 

AUGUST 5, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BINGAMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 762] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the Act (H.R. 762) to validate final patent number 27– 

2005–0081, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 

the Act do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 762 is to affirm and validate a patent issued 

by the Bureau of Land Management for land in Clark and Lincoln 

Counties, Nevada, including the associated land reconfiguration. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–275) authorized the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) to convey approximately 29,055 acres of land outside of Las 

Vegas, Nevada, to Aerojet-General Corporation in exchange for approximately 5,000 acres of land owned by Aerojet in the Florida Everglades. The Act also authorized Aerojet to lease approximately 

13,767 acres of BLM land within the larger tract that was conveyed 

to it, but only if the leased lands would remain largely undeveloped 

to protect desert tortoise habitat. 

In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service asked the BLM to reconfigure the lands to avoid isolating desert tortoise populations, fragmenting its habitat, and ultimately undermining the long-term recovery of the species. In response, BLM reconfigured the parcels to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
2 

provide for habitat connectivity and issued a final patent (Patent 

No. 27–2005–0081) to development company Coyote Springs Investment, a successor-in-interest to Aerojet. 

The Western Lands Project and Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association sued the BLM and Coyote Springs Investment, claiming 

the process used to reconfigure the boundary failed to comply with 

federal law. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in 2007, with 

the stipulation that the final patent be legislatively validated, and 

to stay the lawsuit pending further action by Congress. H.R. 762 

would enable the settlement to be implemented by validating the 

patent issued to Coyote Springs Investment as a result of the land 

reconfiguration to protect desert tortoise habitat. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 762, sponsored by Representatives Heller, Berkley, and 

Titus, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 413–0 on 

July 15, 2009. 

The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a hearing 

on H.R. 762 on December 17, 2009 (S. Hrg. 111–364). The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources considered the bill at its 

business meeting on June 16, 2010, and ordered H.R. 762 favorably 

reported without amendment at its business meeting on June 21, 

2010. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on June 21, 2010, by a voice vote of a quorum present, 

recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 762. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 affirms and validates Patent No. 27–2005–0081, issued 

by the Bureau of Land Management on December 18, 2005, as having been issued in compliance with applicable Federal laws, and 

ratifies the associated land reconfiguration. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 762—An act to validate final patent number 27–2005–0081, 

and for other purposes 

H.R. 762 would validate a patent issued by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in 2005. The patent would convey title to 

about 7,000 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, to the Coyote 

Springs Investment LLC (CSI). Based on information provided by 

BLM, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would 

have no effect on the federal budget because the affected land was 

already conveyed to the CSI in a previously authorized land exchange. Because the act would not affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The legislation 

would confirm that conveyance, which had been disputed in a lawsuit with environmental organizations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
3 

H.R. 762 contains no intergovernmetal or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

On June 18, 2009, CBO, transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

762, a bill to validate final patent number 27–2005–0081, and for 

other purposes, as ordered by reported by the House Committee on 

Natural Resources on June 10, 2009. The two versions of the legislation are similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Sam Papenfuss, Unit Chief for Income Security and Education Cost Estimates Unit, Budget Analysis Division. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

H.R. 762. 

The Act is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing 

Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of H.R. 762, as ordered reported. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

H.R. 762, as ordered reported, does not contain any congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 

benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Bureau of Land Management at 

the December 17, 2009 Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 762 follows: 

STATEMENT OF EDWIN ROBERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 762, a 

bill which affirms a land patent and an associated land reconfiguration completed in 2005. These land transactions 

protect habitat for desert tortoise and other Mojave Desert 

wildlife species while providing for economic development 

in rural south-central Nevada. The BLM supports this bill, 

which passed the House of Representatives without 

amendment on July 15, 2009. 

BACKGROUND

The Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 

1988 (NFLEA, P.L. 100–275) authorized the exchange of 

approximately 29,055 acres (‘‘fee’’ lands) of BLM-administered lands in Coyote Springs Valley, Clark and Lincoln 

Counties, Nevada, for approximately 5,000 acres of private 

land in the Florida Everglades owned by Aerojet-General 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
4 

Corporation (Aerojet). The purpose of the land exchange 

was to protect habitat in Florida needed for the recovery 

of wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). The NFLEA also entitled Aerojet to lease an additional 13,767 acres (‘‘leased’’ lands) of BLM-administered 

land in Coyote Spring Valley for 99 years, with an automatic 99-year lease renewal term unless terminated by the 

lessee. 

Aerojet initially intended to use the fee lands for the 

construction of rocket manufacturing facilities. The Federal leased lands were to remain substantially undeveloped and serve as a conservation area and buffer for the 

rocket facilities. Aerojet never built the manufacturing facilities and the fee lands changed ownership in 1996 and 

1998. In accordance with the NFLEA, the Secretary of the 

Interior approved the assignment of the leased lands from 

Aerojet to Harrich Investments LLC, and then from 

Harrich Investments to Coyote Springs Investment LLC 

(CSI), respectively. 

CSI proposed to develop a planned community on the 

original Aerojet fee lands. Because the proposed development would affect critical habitat for the desert tortoise, 

an ESA listed species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) asked the BLM in 2001 to consider reconfiguring 

the boundary of the leased lands to benefit desert tortoise 

habitat. Reconfiguration of the leased lands was undertaken pursuant to the NFLEA. 

Under the original configuration, the leased land was an 

island surrounded by the fee lands acquired by Aerojet. 

This configuration was designed to meet the needs of the 

planned Aerojet manufacturing facilities, but it provided 

limited habitat conservation benefits. Reconfiguring the 

lands would enhance conservation by consolidating the fee 

lands in a single parcel adjacent to U.S. Highway 93, and 

by placing the leased lands contiguous to protected habitat 

on BLM-managed public lands. This configuration would 

increase habitat connectivity and provide more effective 

conservation for desert tortoise and other Mojave Desert 

species. 

In 2005 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued 

a corrective patent to CSI for the reconfigured lands in 

Clark County. The Western Lands Project and the Nevada 

Outdoor Recreation Association (plaintiffs), who claimed 

that the BLM should have prepared an analysis of the corrective patent under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management 

(FLPMA), subsequently brought suit in the U.S. District 

Court in Nevada. The action has been stayed and has not 

yet been briefed on the merits. 

Continuing with its project proposal, CSI then prepared 

a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to 

protect tortoise habitat and, consistent with the ESA, applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) for an ‘‘incidental take’’ permit necessary for project approval. The 

FWS, with the BLM as a cooperating agency, assessed the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
5 

CSI proposal in an Environmental Impact Statement completed in July 2008. In October 2008, the FWS issued a 

Record of Decision authorizing an incidental take permit to 

CSI with numerous conservation stipulations to protect 

desert tortoise habitat. A key conservation stipulation is 

the land reconfiguration authorized by the BLM’s corrective patent. 

In November 2008, the plaintiffs stipulated with the 

BLM to a stay of the lawsuit for one year pending action 

by Congress on legislation affirming the corrective patent. 

H.R. 762

H.R. 762 affirms and validates the corrective patent 

issued by the BLM in 2005 and its associated land reconfiguration. The bill enables implementation of the land reconfiguration stipulated in the Coyote Spring MSHCP, 

which will protect critical habitat while allowing economic 

development in south-central Nevada. The BLM supports 

the bill, which passed by the House of Representatives 

without amendment on July 15, 2009. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the Act H.R. 762, as ordered reported. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC